HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/06/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 27, 2011
(Councilmember Finkelstein Out)
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. Closed Executive Session - Westwood Room
2a. Discuss with the City Attorney Pending Litigation with Alberto Properties LLC
3. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
3a. Settlement Agreement with Alberto Properties LLC vs. St. Louis Park
Recommended Action: Motion to consider settlement agreement Alberto Properties
vs. St. Louis Park.
4. Adjournment
Immediately following the Special City Council Meeting
Tentatively 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 7:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 11, 2011
2. 7:05 p.m. Residential Survey Update
3. 8:05 p.m. Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
4. 8:25 p.m. Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
5. 8:45 p.m. Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
6. 9:30 p.m. Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown
7. 10:00 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
10:05 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
8. Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Interim Report
9. May 2011 Monthly Financial Report
10. Mayor, City Council, and Economic Development Authority Compensation
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
(952)924-2525 (TDD 952-924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: July 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING – CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Closed Door/Executive Session to Discuss with the City Attorney Pending Litigation with
Alberto Properties LLC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
City Attorney Tom Scott will update City Council and the City Manager in a Closed Executive
Session on the pending litigation with Alberto Properties LLC.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: July 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Settlement Agreement with Alberto Properties LLC vs. St. Louis Park.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to consider settlement agreement with Alberto Properties LLC vs. St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
City Attorney Tom Scott met with City Council and the City Manager in a Closed Executive
Session July 27, 2011 to discuss pending litigation with Alberto Properties LLC.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 11, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the regularly scheduled Study Session on July 11,
2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on July 11, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning July 11, 2011
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 11, 2011
Tentative Study Session Agenda – Immediately following Special City Council Meeting
(Approximately 7:00 p.m.)
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Creek Remeander Project
Community Development / Parks & Recreation (30 minutes)
Discussion to explain the characteristics of the remeander project that is expected to start
in late 2011/early 2012 and the next steps to be considered as the project moves
forward.
3. Deer Policy Update – Parks & Recreation (30 minutes)
Review the current policy and discuss possible changes.
4. Parks & Recreation Commission w/ Commissioners – Parks & Recreation (20 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, the Parks & Recreation Commissioners will be present to
discuss their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council.
5. Water/Sanitary Sewer Policies and Backwater Valve Program – Public Works (30 minutes)
Discussion to review the Water and Sanitary Sewer Service Line Policies and a Backwater
Valve Program.
6. Change in Drug Task Force Affiliation – Police (15 minutes)
As we explore a change from the Northwest Drug Task Force (NWDTF) to the Southwest
Metro Drug Task Force (SWMDTF) this discussion will provide information as to why a
change might be beneficial to our community and the benefits of the multiple alignments we
already have with the cities who would be our new partners.
7. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
Park Nicollet Redevelopment Contract Amendment
End of Meeting: Approximately 9:15 p.m.
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Residential Survey Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action requested. Bill Morris and Peter Leatherman, consultants from Decision
Resources, will be in attendance to present to the City Council the results of the recent residential
survey.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council have questions regarding the survey results?
BACKGROUND:
Decision Resources, Inc. conducted a city-wide residential survey this past spring. The purpose of
the residential survey was to measure and gather information from the community, track trends
over time and find out how we are doing relative to Vision St. Louis Park. The City has a practice
of doing these surveys every two or three years. The last survey was done in 2008.
Department Heads, various staff members, along with the consultants, were involved with
developing the survey. The City Council also reviewed the survey questions and their comments
were considered in the survey as well.
Bill Morris and Peter Leatherman, consultants from Decision Resources will be at the June 27,
2011 meeting to present the survey findings and the executive summary.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The residential survey questions were aligned with Vision St. Louis Park and the Council’s
strategic directions.
Attachments: 2011 Residential Survey Executive Summary
2011 Residential Survey and Responses
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Residential Survey Update
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
2011 City of Saint Louis Park Residential Study
Residential Demographics:
Saint Louis Park is a mature and highly stable community. Transience has diminished
significantly: only four percent of the city’s population anticipate moving during the next five
years. The median longevity of adult residents is 16.2 years. Nineteen percent of the sample
report moving to the city during the past five years, while 40% have been there over two decades.
Three reasons are given by 60% of the sample for moving to Saint Louis Park:
affordable housing at 17%,
proximity to work at 23%,
and high quality schools at 20%.
While only four percent of the sample expect to move out of Saint Louis Park during the next five
years; in contrast, 82% intend to remain in the community for at least ten years. Most potential
move-outs cite higher end housing as the reason for leaving.
The average age of respondents is 50.6 years old. While 22% of the sample fall into the 18-34
year age range, 18% are at least 65 years old. Twenty-three percent of the households contain
seniors; in fact, 15% are composed only of senior citizens. Twenty-five percent of the city’s
households have school-aged children, and nine percent contain pre-schoolers. Among households
with school-aged children, 88% send their children to Saint Louis Park Public Schools, six percent
use open enrollment, four percent enroll them in parochial or private schools, and one percent,
charter schools.
Sixty-five percent own their present residence. Sixty-two percent of the respondents live in single
family homes, 22% reside in apartments, 13%, in townhouses or condominiums, and three percent
in duplexes.
Whites compose 77% of the sample. Ten percent are African-American, while four percent each
are Hispanic-Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, or bi-racial. Women outnumber men by four percent.
The median household income is $50,750.00 annually, a decline of $7,750.00 in the two and one-
half years since the last study. Ten percent report incomes under $25,000.00, while 10% post
annual incomes over $100,000.00.
Thirteen percent of the households have only land-lines, while 22% have only cellular-phones.
Finally, 66% report the presence of both in their households.
Residents are classified according to the ward in which they live. Twenty-six percent reside in
Ward One. Twenty-seven percent live in Ward Two, and 25% reside in Ward Three. Twenty-two
percent live in Ward Four.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Residential Survey Update
General Perspectives:
A very solid 97% rate the quality of life as either excellent or good; an even more impressive 77%
rate it as excellent. The excellent rating is the second highest in the Metropolitan Area. Only two
suggestions for improvements are suggested by over five percent of the residents: better road
repair by 10%, and a solution to the train issue, by seven percent.
Convenient location within the Metropolitan Area and a sense of community are the most liked
feature of the city, at 16% each. Close to shopping and parks and trails follow closely, cited by
13% each. Closeness to work, quiet and peaceful, safe, nice neighborhoods, and closeness to
friends and family are posted by between five and eight percent.
In thinking about serious issues facing the city, 18% point to the train issue. High taxes and rising
crime are next, at eight percent. Lack of school funding and traffic congestion hit five percent.
Twelve percent, over twice the suburban norm, are boosters and do not see any serious issue facing
the community.
Public Safety Issues:
Ninety-five percent report they have an overall feeling of safety in Saint Louis Park. The five
percent who do not share this feeling are primarily concerned about rising crime. Eighty percent
feel safe walking in my neighborhood alone at night, a 15% increase since the 2008 study. Fifty-
one percent are part of our area’s Neighborhood Watch, one of the highest in the Metropolitan
Area. Seventy-one percent participated in National Night Out activities in the community, again
one of the highest in the Metropolitan Area. Ninety-four percent think they can rely on my
neighbors for help in a safety-threatening situation, up seven percent in three years. Seventy-six
percent participated in block parties in my neighborhood, a 14% increase in three years and the
highest level of participation in the suburbs.
Fourteen percent report contacting the Fire Department during the past two years, double the 2008
level. Seventy-seven percent rate the quality of service provided by the Fire Department as
excellent, the highest level in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. Twenty-seven percent contacted the
Police Department during the past two years, an increase of nine percent from the 2008 level. A
solid 97% rate the quality of service favorably; in fact, 46% rate the quality as excellent, placing
the Police Department in the top decile of Metropolitan Area communities. Twenty-five percent
report contact with the Inspection Department during the past two years; a solid 83% rated the
quality of service as either excellent or good, while 16% rate it lower. Strictness of the codes is the
major complaint among this smaller group.
Transportation Issues:
Forty percent report they leave the City of Saint Louis Park on a daily or almost daily basis to go
to work, school, or some other place. Forty-six percent do not leave the City, and 14% report they
are unemployed or retired. Among residents leaving the City on a daily basis, 89% rate their ease
of getting to and from their destination as either excellent or good; twelve percent, though, are
more negative in their judgment. Forty-two percent go to Minneapolis, fourteen percent drive to
Hopkins or Minnetonka, 13% go to Bloomington or Edina, and nine percent commute to Golden
Valley or New Hope.
A very high 93% rate the ease of getting from place to place within the City of Saint Louis Park as
either excellent or good; only seven percent see it as only fair. Critics cite too much traffic, at
42%, and not enough public transportation, at 24%.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Residential Survey Update
City Taxes and Services:
When evaluating specific city services, the mean approval rating is 91.3%, well within the top
quartile of suburban ratings. Among those having opinions, over 90% rate police protection, fire
protection, recycling, brush pick-up, garbage pick-up, storm drainage and flood control, park
maintenance, City-sponsored recreation programs, animal control, and maintenance of trails and
sidewalks. Between 80% and 89% similarly rate snow plowing, street lighting, and snow plowing
of trails and sidewalks. Sixty-eight percent rate city street repair and maintenance as either
excellent or good, but 32% rate this service lower; this lower positive rating is still over 35%
higher than the suburban norm and is among the highest in the Metropolitan Area.
A very solid 89% rate Saint Louis Park city services in comparison with neighboring communities
as either excellent or good. Only three percent are more critical. The 89%-3% ratio is the highest
in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. Seventy-six percent also rate the general value of city services
the quality of city services in terms of the property taxes they pay as either excellent or good, while
eight percent judge it to be only fair or poor. The over nine-to-one ratio of positive-to-negative
ratings is one of the highest in the Metropolitan Area.
A very significant 84% think the City of Saint Louis Park’s emphasis on environmental concerns is
about right. More comprehensive recycling is the only suggestion for changing current practices.
By a solid 83%-5% margin, residents think the City should continue to promote energy efficiency
improvements in residential homes. Similarly, by an 85%-3% margin, residents think the City
should continue to promote the construction of energy-efficient public buildings and infrastructure,
such as street lights. Even if the continuation of undertaking these measures would cost taxpayers
more up front, a 57% majority would still support the programs.
Fifty-four percent are aware of Saint Louis Park Children First initiative. Among residents
reporting awareness, 49% are also aware of the set of forty developmental assets focused on by
this initiative for assuring the success of city children. And, among residents who are aware of the
forty assets, 47% are involved in activities to help the asset-building process.
Eighty-two percent are aware of STEP, Saint Louis Park Emergency Program, the City’s non-
profit food shelf.
City Hall:
A very high 78% feel they can have an impact of the way things are run in Saint Louis Park, and
only nine percent feel they cannot. The nine percent who feel unempowered is 20% lower than the
suburban average. A large majority of Saint Louis Park residents, then, feel connected to their
local decision-makers.
Forty-eight percent report having a great deal or fair amount of knowledge about the work of the
Mayor and City Council. A very high 75% either strongly approve or approve of their job, while
only eight percent register disapproval. This level of approval is also among the top decile of
Metropolitan Area suburbs. A relatively high 14% report they contacted the Mayor or City
Council during the past year.
During the past year, 30% either contacted City Hall by telephone or in-person. Forty-nine percent
report their last contact was a personal visit, while 40% telephoned City Staff. Eleven percent
made the contact through e-mail, and one percent did so by social media. Five Departments
received over 70% of the contacts: Inspections, Public Works Department, General Information,
Police Department, and Street Maintenance.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Residential Survey Update
In rating the last contact with respect to aspects of customer service, 92% rate the ease of reaching
a City Staff member who could help either excellent or good, while 94% similarly rate the courtesy
of the City Staff highly. Ninety-one percent rate the promptness of response as either excellent or
good, and 94% also highly rate treatment with respect and dignity.
Community and Neighborhood:
When looking at their community, a large majority of residents think there are about the right
number of apartment units, higher cost housing, affordable housing, starter homes for young
families, large family size homes, and condominiums and townhouses. But, 28% think there are
too many apartment units and 21% rate the number of condominiums and townhouses the same
way. Majorities of residents having opinions also feel there are about the right number of assisted
living for seniors, nursing homes, and one-level housing for seniors maintained by an association;
however, in each case, between 27% and 34% are unsure.
Seventy percent rate the general redevelopment in the City of Saint Louis Park positively; only
15% give it a negative rating. And, by a solid 68%-14% margin, residents support the continued
redevelopment of the community. They would like efforts focused on attracting more businesses
and improving aesthetics. Specific preferred retail stores for attraction to the community include
Wal-Mart and Herbergers; specific preferred service business to attract include restaurants and,
specifically, ethnic restaurants.
Only 13% are unable to indicate the neighborhood in which they reside. Thirty-three percent think
the appearance of their neighborhood improved during the past few years, while six percent feel it
has declined. Sixty-one percent, though, think the appearance has remained about the same during
the past few years. Over ninety percent of respondents having opinions feel: homes in my
neighborhood are well-maintained, people know and care about their neighbors and participate in
solving problems with their business and residential neighbors, would feel comfortable in
discussing neighborhood problems with my neighbors, this neighborhood is a good place to raise
children, people have pride and ownership in our neighborhood, and I feel a part of my
neighborhood.
Ninety-seven percent rate the overall aesthetics of residential neighborhood in Saint Louis Park as
either excellent or good; only three percent are more critical. Ratings are similar, 93%, on the
overall esthetics of commercial and retail areas in Saint Louis Park; only eight percent disagree.
Only Texa-Tonka is viewed by more than five percent as a specific area where aesthetics should be
improved.
Seventy-nine percent report there are no problem properties in their neighborhood. Six percent
think there are problem properties because of poor lawn care. Fifty-six percent are aware they can
report a problem with a property by using the Inspections Department’s Report a Problem (RAP)
line or report a problem using e-mail.
Sixty-four percent rate the general condition and appearance of homes in the community highly;
however, 36% are more critical. Over the past two years, 74% think the appearance of their
neighborhood has remained about the same. Ten percent feel it improved, and 17% see a decline.
Community Diversity:
Seventy-five percent think the growing population diversity is a good thing, while 16% see it as
either a bad thing or both good and bad. Reasons for seeing growing diversity as a good thing
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Eighty-four percent think the City is either very well or somewhat well prepared to meet the
growing diversity of residents; only two percent disagree. Disagreement is primarily based on the
lack of ethnic businesses, economic segregation, rising crime, and lack of low income housing.
Ninety-eight percent report they, themselves, feel welcomed in the community; only one percent
disagree. Ninety-six percent feel accepted by the community and, again, only one percent disagree.
Parks and Recreation Issues:
By an 89%-7% margin, residents support the City continuing to build trails and sidewalks. But
opinions are more split on the issue of a property tax increase or user fee to fund the City providing
additional recreation or civic amenities to residents: forty-seven percent would support, while 34%
would oppose, and 20% are uncertain.
Seventy-one percent say they are at least somewhat interested in a new indoor swimming pool.
Similarly, 69% view a new indoor walking and running track the same way, and 68% think the
same about a new fitness area with exercise equipment. Fifty-seven percent are at least somewhat
interested in areas for classes, such as exercise and yoga, while 53% are interested in areas for
residents to socialize, 52%, in an indoor playground area, and 50% think the same about
gymnasium space. Forty-five percent are either very interested or somewhat interested in meeting
rooms, and 36% are at least somewhat interested in an artificial turf athletic field.
Eighty-two percent think the City of Saint Louis Park has enough places for residents in civic
groups, neighborhood associations, school organizations or businesses to meet; five percent
disagree and would like to see either another community center and a banquet facility in the
community.
Communications:
The local newspaper, at 42%, dominates the principal sources of information about City
government and activities. Twenty percent rely upon the City’s website, while 19% use the City
Newsletter. Five percent each opt for the grapevine or cable television.
Thirty percent each would prefer e-mail or local television news as the means of receiving
emergency information and notifications, such as snow emergencies. Fifteen percent would prefer
automated telephone calls, while seven percent each would like to be notified by radio and text
messages.
Twenty-three percent either frequently or occasionally watch City-produced programming, double
the suburban norm.
Seventeen percent of households in the community do not have access to the Internet. Forty-eight
percent connect to Broadband Cable, 18% use DSL, and 16% have a wireless hook-up. An
unusually high 74% of those on the Internet accessed the City’s website. Among those accessing
the website, a solid 94% evaluate the content as either excellent or good, and 81% evaluate the
ease of navigation the same way.
Saint Louis Park Public Schools:
Seventy-nine percent rate the quality of education provided by the Saint Louis Public Schools as
either excellent or good; seventeen percent rate it as excellent. Six percent rate the quality lower,
and 16% are unsure.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Sixty-three percent think the School District did a good job of holding down costs while protecting
the quality of education; only eight percent disagree, and 29% are unsure.
Twenty-nine percent report household members took classes or participated in an activity at a
school or the Lenox or Central Community Centers during the past year. Fourteen percent took
two or more classes during the past year, while 12% took one class.
Twenty-seven percent view the District Newsletter as their primary source of information.
Eighteen percent use the local newspaper, fifteen percent, the grapevine, and twelve percent, the
School District website. But, 12% report they have no primary source of information at all.
Concluding Thoughts:
In this survey, Saint Louis Park residents express an optimism and satisfaction virtually unique
among Metropolitan Area suburbs, in particular within the inner suburban ring. Stability is
increasing, with 82% having no plans to move from the community during the next ten years. A
continuing success of the community lies in the way it has embraced diversity. Another success is
the sense of community and connectedness fostered over the years.
1. High taxes, redevelopment, and crime are no longer key serious issues for many residents.
This should be no surprise given the widespread participation in Neighborhood Watch and
National Night Out, the favorable receptions of the West End and Excelsior and Grand, and
the high value placed on city services.
2. The Saint Louis Park City enterprise remains very well regarded by residents. Contact
levels with the City Council and City Staff are higher than suburban norms. The job
evaluations of both groups are strongly positive and impressive in comparison with other
Metropolitan Area suburban communities. Dissatisfaction with policy-makers and policy-
implementers is very low. And, interactions with City Hall prove to be uniformly very
positive. Similarly, an unusually high percentage of residents feel they could have a say
about the way things are run in the community.
3. Saint Louis Park registers among the highest excellent ratings across the Metropolitan
Area. The 77% excellent rating of the quality of life is the second highest across the
suburbs. Underpinning the quality of life rating is the connectedness among neighbors:
residents feel at ease with them, and more important, feel they can rely upon them if the
need arose. In addition, participation in neighborhood activities is among the highest in the
Metropolitan Area. The strength and cohesiveness of neighborhoods now even exceeds the
traditional leader, the City of Minneapolis.
4. Residents rate city services uniformly high. Among residents with opinions, the mean
rating of city services is 91.3%. The lowest positive rating is on city street repair and
maintenance, at 68%; even so, this positive rating is about 30% higher than the suburban
norm. Removing this service, which tends to be lowest rated in most communities, the
mean positive rating is 93.1%, among the highest across the Metropolitan Area. In addition,
a very high 89% rate Saint Louis Park city services in comparison with neighboring
communities as either excellent or good, while a similarly very high 76% rate the value of
city services the same way. Residents also rate the City very favorably on its environmental
emphasis, endorses its promotion of residential energy efficiency improvements as well as
its promoting the construction of energy-efficient public buildings and infrastructure. Even
more uncommon among suburban communities, 57% would still support these programs
even if they cost taxpayers more up-front.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Residential Survey Update
5. Residents are very supportive of redevelopment efforts. They substantially approve of
current redevelopment efforts and support their continuation. In particular, residents
endorse the improvement of city aesthetics and the attraction of businesses to the
community. The only change in redevelopment strategy that many residents would urge is
a prioritization of senior housing, especially senior assisted living facilities and one-level
housing for seniors maintained by an association.
6. The communications linkage between the City and its residents is solid. A notable change
is the decline in the City Newsletter as a principal source of information replaced by an
increase in reliance on the City website. A comparatively high 57% of the community’s
households accessed the City’s website, while an impressive 23% watch City-produced
programming at least occasionally.
Once again, the city enterprise is viewed as exceptionally strong. City services are well-regarded.
City government and staff are rated very positively. Residents rate their quality of life impressively
high and place a value on maintaining the diversity, sense of community, and strong
neighborhoods that are a hallmark of Saint Louis Park. The City continues to have a great reservoir
of goodwill across the community, and has clearly enhanced this during the past three years. The
community is one of the most positive and satisfied in the Metropolitan Area.
Methodology:
Decision Resources, Ltd. contacted 400 randomly selected households in the City of Saint Louis
Park. Residents were interviewed by telephone between April 17th and May 19th, 2011. The
average interview took 31 minutes. The results of this sample may be projected to the universe of
all adult residents of the City of Saint Louis Park within 5.0% in 95 out of 100 cases.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Residential Survey Update
CITY OF SAINT LOUIS PARK 2008 Results in red
3128 Dean Court Residential Study
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL April 2011
Hello, I'm __________ of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide polling
firm located in the Twin Cities. We've been retained to speak with a
random sample of Saint Louis Park residents about issues facing the
community. This survey is being taken because the City Council and City
Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions about life in the
community. All individual responses will be held strictly confidential;
only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1. Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS....6% 6
you lived in Saint Louis Park? TWO TO FIVE YEARS.....13% 14
SIX TO TEN YEARS......19% 16
11 TO 20 YEARS........23% 23
OVER TWENTY YEARS.....40% 41
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 0
2. Thinking back to when you moved to Saint Louis Park, what
factors were most important to you in selecting the city?
ALWAYS LIVED IN CITY, 5%; CONVENIENT LOCATION, 5%; AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, 17%; CLOSE TO WORK, 23%; CLOSE TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS,
13%; GOOD SCHOOLS, 20%; CLOSE TO SHOPPING, 3%; SAFE, 3%; SMALL
TOWN FEEL, 2%; NICE NEIGHBORHOOD, 5%; JEWISH COMMUNITY, 3%;
SCATTERED, 2%.
3. As things now stand, how long LESS THAN ONE YEAR.....0% 1
in the future do you expect to ONE TO TWO YEARS.......1% 1
live in Saint Louis Park? TWO TO FIVE YEARS......3% 2
SIX TO TEN YEARS......16% 12
OVER TEN YEARS........68% 71
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....14% 13
IF LESS THAN FIVE YEARS, ASK: (n=13)
4. Why do you plan to move sometime in the next five years?
DOWNSIZE HOME, 8%; LARGER HOME, 23%; COST OF LIVING, 8%;
RETIRING/LEAVE STATE, 15%; NICER NEIGHBORHOOD, 15%; BUY A
HOME, 8%; TRAIN ISSUE, 15%; SCATTERED, 8%.
5. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT.............77% 79
life in this community -- excel- GOOD..................20% 18
lent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR..............2% 1
POOR...................1% 1
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 1
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Subject: Residential Survey Update
IF "GOOD," "ONLY FAIR," OR "POOR," ASK: (n=89)
6. If you could advise the City Council, what actions
would you recommend to significantly improve the quali-
ty of life in Saint Louis Park?
UNSURE, 42%; NO TAX INCREASE, 2%; MORE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS,
3%; IMPROVE QUALITY OF EDUCATION, 5%; MORE PARKS AND
TRAILS, 5%; BETTER HOME MAINTENANCE, 4%; BETTER ROAD
REPAIR, 10%; BETTER SENIOR CENTER, 2%; IMPROVE PUBLIC
TRANSIT, 2%; MORE REDEVELOPMENT, 3%; SOLVE TRAIN ISSUE, 7%;
IMPROVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION, 2%; LOWER CRIME RATE, 5%; NO
MORE LOW INCOME HOUSING, 3%; SCATTERED, 4%.
7. What do you like MOST about living in Saint Louis Park?
UNSURE, 2%; CONVENIENT LOCATION, 16%; CLOSE TO WORK, 8%; CLOSE
TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS, 5%; GOOD SCHOOLS, 4%; CLOSE TO SHOPPING,
13%; SAFE, 5%; SMALL TOWN FEEL, 3%; NICE NEIGHBORHOODS, 5%;
PARKS AND TRAILS, 13%; SENSE OF COMMUNITY, 16%; QUIET AND
PEACEFUL, 6%; CITY SERVICES, 2%; SCATTERED, 3%.
8. In general, what do you think is the most serious issue
facing the community today?
UNSURE, 18%; NOTHING, 12%; HIGH TAXES, 8%; LACK OF SCHOOL
FUNDING, 5%; MORE CITY SPENDING, 2%; RISING CRIME, 8%;
DECLINING QUALITY OF EDUCATION, 3%; TRAIN ISSUE, 18%; LACK OF
PUBLIC TRANSIT, 4%; POOR ROADS, 3%; TRAFFIC CONGESTION, 5%;
VACANT RETAIL, 2%; LACK OF JOBS, 4%; GROWTH, 2%; RUNDOWN HOMES,
2%; SCATTERED, 5%.
As I read the following statements about public safety in Saint Louis
Park, please answer "yes" or "no." (READ LIST)
YES NO DKR
9. I have an overall feeling of safety
in Saint Louis Park. 95% 5% 0%
IF "NO," ASK: (n=19)
10. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
RISING CRIME, 37%; VICTIM OF CRIME, 16%; UNSAFE FOR
BICYCLISTS, 5%; GANG ACTIVITY, 11%; FREQUENT POLICE CALLS
IN NEIGHBORHOOD, 5%; LACK OF POLICE PRESENCE, 11%; TOO
MUCH LOW INCOME HOUSING, 11%; SCATTERED, 5%.
96 4 0
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 11
Subject: Residential Survey Update
YES NO DKR
11. I feel safe walking in my neighborhood
alone at night. 80% 65 21% 34 0% 1
12. My household is a part of our area's
Neighborhood Watch. 51% 53 49% 42 1% 5
13. I have participated in National Night
Out activities in the community. 71% 66 29% 34 0% 1
14. I can rely on my neighbors for help in a
safety-threatening situation. 94% 87 4% 9 3% 4
15. I have participated in block parties in
my neighborhood. 76% 62 24% 38 0% 0
16. Have you or anyone in your house- YES.................14% 7
hold had contact with the Fire De- NO..................86% 93
partment during the past two DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...0%
years?
IF "YES," ASK: (n=57)
17. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT...........77% 50
ity of service provided by GOOD................23% 46
the Fire Department -- excel- ONLY FAIR............0% 4
lent, good, only fair, or POOR.................0%
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...0%
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (n=57)
18. Why did you rate the service as (______________)?
PROMPT, 44%; COURTEOUS, 30%; HELPFUL, 25%; NO
PROBLEMS, 2%.
19. Have you or anyone in your house- YES.................27% 18
hold had contact with the Police NO..................74% 82
Department during the past two DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...0%
years?
IF "YES," ASK: (n=106)
20. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT...........46% 41
ity of service provided by GOOD................51% 48
the Police Department -- ex- ONLY FAIR............1% 9
cellent, good, only fair, or POOR.................2% 3
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...0%
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (n=3)
21. Why did you rate the service as (only fair/poor)?
RUDE, 33%; SLOW RESPONSE, 67%.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Subject: Residential Survey Update
22. Have you or anyone in your house- YES...................25%
hold had contact with the Inspec- NO....................74%
tions Department during the past DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1%
two years?
IF "YES," ASK: (n=100)
23. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT..............36%
ity of service provided by GOOD...................47%
the Inspections Department -- ONLY FAIR..............11%
excellent, good, only fair POOR....................5%
or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1%
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (n=16)
24. Why did you rate the service as (only fair/poor)?
UNSURE, 6%; RUDE, 6%; COULD IMPROVE, 13%; HARD TO
REACH, 13%; TOO STRICT, 38%; SLOW TO RESPOND, 6%;
MISSED THINGS DURING INSPECTION, 13%; SCATTERED, 6%.
Moving on....
I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For
each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of
the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE)
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
25. Police protection? 51% 33 45% 59 1% 2 1% 0 3% 6
26. Fire protection? 49% 34 43% 56 0% 1 0% 0 8% 9
27. Recycling? 28% 29 59% 60 5% 3 3% 0 6% 8
28. Brush pick-up? 23% 56% 3% 0% 19%
29. Garbage pick-up? 26% 65% 2% 1% 6%
30. Storm drainage and flood
control? 18% 19 62% 64 6% 8 1% 1 14% 9
31. Park maintenance? 35% 27 59% 68 3% 2 0% 1 3% 3
32. City-sponsored recreation
programs? 31% 22 59% 59 2% 5 0% 0 9% 15
33. Animal control? 16% 16 68% 74 6% 3 1% 1 10% 7
Now, for the next three city services, please consider only
their job on city-maintained streets and roads. That means
excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are taken
care of by other levels of government. Hence, Interstate 394, Highway
100, Highway 169, Highway 7, County Road 25, Minnetonka Boulevard or
Excelsior Boulevard, should not be considered. How would you rate ...
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 13
Subject: Residential Survey Update
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
34. City street repair and
maintenance? 11% 18 57% 62 29% 18 3% 2 0% 0
35. Snow plowing? 20% 27 66% 65 13% 7 2% 0 0% 1
36. Street lighting? 12% 16 68% 64 16% 15 4% 5 0% 1
37. Maintenance of trails and
sidewalks? 16% 72% 6% 0% 7%
38. Snow plowing of trails and
sidewalks? 9% 61% 9% 1% 20%
39. How would you rate Saint Louis EXCELLENT...........21% 13
Park city services in comparison GOOD................68% 71
with neighboring communities -- ONLY FAIR............3% 4
excellent, good,--only fair, or POOR.................0% 0
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...9% 12
40. When you consider the property EXCELLENT...........14% 10
taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD................62% 65
city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR............7% 10
you rate the general value of city POOR.................1% 1
services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..17% 15
fair, or poor?
Changing topics....
41. In general, do you think the City TOO HIGH.............3% 1
of Saint Louis Park's emphasis on ABOUT RIGHT.........84% 91
environmental concerns is too TOO LOW..............5% 4
high, about right, or too low? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...9% 5
IF "TOO HIGH" OR "TOO LOW," ASK: (n=30)
42. Why do you feel that way?
UNSURE, 3%; BETTER RECYCLING, 27%; TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT,
10%; NEED TO DO MORE, 13%; TOO MUCH MONEY FOR HYBRID CARS,
10%; TOO MANY ORDINANCES, 17%; CUT DOWN DISEASED TREES, 7%;
NOT ENOUGH ENFORCEMENT, 7%; SCATTERED, 7%.
43. Do you think the City should con- STRONGLY YES........18%
tinue to promote energy efficiency YES.................65%
improvements in residential homes? NO...................4%
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY NO..........1%
strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..13%
44. Do you think the City should con- STRONGLY YES........19% 20
tinue to promote the construction YES.................66% 63
of energy-efficient public build- NO...................3% 9
ings and infrastructure, such as STRONGLY NO..........0% 0
street lights? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..12%
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 14
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Do you feel strongly that way?
IF "STRONGLY YES" OR "YES" IN EITHER QUESTION 43 OR 44,ASK:(n=341)
45. Would you still support the YES.................68% 74
City of Saint Louis Park con- NO..................20% 15
tinuing to undertake these DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..12% 11
measures even if they cost
taxpayers more up front?
Moving on....
46. Other than voting, do you feel YES.................78% 81
that if you wanted to, you could NO...................9% 8
have a say about the way things DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..13% 12
are run in this community?
IF "NO," ASK: (n=35)
47. Why do you feel you cannot have a say?
DON’T LISTEN/DO WHAT THEY WANT, 87%; DON’T KNOW HOW, 3%;
ONLY ONE PERSON, 3%; POOR COMMUNICATION, 3%; SCATTERED, 3%.
Changing topics....
48. How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL...........4% 3
about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT.........44% 47
City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE.........49% 49
fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...4% 3
49. Have you contacted the Mayor or YES.................14%
City Council during the past year? NO..................86%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...1%
50. From what you know, do you approve APPROVE/STRONGLY.....9% 11
or disapprove of the job perform- APPROVE.............66% 59
ance of the Mayor and City Coun- DISAPPROVE...........7% 6
cil? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do DISAPPROVE/STRONGLY..1% 1
you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..18% 23
IF OPINION STATED, ASK: (n=330)
51. Why do you feel that way?
UNSURE, 2%; GOOD JOB, 28%; COULD IMPROVE, 3%; GOOD
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 3%; POOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 2%;
NICE CITY, 6%; GOOD CITY SERVICES, 4%; NO PROBLEMS, 23%;
TRAIN ISSUE, 2%; GOOD JOB WITH REDEVELOPMENT, 4%; LISTEN,
10%; GOOD COMMUNICATION, 6%; WELL-MAINTAIN CITY, 4%;
SCATTERED, 4%.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 15
Subject: Residential Survey Update
52. During the past year, have you YES.................30% 27
visited or contacted staff at NO..................70% 73
Saint Louis Park City Hall either DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...0%
in-person, on the telephone, by
e-mail or through social media,
such as Facebook or Twitter?
IF "YES," ASK: (n=121)
53. Was your last contact with PERSONAL VISIT......49% 64
the City staff by a personal TELEPHONE CALL......40% 35
visit, a telephone call, by E-MAIL..............11% 1
e-mail, or through social SOCIAL MEDIA.........1%
media? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...0%
54. On your last contact with the City staff, which Depart-
ment did you contact?
POLICE, 7%; FIRE, 3%; INSPECTIONS, 30%; GENERAL
INFORMATION, 12%; PUBLIC WORKS, 16%; ANIMAL CONTROL, 2%;
GARBAGE/RECYCLING, 3%; FILE A COMPLAINT, 3%; CITY COUNCIL,
3%; FORESTRY, 4%; STREET MAINTENANCE, 7%; PARKS AND
RECREATION, 5%; SCATTERED, 5%.
Thinking about your last contact with city staff, for each
of the following characteristics, please rate the Saint
Louis Park City staff as excellent, good, only fair, or
poor....
EXC GOO FAI POO DKR
55. Ease of reaching a City Staff
member who could help you? 36% 37 56% 56 5% 6 4% 2 1% 1
56. Courtesy of the City Staff? 41% 36 53% 61 3% 3 3% 1 1% 1
57. Promptness of response? 36% 39 55% 65 3% 3 6% 4 1% 1
58. Treated with respect and
dignity? 41% 53% 2% 2% 3%
Moving on....
59. How would you rate general redev- EXCELLENT...........15% 13
elopment in the City of Saint GOOD................55% 55
Louis Park -- excellent, good, ONLY FAIR...........13% 15
only fair or poor? POOR.................2% 2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..15% 15
IF A RATING IS GIVEN, ASK: (n=339)
60. Why do you feel that way?
UNSURE, 3%; IMPROVE AESTHETICS, 41%; NO PROBLEMS, 2%; GOOD
FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CITY, 6%; LIKE RAIL LINE, 2%; NEED TO
REDEVELOP OTHER AREAS, 2%; TOO MANY CONDOS, 4%; ATTRACT
BUSINESSES TO COMMUNITY, 12%; LIKE EXCELSIOR AND GRAND, 7%;
TOO MUCH TAX MONEY SPENT, 2%; LIKE WEST END, 3%; LIKE
HIGHWAY 7 BRIDGE, 3%; EMPTY RETAIL, 2%; DON’T NEED ANY MORE
RETAIL, 2%; INCREASES TRAFFIC CONGESTION, 3%; GOOD
DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS, 2%; SCATTERED, 5%.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 16
Subject: Residential Survey Update
The City has aggressively pursued redevelopment of its commercial and
retail areas....
61. Do you support or oppose the con- STRONGLY SUPPORT....11% 11
tinued redevelopment in the City SUPPORT.............57% 54
of Saint Louis Park? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE..............12% 15
RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE......2% 3
way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..19% 18
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (n=324)
62. Why do you (support/oppose) the continued redevelopment
in the city?
UNSURE, 1%; ATTRACT BUSINESSES, 31%; PROVIDE JOBS, 9%;
IMPROVE AESTHETICS, 33%; TOO MUCH HOUSING, 2%; TOO MUCH
TAXPAYERS’ MONEY, 5%; DONE ENOUGH, 6%; DON’T WANT RAIL
LINE, 2%; ATTRACT PEOPLE TO COMMUNITY, 3%; IMPROVE THE
ROADS INSTEAD, 2%; SCATTERED, 6%.
63. What type of retail stores, if any, would you like to see
attracted to the City of Saint Louis Park?
UNSURE, 27%; NONE, 43%; WAL-MART, 9%; HERBERGERS, 9%; HOME AND
GARDEN STORE, 2%; BOUTIQUES, 3%; ORGANIC GROCERY, 2%; FAMILY
OWNED SHOPS, 2%; SCATTERED, 3%.
64. What type of service businesses, if any, would you like to
see attracted to the City of Saint Louis Park?
UNSURE, 32%; NONE, 50%: GAS STATION, 2%; RESTAURANTS, 8%;
ETHNIC RESTAURANTS, 3%; SCATTERED, 5%.
I would like to read you a list of some characteristics of a community.
For each one, please tell me if you think Saint Louis Park currently has
too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the right amount.
(ROTATE)
MANY FEW/ ABT DK/
/MCH LITT RGHT REFD
65. apartment units? 28% 33 0% 2 68% 56 3% 10
66. higher cost housing? 6% 18 6% 6 81% 62 8% 15
67. affordable housing? 2% 20% 68% 9%
68. starter homes for young
families? 2% 3 16% 12 76% 74 5% 11
69. large family size homes? 3% 7 20% 13 72% 65 6% 15
70. condominiums and town-
houses? 21% 33 5% 4 71% 56 4% 8
71. assisted living for
seniors? 1% 24% 49% 27%
72. nursing homes? 1% 16% 53% 30%
73. one level housing for
seniors maintained by an
association? 1% 24% 42% 34%
Senior Housing 4 23 50 23
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 17
Subject: Residential Survey Update
As you may know, the populations of most inner ring suburban areas are
becoming more diverse in terms of age, household income, race, and
ethnicity.
74. In general, do you think that GOOD THING..........75% 77
growing population diversity is a BAD THING............7% 7
good thing or a bad thing for the BOTH (VOL)...........9% 7
community? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..10% 9
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (n=362)
75. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
UNSURE, 3%; LEARN ABOUT CULTURES, 42%; LEARN TOLERANCE, 12%;
REAL WORLD IS DIVERSE, 14%; GOOD FOR CITY/BRINGS BALANCE,
11%; PUTS STRESS ON SCHOOLS, 2%; BRINGS CRIME, 9%; DEPENDS
ON THE PERSON, 4%; SCATTERED, 4%.
76. Currently, how well prepared do VERY WELL...........18% 20
you think the community is to meet SOMEWHAT WELL.......66% 62
the growing diversity of residents NOT TOO WELL.........2% 4
-- very well, somewhat well, not NOT AT ALL WELL......0% 1
too well, or not at all well? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..14% 14
IF "NOT TOO WELL" OR "NOT AT ALL WELL," ASK: (n=7)
77. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
UNSURE, 14%; CRIME IS RISING, 14%; NOT ENOUGH ETHNIC
BUSINESSES, 29%; NOT ENOUGH LOW INCOME HOUSING, 14%;
ECONOMIC SEGREGATION, 14%; DISCIPLINE ISSUES IN THE SCHOOLS,
14%.
78. Do you, yourself, feel welcomed YES.................98% 97
in the community? NO...................1% 3
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...1% 0
79. Do you feel accepted by the com- YES.................96% 99
munity? NO...................1% 1
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...4% 1
Now, let's discuss your neighborhood in more detail....
80. First, do you know what neighborhood you live in? (IF
"YES," ASK:) What is its name?
UNSURE/NO, 13%; FERN HILL, 7%; AQUILA, 7%; WESTWOOD HILLS, 7%;
BIRCHWOOD, 7%; ELMWOOD, 2%; BROWNDALE, 4%; BROOKLAWNS, 5%;
LENNOX, 7%; SORENSON, 3%; BRONX PARK, 6%; CREEKSIDE, 2%; OAK
HILL, 3%; BROOKSIDE, 5%: MEADOWBROOK, 2%; MINIKADA VISTA, 3%;
CEDAR MANOR, 3%; ELIOT, 3%; WILLOW PARK, 3%; COBBLECREST, 3%;
SCATTERED, NEIGHBORHOODS, 6%.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 18
Subject: Residential Survey Update
81. Has the appearance of your neigh- IMPROVED..............33%
borhood improved, declined or re- DECLINED...............6%
mained about the same during the ABOUT THE SAME........61%
past few years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1%
As I read the following statements about your neighborhood, please
answer "yes" or "no." (READ LIST)
YES NO DKR
82. Homes in my neighborhood are well-
maintained. 96% 98 4% 2 0% 0
83. People know and care about their neighbors
and participate in solving problems with
their business and residential neighbors. 88% 83 6% 6 6% 12
84. I would feel comfortable in discussing
neighborhood problems with my neighbors. 91% 89 8% 9 1% 2
85. This neighborhood is a good place to raise
children. 95% 94 4% 3 2% 3
86. People have pride and ownership in our
neighborhood. 96% 95 3% 3 2% 3
87. I feel a part of my neighborhood. 92% 92 6% 4 3% 1
88. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT...........15% 15
aesthetics, the pleasing appear- GOOD................82% 79
ance, of residential neighborhoods ONLY FAIR............3% 6
in Saint Louis Park -- excellent, POOR.................0% 0
good, only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...0% 0
89. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT...........11% 8
aesthetics, the pleasing appear- GOOD................82% 83
ance, of commercial and retail ONLY FAIR............8% 8
areas in Saint Louis Park -- ex- POOR.................0% 1
cellent, good, only fair or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...0% 1
90. Are there any specific areas in Saint Louis Park where
aesthetics should be improved? (PROBE FOR SPECIFICS)
UNSURE, 18%; NO, 59%; TEXA TONKA, 7%; MEADOWBROOK, 2%;
LOUISIANA APARTMENTS, 2%; ALL APARTMENTS, 2%; CEDAR LAKE &
LOUISIANA, 3%; SCATTERED, 7%.
91. Are there properties in your neighborhood you would consider
to be a problem? (IF "YES," ASK:) What makes the property
a problem?
UNSURE, 3%; NO, 76%; POOR LAWN CARE, 6%; JUNK CARS, 4%; NOISE,
4%; POLICE CALLS/CRIME, 2%; VACANT, 3%; SCATTERED, 2%.
92. Are you aware you can report a YES...................56%
problem with a property by using NO....................43%
the Inspections Report a Problem DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1%
(RAP) line or the report a problem
e-mail option?
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 19
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Changing topics....
93. Do you leave the City of Saint YES..................40% 59
Louis Park on a daily or almost NO...................46% 41
daily basis to go to work, school, NOT EMPLOYED/RETIRED.14%
or some other place? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....0%
IF "YES," ASK: (n=159)
94. How would you rate the ease EXCELLENT............34% 28
of getting to and from that GOOD.................55% 62
place -- excellent, good, ONLY FAIR............11% 9
only fair or poor? POOR..................1% 1
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....0% 0
95. Where do you usually go? (PROBE FOR SPECIFICS)
EDEN PRAIRIE, 4%; MINNETONKA/HOPKINS, 14%; MINNEAPOLIS,
42%; BLOOMINGTON/EDINA, 13%; SAINT PAUL, 4%; GOLDEN
VALLEY/NEW HOPE, 9%; BURNSVILLE/EAGAN, 3%; VARIES, 4%;
RAMSEY COUNTY SUBURBS, 2%; SCATTERED, 5%.
96. How would you rate the ease of EXCELLENT...........22% 20
getting from place to place within GOOD................71% 76
the City of Saint Louis Park -- ONLY FAIR............7% 3
excellent, good, only fair, or POOR.................0% 1
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...0% 0
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (n=29)
97. Could you tell me why you rated it as (only fair/poor)?
TOO MUCH TRAFFIC, 42%; TOO MUCH ROAD CONSTRUCTION, 3%; NOT
ENOUGH PUBLIC TRANSIT, 24%; RAIL LINE ISSUE WILL SLOWDOWN
TRAFFIC, 7%; ROADS DON’T FLOW WELL, 7%; POTHOLES, 3%;
NARROW STREETS, 3%; TOO MANY STOPLIGHTS, 10%.
Changing topics again....
98. Prior to this survey were you YES..................54% 56
aware of Saint Louis Park NO...................45% 44
"Children First" Initiative? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....1% 0
IF "YES," ASK: (n=216)
99. And, were you aware of the YES..................49% 46
set of forty developmental NO...................50% 54
assets focused on by this DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....1% 0
initiative for assuring the
success of city children?
IF "YES," ASK: (n=106)
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 20
Subject: Residential Survey Update
100. Have you, yourself, been YES..................47% 46
actively involved in any NO...................50% 53
activities to help the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....3% 1
asset-building process?
101. Prior to this survey, were you YES..................82% 81
aware of STEP, Saint Louis Park NO...................17% 19
Emergency Program, the City's DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....1% 0
non-profit food shelf?
Turning to parks and recreation....
The City of Saint Louis Park has built a number of trails and sidewalks
throughout the community during the past ten years.
102. Do you support or oppose the City STRONGLY SUPPORT......19%
continuing to build trails and SUPPORT...............70%
sidewalks? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) OPPOSE.................6%
Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE........1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5%
Some residents have expressed an interest in the City providing
additional recreation or civic amenities for residents to use. For each
of the following amenities, please tell me if you or members of your
household would be very interested in that amenity, somewhat interested,
not too interested or not at all interested in that amenity. (ROTATE)
VRI SMI NTI NAA DKR
103. Gymnasium space? 13% 37% 15% 35% 0%
104. Indoor Playground area? 20% 32% 17% 32% 0%
105. Indoor Swimming pool? 24% 47% 7% 23% 0%
106. Indoor walking and running
track? 31% 38% 9% 23% 0%
107. Fitness area with exercise
equipment? 26% 39% 10% 26% 1%
108. Meeting rooms? 15% 30% 17% 37% 2%
109. Areas for residents to socialize? 12% 41% 15% 30% 2%
110. Areas for classes, such exercise
and yoga? 13% 44% 13% 30% 0%
111. Artificial turf athletic field? 6% 30% 14% 48% 3%
112. Are there any other amenities you would like to see the City
provide? (IF "YES," ASK:) What would those be?
UNSURE, 5%; NO, 89%; SCATTERED (TRAILS/GARDENS/LIGHTED
BALLFIELDS/INDOR WATER PARK/SIDWALKS), 6%.
113. Would you support or oppose a STRONGLY SUPPORT.......5%
property tax increase or user fee SUPPORT...............42%
to fund the City providing addi- OPPOSE................26%
tional recreation or civic amen- STRONGLY OPPOSE........8%
ities to residents? (WAIT FOR RE- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....20%
SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that
way?
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 21
Subject: Residential Survey Update
114. Do you think the City of Saint YES...................82%
Louis Park has enough places for NO.....................5%
residents in civic groups, neigh- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....13%
borhood associations, school or-
ganizations or businesses to meet?
IF "NO," ASK: (n=19)
115. What kind of places would you like to see available in
the City?
UNSURE, 5%; ANOTHER COMMUNITY CENTER, 37%; BANQUET
FACILITY, 47%; FREE, 11%.
Moving on....
116. What is your principal source of information about Saint
Louis Park City government and its activities?
CITY NEWSLETTER, 19%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 42%; WORD OF MOUTH, 5%;
CABLE TELEVISION, 5%; WEBSITE, 20%; MEETINGS, 2%; STAR TRIBUNE,
4%; SCATTERED, 3%.
117. How would you prefer to receive emergency information and
notifications, such as snow emergencies, from the City
of Saint Louis Park?
UNSURE, 2%; CITY NEWSLETTER, 2%; CABLE TELEVISION, 2%; WEBSITE,
5%; E-MAIL, 30%; LOCAL TV NEWS, 30%; AUTOMATED PHONE CALL, 15%;
RADIO, 7%; TEXT MESSAGE, 7%; SCATTERED, 1%.
As you may know, the City currently cablecasts and webcasts City
Council, Planning and Telecommunications Advisory Commission meetings,
city news programming and high school sports and events.
118. How often do you watch City pro- FREQUENTLY.............3%
duced programming -- frequently, OCCASIONALLY..........20%
occasionally, rarely or never? RARELY................33%
NEVER.................44%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0%
119. How do you normally access the NO ACCESS ............17%
Internet -- DSL, broadband cable, DSL...................18%
satellite, wireless, dial-up BROADBAND CABLE.......48%
modem or do you not have access SATELLITE..............1%
to the Internet? WIRELESS..............16%
DIAL-UP MODEM..........1%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1%
IF RESPONDENT HAS ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, ASK: (n=328)
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 22
Subject: Residential Survey Update
120. Have you or any member of YES...................74%
your household accessed the NO....................26%
City of Saint Louis Park's DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0%
website for information about
city services, news and
events?
IF "YES," ASK: (n=244)
121. How would you evaluate EXCELLENT.............15%
the content of the GOOD..................79%
City's website -- excel- ONLY FAIR..............5%
lent, good, only fair, POOR...................0%
or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1%
122. How would you rate the EXCELLENT.............11%
ease of navigating the GOOD..................70%
City's website and find- ONLY FAIR.............16%
ing information you POOR...................3%
sought -- excellent, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1%
good, only fair, or
poor?
I would like to ask you a few questions about the Saint Louis Park
Public Schools.....
123. How would you rate quality of edu- EXCELLENT.............17%
cation provided by the Saint Louis GOOD..................62%
Park Public Schools -- excellent, ONLY FAIR..............5%
good, only fair, or poor? POOR...................1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....16%
124. Do you think the School District YES/STRONGLY...........7%
has done a good job of holding YES...................56%
down costs while protecting the NO.....................7%
quality of education? (WAIT FOR NO/STRONGLY............1%
RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....29%
that way?
125. Have you or a member of your NO....................71%
household taken a class or parti- YES/YES...............14%
cipated in an activity at a school YES/NO................12%
or the Lenox or Central community DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....3%
centers during the past year? (IF
"YES," ASK:) Have you taken two
or more classes or activities?
126. What is your primary source of information, if anything,
about the Saint Louis Park Public Schools?
NONE, 12%; DISTRICT NEWSLETTER, 27%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 18%; WORD
OF MOUTH, 15%; CABLE TELEVISION, 2%; WEBSITE, 12%; MAILINGS,
4%; BUILDING NEWSLETTERS, 2%; STAR TRIBUNE, 2%; COMMUNITY
EDUCATION BROCHURE, 2%; SCATTERED, 4%.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 23
Subject: Residential Survey Update
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age
groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to youngest, and be
sure to include yourself....
127. First, persons 65 or over? NONE..................77% 77
ONE...................15% 13
TWO OR MORE............8% 0
128. Adults under 65? NONE..................15% 17
ONE...................19% 23
TWO...................59% 57
THREE OR MORE..........7% 4
129. School-aged children, 5 to 18 NONE..................75% 76
years old? ONE....................9% 11
TWO OR MORE ..........16% 14
IF SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN ARE PRESENT, ASK: (n=101)
130. Do they attend the Saint SAINT LOUIS PARK SD...88%
Louis Park public schools, OTHER PUBLIC...........6%
public schools in another PAROCHIAL/PRIVATE......4%
district, parochial or pri- CHARTER................1%
vate schools, charter HOME SCHOOL............0%
schools, or home school? COMBINATION (VOL.).....1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0%
131. Pre-schoolers? NONE..................91% 93
ONE....................7% 6
TWO OR MORE............2% 2
132. Do you reside in an apartment, APARTMENT.............22% 21
townhouse or condominium, duplex, TOWNHOUSE/CONDO.......13% 15
or a detached single family home? DUPLEX.................3% 5
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME....62% 59
SOMETHING ELSE.........0% 1
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 0
133. Do you own or rent your present OWN...................65% 66
residence? RENT..................34% 34
REFUSED................1% 0
134. What is your age, please? 18-24..................4% 5
25-34.................18% 15
35-44.................17% 20
45-54.................19% 17
55-64.................24% 23
65 AND OVER...........18% 20
REFUSED................1% 1
135. Is your household telephone LAND-LINE ONLY........13%
service by land-line only, cell- CELL-PHONE ONLY.......22%
phone only, or both land-line and BOTH LAND AND CELL....66%
cell-phone? REFUSED................0%
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 24
Subject: Residential Survey Update
136. Which of the following categories WHITE.................77% 81
represents your ethnicity -- AFRICAN-AMERICAN......10% 9
White, African-American, Hispanic- HISPANIC-LATINO........4% 3
Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, ASIAN-PACIFIC ISLANDER.4% 3
Native American, or something NATIVE AMERICAN........1% 0
else? (IF "SOMETHING ELSE," ASK:) SOMETHING ELSE.........1% 1
What would that be? MIXED/BI-RACIAL........4% 4
DON'T KNOW.............0% -
REFUSED................0% -
137. Is your pre-tax yearly household UNDER $25,000.........10% 7
income over or under $50,000? $25,001-$50,000.......33% 26
IF "OVER," ASK: $50,001-$75,000.......18% 22
Is it over $75,000? (IF "YES," $75,001-$100,000......15% 16
ASK:) Is it over $100,000? OVER $100,000.........10% 9
IF "UNDER," ASK: DON'T KNOW.............0% 1
Is it under $25,000? REFUSED...............15% 20
138. Gender MALE..................48% 48
FEMALE................52% 52
139. REGION OF CITY: WARD 1................26% 27
WARD 2................27% 26
WARD 3................25% 25
WARD 4................22% 23
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the 2011 Work Plan and 2010
Annual Report prepared by the Human Rights Commission (HRC) in preparation for meeting
with the HRC at the study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the HRC in keeping with the City Council’s expectations?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council reviewed the HRC 2011 HRC Work Plan and 2010 HRC Annual Report at the
February 14, 2011 Study Session. It was the consensus of the City Council to meet with the
Human Rights Commission to discuss the annual report and work plan and asked the HRC to
highlight what it feels are the key issues facing the community.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Human Rights Commission 2010 Annual Report
Human Rights Commission 2011 Work Plan
Diversity Lens Brochure
Human Rights Commission Brochure
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission 2010 Annual Report
The Human Rights Commission Mission: The purpose of the Human Rights Commission shall
be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights
and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The
commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles
of equity and respect for all of its citizens.
Community Involvement: In 2010 the Human Rights Commission partnered with Bookmark in
the Park to host an author event. The 2010 Bookmark in the Park theme was Inclusion and one
of the selected books was “The Latehomecomer” by Kao Kalia Yang. Bookmark in the Park
volunteers asked the HRC to partner with them on planning, organizing, and promoting this
event. It was a very successful event and a great opportunity for the HRC. HRC brochures, the
Diversity Lens, and other handouts were available at the event and Stuart Morgan gave a brief
welcome and overview of the Human Rights Commission.
Many Human Rights Commissioners also participated in their own National Night Out events
and distributed brochures and the Diversity Lens magnet at their NNO parties.
Vision: An ongoing project for the HRC has been to examine the Diversity section of Vision St.
Louis Park and develop goals/recommendations for actions. The Diversity Lens Magnet, created
with input from the HRC and city staff, was available in 2009. Continuing from 2009, a
subcommittee worked on creating a brochure to accompany the Diversity Lens. The brochure
explains the purpose for the lens and how it can be used by the community. (See attached
brochure)
HRC Updated Brochure: The subcommittee that worked on developing the Diversity Lens
brochure also updated the Human Rights Commission brochure with help from the IR
department. (See attached brochure)
Human Rights Award: Each year, the St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission coordinates
an award to honor individuals that contribute to increasing understanding and cooperation
between people of different backgrounds. The 2010 Human Rights Award winners were “The
Inside Look” and Sharon and Neil Anderson. “The Inside Look” is made up of 20 St. Louis Park
High School students and was selected for their innovative talk show, created by the students,
that addresses social issues that affect high school students such as racial stereotyping and
interracial dating. Sharon and Neil Anderson were selected for their many years of service and
dedication to the St. Louis Park community and their lifelong commitment to promoting human
rights.
Bias/Hate Crimes: The HRC reviews all Bias/Hate Crimes and responds to the victims with a
letter and HRC brochure when appropriate. The HRC was notified of the following Bias/Hate
Crimes in 2010.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Offense Date Police Case # Summary
4/10/10 10001844 Damage to Property and Harassment – victim believed this
was racially motivated.
4/28/10 10002134 Damage to Property – Graffiti on Picnic Shelter included a
swastika.
6/14/10 10003138 Harassing text message received on mobile phone. Sender’s
phone was disconnected when police tried to make contact.
7/12/10 10003756 Aggravated Harassment – victim received a series of
harassing phone calls at his business.
9/6/10 10004964
Disorderly conduct/bias motivated – verbal argument
between an employee and customer. Victim felt this was a
bias offense.
9/11/10 10005028 Assault – victim believed this was a bias offense. Neither
party wanted charges pressed.
Domestic Partner Registry: The City Council began discussing a voluntary program for
domestic partner registration in November 2010. In Minnesota, the following cities have a
registration program for domestic partners: Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester, Edina,
Maplewood and Golden Valley. The City Council directed staff to forward this issue to the
Human Rights Commission for consideration and make a recommendation to the Council. The
HRC reviewed the voluntary program at the December 21, 2010 HRC meeting. All members
present at the meeting except one strongly supported the ordinance at the local level. One
commissioner stated that this appears to be a state issue, not a local issue, and should be handled
at that level.
A motion was approved to inform the Council that the HRC supports the City Council pursuing a
domestic partner voluntary registration program and the HRC would also like the Council to
consider sending a resolution to the State of Minnesota regarding this issue.
Commissioner Update: In 2010, the HRC had two commissioners step down because of
conflicts that prevented them from regularly attending the meetings. Three additional
commissioner’s terms expired December 31, 2010 and these commissioners did not seek
reappointment.
As required in City Code section 2-212, the HRC shall consist of 11 regular members and two
youth members for a total of 13 commissioners. Staff would like to discuss with Council the
possibility of reducing the number of commissioners on the HRC since it is difficult to maintain
full membership in the commission.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission 2011 Work Plan
Mission: The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its
efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for
participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in
cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens.
Key Community Issue: Bullying - The HRC plans to focus attention on education and
addressing the issue of bullying in our community. The HRC plans to partner with other groups
such as the Police Advisory Commission, Community Education Advisory Commission, the
school district, etc.
HRC Participation in Community Events:
In 2011, the HRC plans to partner with and participate in many existing community
events including:
o Children First Ice Cream Social
o Community Open House
o National Night Out
o Other events as appropriate
Identify human rights and diversity events that are available to the residents of St. Louis
Park in the metro area. Rather than duplicating efforts that already exist, find ways to
notify our residents of these events such as through the use of an HRC webpage.
Diversity Film – part of a multi year film series.
Vision St. Louis Park – The Diversity Lens
Use the Diversity Lens as a tool to make connections with local agencies, organizations,
etc. HRC members present the Diversity Lens which will give these organizations a tool
and reminder to incorporate diversity into their events.
o Create a website for the HRC to promote the use of the Diversity Lens.
o Compile a list of agencies/organizations to approach to share the Diversity Lens.
o Create a list of activities that are going on in SLP that we could participate in or
talk to the planning committee about the Diversity Lens
Connecting with our community and surrounding communities
Continue to build a better connection with the Adult Education and ELL Programs.
Partner with the Police Advisory Commission and Community Education/ELL Programs
to create a Citizen’s Academy for immigrants and new Americans.
Connect with local (metro & state) Human Rights Commissions
Ongoing Commission Work
Respond to bias crimes as they occur in partnership with the Police Department
Select annual Human Rights Award winner(s) for St. Louis Park
Partner with other boards and commissions as appropriate.
The photos in this publication are part of a 2007 community-
building project called Our Town: Faces & Places. Coordinated
by St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts.
Photographers: Sarah Anderson, Adjo Habia, Ruth Rassmussen,
Kitty Rigers, Sherm Stanch, Aryeh Schwartz, Marcie Murray,
Rahal Aynalem, Sandy Beach, Gilda Houck-Markovits
DIV RES TYI
What Does
Look Like in St. Louis Park?
The Human Rights Commission is a 13-member advisory
commission to the St. Louis Park City Council. Twelve
members are appointed by the City Council, including two
youth members with full voting rights, and one member
appointed by the St. Louis Park School Board
Experience LIFE in the Park
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 5
GENDER SEXUAL ORIENTATION SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AGE PHYSICAL ABIL IT IES RELIGIOUS BELIE FS POLITICAL BELIEFS NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS WORKPLACES RACE GENDER
GENDER SEXUAL ORIENTATION SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AGE NEIGHBORHOOD WORKPLACES RACE ETHNICITY PHYSICAL ABILITIES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS POLITICAL BELIEFS GENDERThe concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It
means understanding that each individual is unique, and recogniz-
ing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions
of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic
status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs,
or other ideologies.
It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and
nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and
moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the
rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.
Led by the members of the city’s Human
Rights Commission, the City of St. Louis Park
actively engages varied social, economic, re-
ligious and ethnic heritages through a variety
of activities, initiatives and programs.
The Diversity Lens initiative was created by the Human Rights
Commission to facilitate respect for diversity and the various world
views represented by the citizens of St. Louis Park. Through open
education, information dissemination and community interaction
the initiative encourages each resident, business, city official, staff
member, and visitor to appreciate that each person has developed
a unique lens through which they view the world.
We hope you use the Diversity Lens as a reminder of the differences that make us
unique, to start courageous conversations, and to instill in others the values of diversity.
Valuing individual diversity means reaching
beyond stereotypical views of individuals and
using the strengths and different perspectives
that each person offers. The diversity lens,
therefore, is not just a reflection of you or
me, but the collective us in our community
and all of our values.
A Commitment To Diversity
What is the Diversity Lens?
Our Mission
Diversity & Perspective
RESPECT. REFLECT. INCLUDE. INVITE. VALUE.
For more information visit:
www.stlouispark.org/boards-commissions/human-rights-commission.html
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 6
City of St. Louis ParkHuman Rights Commission5005 Minnetonka Blvd.St. Louis Park, MN 55416St. Louis Park
Human Rights
Commission
Experience LIFE in the Park
The Diversity Lens initiative was created by the
Human Rights Commission to facilitate respect for
diversity and the various world views represented by
the citizens of St. Louis Park.
Through open education, information dissemination, and
community interaction the initiative encourages all resi-
dents, businesses, city officials, staff members, and visitors
to appreciate that each person has developed a unique lens
through which they view the world.
www.stlouispark.org/
boards-commissions/
human-rights-commission.html
WHO WE ARE
The Human Rights Commission is a 13-mem-
ber advisory commission to the St. Louis Park
City Council. Twelve members are appointed
by the City Council, including two youth mem-
bers with full voting rights, and one member
appointed by the St. Louis Park School Board.
OUR MISSION
The Purpose of the Human Rights Commis-
sion shall be to advise the City Council in its
efforts to ensure all residents protection of
their rights and full and equal opportunity for
participation in the affairs of this community.
The Commission assists individuals and groups
in cultivating a community that embraces
principles of equity and respect for all of its
citizens.
JOIN US
The Human Rights Commission meets on the
third Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m. at City
Hall. The Commission welcomes all commu-
nity members at its meetings.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 7
Sex Religion Marital Status
Age Disability Familial Status
Race National Origin Local HRC Activity
Color Public Assistance
Creed Sexual Orientation
PROTECTED CLASSESAREAS OF PROTECTION
Credit Employment
Housing Public Services
Business Public Accommodation
Education
The St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission is dedicated to assisting residents
in their understanding of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
• Refer, assist and report incidents of dis-
crimination or harassment in
St. Louis Park to the state
WHAT WE DO FOR YOU
• Promote acceptance and respect for all
• Share insights and experiences
• Participate in cultural diversity activities
• Report hate crimes and discrimination
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Your Human Rights Commission is here to
support you in the following ways:
• Support St. Louis Park schools’ human
rights/diversity programs for our youth
and our educators
• Affirm, celebrate and educate all residents
on the rich diversity within St. Louis Park
WHERE TO CALL
The photos in this publication are part of a 2007
community-building project called Our Town:
Faces & Places. Coordinated by St. Louis Park
Friends of the Arts.
Photographers: Adjo Habia, Sarah Anderson,
Ruth Rassmussen
Report A Crime
(952) 924-2618
Call the St. Louis Park Police if you are
the victim of or witness to a hate crime.
A bias or hate crime is criminal conduct
committed because of the victim’s actual
or perceived race, color, religion, national
origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or
disability.
Question or Concern
(952)-924-2506
The St. Louis Park Human Rights
Commission may offer community sup-
port at the request of crime victims, as
outlined in the city’s Bias/Hate Crime
Response Plan. Please call the commission
referral line for additional information
regarding Human Rights in St. Louis Park
and other support organizations.
Report Discrimination
(651) 296-5663
Call the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights to report an incident of
discrimination or to request information
about human rights protections in our
state.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 8
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the 2010 Annual Report and 2011
Work Plan prepared by the Police Advisory Commission (PAC) in preparation for the study
session discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the PAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
BACKGROUND:
Per Council policy the 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan was submitted for Council
review at the February 14 study session. At that time the Council asked that representatives of
the PAC attend a future study session to allow for further discussion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Police Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report
Police Advisory Commission 2011 Work Plan
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
Police Advisory Commission
2010 Annual Report
The Police Advisory Commission mission: There are several main purposes of the PAC. They
include the following:
1) Enhance the awareness of the police department’s capabilities and services.
2) Provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services.
3) Promote exchange between the police department and the community.
In partnership with the Human Rights Commissioners, several PAC Commissioners staffed a
booth at the Children First Ice Cream Social. Commissioners designed and made available
informative pamphlets to the public about Traffic Safety (cut-through traffic, speeding…) and
Current Road Construction Projects; also available were child and bike safety guides and
information regarding the police department. Furthermore, this function allowed these
commissioners an opportunity to get to know one other and the activities of each Commission.
In an effort to work more closely with the Human Rights Commission on police related issues,
Commissioners Pat Swiderski, Alexa Cushman, and Rashmi Seneviratine attended the Human
Rights Commission meetings. Commissioner Swiderski participates in Human Rights
Commission activities and is encouraging their Commissioners to participate in Police Advisory
Commission activities. In partnership these two Commissions are making progress in developing
a program similar to the Citizen’s Academy which will be geared towards an immigrant
population group. This will be designed to hopefully bridge an existing gap in our immigrants
understanding of police procedures.
Several Commissioners were involved with the Department’s National Night Out.
Commissioners rode with officers to block parties and also helped organize or host block parties
in their neighborhood.
Commissioner Widmer has been attending the city staff Traffic Advisory Meetings. The Traffic
Advisory group is comprised of members of the Public Works, Community Development, and
Police Departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic related issues within the
community. Commissioner Widmer actively provides citizen input on traffic related issues and
street projects.
To go along with last year’s bike safety awareness videos, PAC members have assisted in
content development and format of the production of several Public Service Announcement
videos were aired on the Inside the Park Community Television and at other times throughout
the day on local cable access channel. These videos are designed to bring heightened awareness
to community members of police related matters. We are pursuing ways to bring this information
to the community via various media avenues.
Commissioner Cushman and Hoffman have worked closely with Cornerstone in creating a
Domestic Violence Education and Information program which will be distributed in multiple
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
public areas within the city. We believe this will enhance the relationship between the city and
Cornerstone and provide information on valuable resources which are available.
The Fourth Annual St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund Golf Tournament was held on
September 10th, 2010. It was another successful year, earning $3,317.31 dollars for the Crime
Prevention Fund. The goal of the tournament is to bring the business community together with
the police department for a day of fun and recreation, and to raise funds for the Crime Prevention
Fund. We would not be able to do this without the support of our local businesses. PAC will
continue with this effort in 2011 and plan to publicize the event in early 2011. Your participation
and promotion is welcomed.
The sixth Citizen’s Academy was offered in early 2010. Thirteen community members
completed the 2010 Academy. Public reaction to this series of classes is always positive and it
allows the public to connect with and learn more about the Police Department. Commissioners
assisted Officer Czapar with welcoming participants at the first class session and were present
for the graduation ceremony.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
Police Advisory Commission
2011 Work Plan
The 2011 Work Plan for the PAC is as follows:
Continue to support and attend the Children First Ice Cream Social, City Open House,
and National Night Out with the goal of providing information to the public about the
police department and the commission
Work with the HRC on producing a program geared to immigrant populations which
would be an abbreviated version of the Citizen’s Academy. The PAC goal would be to
provide information regarding what to expect when stopped by a police officer,
interacting with officers, and access to domestic violence programs.
Produce quarterly public safety information programs for the Inside the Park Community
TV or other media streams
Continue the Annual St. Louis Park Police Department Crime Prevention Crime Fund
Golf Tournament, with the goal of increasing participation
Complete the Domestic Violence Awareness and Assistance project
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report and study session discussion is to:
1. Apprise Council of the results of the recent public process regarding W27th Street
entrance ramp options
2. Obtain Council feedback on choosing a ramp option for Mn/DOT consideration
3. Obtain feedback on the solicitation / composition of a Mn/DOT proposed Noise Advisory
Committee (NAC)
4. Consider next steps in moving this project forward
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Mn/DOT informed the City that the W27th Street entrance ramp to Highway 100 will be revised,
relocated, or closed when this project is built. Mn/DOT has determined that the ramp, as it
currently exists, will become a major safety problem if it is not dealt with as a part of the
reconstruction project. Ramp changes being considered have the potential to alter area access to
and from Highway 100, shift traffic, and possibly necessitate changes to existing streets or
construction of new streets in the immediate area. As a result, at the March 7th Study Session the
City Council requested staff to obtain area property owner input on possible ramp options, traffic
impacts, access needs, and possible street changes near the W. 27th Street ramp.
To aid in the selection of a “ramp option”, Council feedback is desired in the following areas:
1. Does the public process and results obtained provide Council adequate information to
evaluate and select a “ramp option”?
2. Based on resident input received, does Council have a preference for one of the two
possible ramp options identified for consideration? Does Council prefer some other ramp
/ street option?
3. Does Council feel comfortable with the next steps proposed by staff?
BACKGROUND:
History - At the September 8, 2008 Study Session Council was provided information and an
update regarding staff’s evaluation and investigation into improving north-south transportation
options as identified in the Vision St. Louis Park process. A copy of the SEH Technical
Memorandum, St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study – Forecasting Methodology – Draft
dated August 11, 2008 was also provided to the Council then. The Study Session report of
September 8, 2008 is attached to this report for Council convenience. The SEH study will be
provided to interested Council members upon request.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
At the January 24, 2011 Study Session, City and Mn/DOT staff explained concepts B and C and
answered questions regarding the proposed Highway 100 project. Council expressed an interest
in concept C with a two way frontage road on the east side of Highway 100 south of Minnetonka
Boulevard along with retention of the W. 27th Street entrance ramp to southbound Highway 100.
In addition, the following issues were identified during the course of the Study Session
discussion held on the 24th:
Determine impact on Toledo homes, if any; - i.e., construction limits, noise walls,
acquisition.
Work with property owners on preference for noise walls or vegetated berms
Minimize cut through in neighborhoods and congestion on local streets
Keep a direct access to SB Highway 100 from Minnetonka Boulevard (make access as
easy as possible)
Take existing n/s bike trail into account; how do we extend north to the North Cedar Lake
Regional Trail?
Mitigate congestion on Highway 100 to reduce local traffic
Determine if frontage road traffic will stack up
What are the safety requirements/considerations?
Utica Avenue – what will be done north of Minnetonka Boulevard? (answer - this is up to
the city)
How wide are bike lanes/sidewalks on Minnetonka bridge (answer - 12 feet)
Is any part of Webster Park being taken? (answer - no)
Does the bike/ped bridge on 26th remain? (answer - yes)
At the February 7, 2011 Study Session, staff informed Council that Mn/DOT is proposing to
close the W. 27th Street entrance ramp to southbound Highway 100 for concepts B, C, and D.
Staff presented City goals and criteria that could be considered in evaluating the Mn/DOT
proposed concepts. Council expressed significant concern over the proposed closure of the W.
27th Street entrance ramp and requested staff to evaluate impacts and possible mitigation
associated with that closure. Council also expressed a desire to discuss north - south
transportation needs in the City and how they may relate to the proposed Highway 100 project.
At the March 7th Study Session staff presented impacts (traffic projections or shifts and right of
way implications) for the various W27th Street entrance ramp options associated with the
Highway 100 reconstruction project. Since the ramp changes being considered have the potential
to alter area access to and from Highway 100, shift traffic, and possibly necessitate changes to
existing streets or construction of new streets in the immediate area, the City Council directed
staff to conduct a meeting(s) to obtain area property owner input on the ramp options, traffic
impacts, access needs, and possible street changes near the W. 27th Street ramp.
At the April 11th Study Session Council was presented a report providing information regarding
changes in Mn/DOT’s noisewall installation practice and how that new policy was expected to
relate to the Highway 100 project.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
Recent Events
On April 12th, staff hosted an area meeting informing residents of the proposed closure, revision,
or relocation of the W27th Street entrance ramp to southbound Highway 100. A summary of the
results from that meeting is attached (see attachment - Summary from Meeting of April 12,
2011). Shortly thereafter, staff determined another meeting for Birchwood Neighborhood
residents would be needed. That meeting was held May 26 with comments received well into
June. A summary of the results from that meeting is also attached (see attachment - Summary
from Meeting of May 26, 2011). A special business owner meeting was offered on June 1st to
inform them of this project (see attachment - Business Owners Invited to June 1st Meeting).
Unfortunately, no one showed up for that meeting so no direct input from business owners has
been received. Staff recently followed up on this with a letter making one final appeal for their
participation regarding this project and the ramp options being considered. Staff has attached for
informational purposes the presentation used at the meetings conducted during April and May
(see attachment - Meeting Presentation with Ramp Options).
Assessment of Public Process / Input Received
Background - staff has attempted to summarize and evaluate the input which we received as a
result of the April and May meetings (see attachment - Summary and Results of Public Process).
Rather than, or in addition to advocating for a specific ramp option, much of what staff heard
was likes and dislikes regarding access, traffic, and associated impacts. As a result, we
attempted to identify “themes” heard which would make city evaluation of the ramp options
possible. The following “themes” were thought to be heard the past few months:
1. a desire to keep the ramp open as is
2. Hwy 100 or Minnetonka Blvd access at or near the current W27th Street ramp is needed
3. a need to eliminate traffic cutting through the neighborhood
4. do not increase traffic on interior neighborhood streets (Vernon, W27th Street, etc)
5. do not allow trucks on interior neighborhood streets (Vernon, W27th Street, etc)
6. current access to the commercial areas (W24th St / Stephens Drive area as well as the
new West End area ) is convoluted and undesirable
7. simple and direct routes are better
8. simple and direct access is better
9. acceptance of general neighborhood area being considered / consulted (Mtka Blvd to
BNRR and Hwy 100 to Louisiana Ave)
10. lack of trust in Mn/DOT (project delivery and ramp closure necessity are both suspect)
Best Fit Options - based on the “themes” identified during the public input process, the
following two options seem to best meet area residents needs:
Revise the W27th Street ramp by extending it south to Minnetonka Blvd as a separate
southbound ramp merging with Hwy 100 exit traffic on the east side of the Holiday
Station (Option D)
Close the ramp (Option C) and revise Utica Ave at the south end so it becomes a
continuous two way frontage road from Minnetonka Blvd north to Stephens Drive
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
Conclusions - either of the above two options can work. In evaluating these, it appears that the
first option above (D) maintains the status quo with probably the least impact to area residents at
this time while the second option above (C) allows for more complete city transportation systems
(street, sidewalks, and trails) into the future with more impact (increased traffic) to Utica Ave.
residents at this time. Overall, the second option above (C) allows for more city infrastructure
improvements while using less property than the first option (D) thus resulting in less overall
property impacts along Utica Ave. From a long term planning perspective, the second option
above (C) appears to staff to be advantageous over the first option (D).
Mn/DOT Proposed Noise Advisory Committee (NAC)
Mn/DOT has proposed creation of a Noise Advisory Committee (NAC) as a part of their “new”
Noise Analysis process. The NAC would help in communicating the noise evaluation process to
the adjacent neighborhoods. NAC goals would be to provide two-way communication between
the community and the project team, educate residents about the noise evaluation process, review
the noise analysis methodology and results, and provide feedback to the City Council as well as
communicate project information to neighborhood residents.
Mn/DOT has just started the process of getting a consultant to assist with the Noise Analysis for
the Highway 100 Project. Mn/DOT expects the NAC to start meeting later this summer -
possibly as early as August. It’s anticipated that there will be 3 - 4 monthly meetings. Mn/DOT
suggests the NAC be a smaller group of people, not more than 10 - 12, and consist of the
following:
City Staff (1 or 2)
City Council Member (1 or 2)
Residents (4 - possibly one for each area being considered for a noisewall)
Mn/DOT Staff (2)
Noise Consultant
Mn/DOT is looking to the city to arrange for city representation on this committee - staff,
Council, and residents. City staff participating on the NAC will be Scott Brink and Meg
McMonigal. City staff will use outreach efforts to either ask for volunteers, ask particular
residents to be on the committee, or use an application process to select the resident committee
members. Council recommendations or appointees could also be used to fill the resident
positions on the NAC. Staff assumes the Ward Council member would sit on the NAC along
with any other interested Council members. Mn/DOT has requested NAC participants be
identified during July so the expected future meetings can then be arranged.
Summary and Next Steps
Staff has identified the following steps in advancing this project:
Council identifies preferred “ramp option” June 2011
Staff informs (mails) area residents of findings June 2011
and preferred ramp option
Council / staff monitor resident communications July 2011
City informs Mn/DOT of selection of ramp option August 2011
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
Assuming the above steps are acceptable, the revised Mn/DOT schedule for this project would
appear to be:
Mn/DOT Selection of a Preferred Alternative January 2011
Noise Advisory Committee (NAC) named July 2011
NAC meetings August - Dec 2011
Traffic Modeling / Operational Analysis August - September 2011
Mn/DOT Staff Approved Geometric Layout November 2012
Public Open House November 2012
Municipal Consent Approval Process December - February 2012
Final Geometric Layout February 2012
Develop Construction Plans and Specifications February 2012 - September 2015
Open Bids November 2015
Construction 2016 thru 2018
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting
St. Louis Park including but not limited to Highway 100 and SWLRT.
Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for the
community.
Attachments: Summary from Meeting of April 12, 2011
Summary from Meeting of May 26, 2011
Business Owners Invited to June 1st Meeting
Summary and Results of Public Process
Meeting Presentation with Ramp Options
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
O:\Pubwks\Agendas\Study Sessions\2011 - Current\06-June\June 27\Hwy 100 Report docs\Hwy 100 Ramp Meeting - Staff
Observations - 041211.doc
06/21/2011
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Phone: 952-924-2500 Fax: 952-924-2663 Hearing Impaired: 952-924-2518
Website: www.stlouispark.org
SUMMARY of STAFF OBSERVATIONS
HIGHWAY 100
PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE - April 12, 2011
1. Lack of trust in Mn/DOT expressed
No safety issues with 27th ramp - Mn/DOT is wrong
Are they really going to do something this time?
Why can’t we get the full build we were promised? St. Louis Park is the orphan compared to the
communities north and south
2. Desire to keep the ramp open as is. Some understanding of Mn/DOT desire / need to change it based on safety
concerns
3. Ramp options - by preference:
a. Leave as is
b. Revise ramp to connect to Minnetonka Blvd - generally maintains the status quo; no one harmed
c. Relocate ramp to the north - can work, not simple or direct access. Concern over environmental
impacts related to a back road
d. Close ramp - not acceptable - area residents need access, not less
4. Do not increase traffic on interior neighborhood streets - Vernon, W27th, etc.
5. Do not allow trucks on interior neighborhood streets - Vernon, W27th, etc.
6. Concern that the three traffic signals on Mtka Blvd at Hwy 100 and Lake Street/Vernon would not work well
together
7. Desire to eliminate existing cut thru traffic
8. Concern that by-pass traffic will continue to go through the neighborhood
9. Desire to keep traffic close to Hwy 100 - not back in neighborhood
10. Dislike of need to use Hwy 100 E Frontage Road and the Hwy 100 underpass to access the Nestle /
Volkswagen commercial area
11. Concern with traffic diverting off of Highway 100 early (further north) and then getting back on at 27th, or
going through the neighborhood. Regarding traffic or problems related to or from the commercial area
(Volkswagen, Novartis, etc.), very little feedback from residents on business access. Mainly concerned about
the SB traffic diverting on to the frontage road and attempting to get around the mainline back-up
12. Simple and direct routes are better
13. Simple and direct access is better
14. Utica extension / frontage road is a better solution for neighborhood collector traffic rather than W27th /
Vernon. Utica would be a better route for getting trucks into the area (truck traffic appears to be somewhat of a
problem now)
15. Concern over increased traffic on Vernon extension to W24th street
16. Environmental concerns regarding the extension of Vernon to W24th Street
17. General understanding of impacts to Utica residents - even if turned into a frontage road - "greater good"
thoughts were spoken
18. General acceptance of traffic counts and traffic shifts associated with the various options / changes. Attendees
seemed to intuitively know in a general sense what the impacts would be under each scenario. Nobody seemed
to really get into or care to get into specific details on the projected numbers themselves – just recognized in
general that traffic would go up or down in places significantly or not
19. Acceptance of general neighborhood area being considered / consulted (Mtka Blvd to BNRR and Hwy 100 to
Louisiana Ave)
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 6
O:\Pubwks\Agendas\Study Sessions\2011 - Current\06-June\June 27\Hwy 100 Report docs\Hwy 100 Ramp Meeting - Summary of
Written Comments - 041211.doc
06/21/2011
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Phone: 952-924-2500 Fax: 952-924-2663 Hearing Impaired: 952-924-2518
Website: www.stlouispark.org
SUMMARY of WRITTEN COMMENTS
HIGHWAY 100
PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE - April 12, 2011
As of April 29th, the city has received written comments from eight (8) interested parties on the proposed
closure of the W27th St ramp. The following is a simplified list of suggestions culled from those
comments; the number in parenthesis ( ) indicates the estimated number of suggestions received for that
particular issue or concern. Please note, the number of suggestions received do not total 8 as many of the
written comments contained more than one suggestion.
1. Leave W27th St ramp as is (7)
2. Leave W27th St ramp as is; simply close the ramp during rush hour (1)
3. Disagree with Mn/DOT that the W27th St ramp is a safety concern (3)
4. Relocate W27th St ramp to the north (1)
5. Reduce traffic on W27th Street (1)
6. Turn Utica into a frontage road (1)
7. Do not turn Utica into a frontage road (1)
8. Difficult turning left on Mtka Blvd when leaving the neighborhood (1)
9. Need protected exits and entrances along Hwy 100 (1)
10. Many other access points are much more hazardous than the W27th St ramp (2)
11. Disagree with traffic counts (1)
It is difficult to determine a neighborhood sense on this ramp closure proposal based on this limited
number of comments. However, one could say the comments generally support the following several
themes thought to be heard during the public meeting of April 12, 2011:
1. Hwy 100 access at or near W27th Street is needed
2. Do not increase neighborhood traffic
3. Lack of trust with Mn/DOT
A PDF of the 8 written comments is attached - names have been removed to address privacy concerns.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 7
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 8
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 9
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 10
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 11
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 12
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 13
c
c
c
cc
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
cc
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
cc
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
¯
Map Document: (G:\Geo\Projects\Pbwks\Hwy 100\Hwy100.mxd)
04/19/2011 -- 10:06:40 AM
0 1,232 2,464616
Feet
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Highway 100 / 27th Street Open House Attendees
Legend
c Attendees
41 Attendees: 1 no address, 1 consultant,
1 Council Member, and 37 unique addresses
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 14
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 15
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 16
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 17
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 18
O:\Pubwks\Agendas\Study Sessions\2011 - Current\06-June\June 27\Hwy 100 Report docs\Hwy 100 Ramp Meeting - Staff
Observations - 052611.doc
06/21/2011
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Phone: 952-924-2500 Fax: 952-924-2663 Hearing Impaired: 952-924-2518
Website: www.stlouispark.org
SUMMARY of STAFF OBSERVATIONS
HIGHWAY 100
BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - May 26, 2011
1. Lack of trust in Mn/DOT expressed
2. Desire to keep the ramp open as is. Some understanding of Mn/DOT desire / need to change it based on safety
concerns
3. Do not increase traffic on interior neighborhood streets - Vernon, W27th, etc.
4. Do not allow trucks on interior neighborhood streets - Vernon, W27th, etc.
5. Desire to eliminate existing cut thru traffic
6. Concern that by-pass traffic will continue to go through the neighborhood
7. Desire to keep traffic close to Hwy 100 - not back in neighborhood
8. Concern with traffic diverting off of Highway 100 early (further north) and then getting back on at 27th, or
going through the neighborhood. Regarding traffic or problems related to or from the commercial area
(Volkswagen, Novartis, etc.), very little feedback from residents on business access. Mainly concerned about
the SB traffic diverting on to the frontage road and attempting to get around the mainline back-up
9. Utica extension / frontage road is a better solution for neighborhood collector traffic rather than W27th /
Vernon. Utica would be a better route for getting trucks into the area (truck traffic appears to be somewhat of a
problem now)
10. Concern over increased traffic on Vernon extension to W24th street
11. Environmental concerns regarding the extension of Vernon to W24th Street
12. General understanding of impacts to Utica residents - even if turned into a frontage road - "greater good"
thoughts were spoken
13. General acceptance of traffic counts and traffic shifts associated with the various options / changes. Attendees
seemed to generally understand what the impacts would be under each scenario. Nobody seemed to really get
into or care to get into specific details on the projected numbers themselves – just recognized in general that
traffic would go up or down in places significantly or not
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 19
O:\Pubwks\Agendas\Study Sessions\2011 - Current\06-June\June 27\Hwy 100 Report docs\Hwy 100 Ramp Meeting - Summary of
Written Comments - 052611.doc
06/21/2011
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Phone: 952-924-2500 Fax: 952-924-2663 Hearing Impaired: 952-924-2518
Website: www.stlouispark.org
SUMMARY of WRITTEN COMMENTS
HIGHWAY 100
BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - May 26, 2011
As of June 20th, the city has received written comments from eighteen (18) and voice messages from two
(2) interested parties on the proposed closure of the W27th St ramp. The following is a simplified list of
suggestions culled from those comments; the number in parenthesis ( ) indicates the estimated number of
suggestions received for that particular issue or concern. Please note, the number of suggestions received
do not total 18 as many of the written comments contained more than one suggestion.
1. Leave the W27th St ramp as is - Option B (6)
2. Close the W27th Street ramp - Option C (3)
3. Revise the W27th Street entrance ramp to merge with the exit ramp at Mtka Blvd - Option D (8)
4. Relocate the W27th St ramp to the north - Option E (2)
5. Reduce traffic on W27th Street (1)
6. Turn Utica into a two-way frontage road (6)
7. Extend Vernon Ave north to W24th Street (2)
8. Do not extend Vernon Ave to the north (12)
9. Reduce traffic on Vernon Ave S (5)
Based on the comments received, the following several themes were thought to be heard:
1. Retain W27th Street access to Hwy 100 - (Option B - retain ramp) or (Option D - revise
ramp)
2. Do not increase traffic on interior neighborhood streets (Vernon Ave and W27th Street)
3. Do not shift traffic onto interior neighborhood streets (such as) by extending Vernon Ave north
to W24th Street / Stephens Drive
4. Turn Utica into a two-way frontage road to make a better neighborhood connection to
Minnetonka Blvd and to more appropriately handle the heavier area traffic flows
A PDF of the 18 written comments and 2 voice messages is attached - names have been removed to
address privacy concerns.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 20
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 21
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 22
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 23
Comment #1
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 2:22 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Cc:
Subject: 27th St. ramp to Hwy 100 closing
Hi Mike,
We are homeowners and use this ramp on a daily basis, often multiple times a day. The
possibility of it closing is disappointing and we try to avoid the traffic challenges
that exist with the exit ramp of Hwy 100 and Minnetonka Blvd by the Holiday gas station
store if possible.
Of the proposed changes we, the least desirable choice for everyone involved is to route
traffic down Vernon Av. Our options are also as follows:
If the ramp is closed I believe option D, relocating the ramp along Utica makes the most
sense as 1) it impacts the fewest homes 2) there is already room to expand the street 3)
although Utica itself has a low number of cars on it, they face the highway and only 50
feet away have thousands of cars going past their homes.
Option E3 makes no sense as Vernon is a defined space, is too narrow to handle all this
traffic (navigating the street was a nightmare this winter with all the snow), was never
intended to be a thoroughfare carrying several thousand cars daily, has a neighborhood
park (Sunshine Park), and would involve disturbing a wetland.
Thanks for your consideration!
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #2
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:20 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Cc:
Subject: Hwy 100 changes
Hello Mike,
As another member of the Birchwood N’hood association steering committee, I
completely agree with the comments below. This seems to be the consensus in the
neighborhood.
Thank you for your help on this.
“Thanks for hosting the session at city hall on May 26 to explain options for the
27th street ramp closure. Although I don't know if the city has the power to
prevent the ramp closure, that would be my first choice regarding this issue.
If the ramp is closed I believe option D, relocating the ramp along Utica makes
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 24
the most sense as 1) it impacts the fewest homes 2) there is already room to
expand the street 3) although Utica itself has a low number of cars on it, they
face the highway and only 50 feet away have thousands of cars going past their
homes.
Option E3 makes no sense as Vernon is a defined space, is too narrow to handle
all this traffic (navigating the street was a nightmare this winter with all the
snow), was never intended to be a thoroughfare carrying several thousand cars
daily, has a neighborhood park (Sunshine Park), and would involve disturbing a
wetland.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #3
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 1:19 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Cc:
Subject: closure of 27th street ramp to Hwy 100
Dear Mike,
Thanks for hosting the session at city hall on May 26 to explain options for the 27th street
ramp closure. Although I don't know if the city has the power to prevent the ramp
closure, that would be my first choice regarding this issue.
If the ramp is closed I believe option D, relocating the ramp along Utica makes the most
sense as 1) it impacts the fewest homes 2) there is already room to expand the street 3)
although Utica itself has a low number of cars on it, they face the highway and only 50
feet away have thousands of cars going past their homes.
Option E3 makes no sense as Vernon is a defined space, is too narrow to handle all this
traffic (navigating the street was a nightmare this winter with all the snow), was never
intended to be a thoroughfare carrying several thousand cars daily, has a neighborhood
park (Sunshine Park), and would involve disturbing a wetland.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #4
Mr. Mike Rardin
Public Works Director
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN
Re: Closing of 27th Street ramp to Highway 100, south
June 3, 2011
Dear Mr. Rardin:
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 25
We live at 27th Street and Vernon Avenue, considered by the intersection’s neighbors as
the area’s traffic problem “ground zero.” Traffic, especially in the late afternoon is so
severe that our unfenced yard is unsafe and therefore unsuitable for our grandchildren to
play in. And this condition applies also to other young children elsewhere in the
neighborhood.
As discussed at the May 26th neighborhood meeting at City Hall, the traffic east of
Vernon on 27th Street and the traffic south of 27th Street on Vernon is heavy in terms of
unit count, way heavier than the streets were designed to carry. What was not discussed
much at the meeting is the 27th Street traffic west of Vernon. That traffic is both heavy
and intense; it seems like those motorists are in a greater hurry to get to where they want
to go than are the Vernon Ave. motorists. Further, much of the 27th Street traffic, heavy
with cars and delivery vans, is cut-through traffic, coming from and going to areas
outside (west of) the Birchwood neighborhood.
Likewise, much of the 27th Street traffic east of Vernon and the Vernon traffic south of
27th Street is also made up of non-neighborhood traffic, especially Volkswagen traffic. In
addition, much of Volkswagen traffic in our neighborhood consists of motorists who use
our neighborhood as a “retail proving-ground” to test the acceleration, cornering, and
stopping qualities of the cars they are driving. They also stop and get out of the cars to
open and examine the trunk and engine compartments, and the back seat doors, and to
change drivers. We do not enjoy the commercial traffic clogging our residential streets.
Most of the motorists, especially the non-neighborhood motorists, seem to think that the
stop signs, which are the City’s only traffic-calming strategy in our neighborhood, are
advisory, rather than compulsory. To our eyes, only about 5% of the motorists who
approach 27th and Vernon make legal, complete stops at the intersection. Maybe 90% of
the motorists roll at various speeds through the intersection under inertia only. And about
5% of the motorists just drive through the intersection under power, without even slowing
down, as if they didn’t know or didn’t care that they are required to stop. To compound
the matter, the police seem to be far more interested in enforcing the speed limit on
south-bound Highway 100 motorists than they are interested in enforcing the stop signs at
27th Street and Vernon Avenue. Since there is no enforcement of the stop signs, there is
almost no compliance with the stop signs. As I said earlier, the motorists are in a hurry;
and road rage is not a stranger here.
The closing of the 27th Street ramp has the potential of reducing the 27th Street traffic
west of Vernon and of greatly increasing the 27th Street traffic east of Vernon and the
Vernon traffic south of 27th Street. We, and I am sure our neighbors, would be happy
with the former, and extremely unhappy with the latter expected outcomes. We need an
outcome that reduces the traffic, especially the non-neighborhood traffic, on both 27th
Street and on Vernon. This is an important quality of life issue as well as a safety issue.
We believe that the southbound Highway 100 traffic seeking to exit to Minnetonka Blvd./
Lake Street, as well as the traffic from the Volkswagen and apartment areas should be
directed to Minnetonka Blvd./ Lake Street by means of a rebuilt Utica Avenue, together
with a new light-controlled intersection at Utica and Minnetonka-Lake Street for three
reasons.
First, the Utica option will adversely affect less than half the residents than would the
Vernon option. Second, there is more space on the east side of Utica to create a suitable
roadway and an effective sound-barrier, while there is no extra space on Vernon. And
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 26
third, all of the houses on Utica were built at a time when there once was a Utica Avenue
exit from southbound Highway 100. It seems to us that if the City of St. Louis Park can
find the funds to build an expensive bridge over Highway 7 for a feeder street like
Wooddale and possibly another expensive bridge over Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue,
certainly it can find the funds to construct a much less costly project of reducing the
traffic volume and intensity in our neighborhood to normal residential conditions.
While we currently enjoy the easy access to southbound Highway 100, we do not enjoy
the unreasonably heavy and intense traffic on 27th Street and Vernon Avenue; far more
traffic than any residential area should be made to suffer. We will be happy to suffer the
greater inconvenience of a new access to southbound Highway 100 in exchange for a
lower traffic volume through our neighborhood, especially from non-neighborhood traffic
that is cutting both north-south and east-west through our neighborhood.
We hope you can cure this traffic problem for us and for our neighbors.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #5
From:
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:35 AM
To: Mike Rardin
Subject:
Hello Sir-
I live in the 2700-block of Blackstone Avenue South in the Birchwood neighborhood. I
am unable to attend the Highway #100/27th Street on-ramp meeting on Thursday May
26th.
I wish to be on the record as saying I do not oppose the closing of this ramp. I rarely use
the ramp (it feels unsafe to me) and closing it would eliminate the ridiculous practice of
southbound Highway #100 drivers exiting at Westside Drive only to re-enter the freeway
at 27th Street. They don’t save any time and only make the traffic worse for those behind
them. (Meanwhile, the poor people who live along the frontage/Utica Avenue have to
breath in the relentless exhaust every afternoon). I also wouldn’t have to put up with all
the delivery drivers from N.A.P.A. at 27th and Louisiana who cut through the
neighborhood to get on Highway 100 at 27th Street instead of being a good corporate
citizen and using Minnetonka Boulevard.
Thanks,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #6
To: Mike Rardin; Sue Sanger,
Thanks for the good, well structured briefing. As a resident in Birchwood my interests
piqued with the worried gossip about an extension of Vernon Avenue, my street. I
welcomed the idea of closure of the 27th Street access to TH 100 because it now creates
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 27
traffic backups, people often blow the stop sign and sometimes speed through the alley
between the Lutheran Church and 27th Street to bypass it. Your presentation helped me
to understand the options. The situation is that Mn/DOT needs to move forward and St.
Louis Park should use that energy and effort to the advantage of the people living here to
the degree that it can, while minimizing the negative impact of those changes.
Feedback brief: "Convergence with SLP Comprehensive Plan will assist planning to align
with public interest."
Recommendation brief: "In conjunction with Mn/DOT create a minor arterial out of the
Westside/Utica Ave crossing the B&N from Cedar Lake Road with the using Alt C
improvement at Roger's loop-around to Minnetonka Blvd. Not an acceleration lane. The
actual southbound entrance is either to be at Cedar Lake Rd or south of Minnetonka Blvd.
I am opposed to the extension of Vernon Avenue." Read further for my rationale.
I didn't want to arrive at the meeting unprepared so I studied a bit of the St. Louis Park
Comprehensive Plan which is available on the city's website. I found that the relevant
sections (IV and V) articulate very well and in detail those ideals that the city strives to
bring its residents.
Evaluate for yourself the functional classification of these streets in planning stage. The
criteria specified in the comprehensive plan should shed light on apparent incongruous
usages made or speculated on during the meeting. To what degree are the roads put to the
public good? Evaluating the arguments against the backdrop of functional classification
provides some insight. To illustrate, here are observations that I made (some of which
may fall apart under evaluation) stated in terms of functional classification:
A. Termination of the 27th Street access point calms the neighborhood. Once the
TH 100 commuter discovers that the Westside relief route has been blocked
mostly only local residents will cause local traffic.
B. Termination of the TH 100 access point brings 27th Street in conformity with
“Local Street” definition. It removes Westside/Utica from the “Minor Arterial”
role to which they are not suited and toward a “Collector”. Thus 27thStreet
conforms to the “Local Street” as defined by the SLP Comprehensive Plan.
C. TH 100 barrier and reroute of traffic from Southbound TH 100 through
27th Street and Utica or Vernon Avenue South doesn’t change current local
traffic pattern.
D. TH 100 barrier and reroute does affect the use of Westside/Utica Aves as
currently employed during peak traffic periods (used as relief to TH 100
southbound traffic congestion).
E. TH 100/27th St. barrier does not affect customer ingress to Westside
Volkswagen. Exiting customers will have to take a different route to
southbound TH 100 only. Access to northbound TH 100 is the same.
Unchanged, Westside Blvd. serves as a minor arterial at this time.
F. The proposal to route traffic from Nestle/Westside Volkswagen across the
swamp or Vernon Avenue and 25 ½ Street would jump the classification of
Vernon Avenue from “Local Street” to “Minor Arterial” (as defined by SLP
Comprehensive Plan, it would then interconnect major trip generators, or as to
interstates, principal arterials, other minor arterials, collectors and some local
streets) requiring traffic signals and cross-street stops at intersections. This is a
large leap in classification.
G. Currently regular route buses are not scheduled on any of these streets, as one
would expect of a “Local Street” designation.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 28
I think it is interesting to hold these observations under the light of the comprehensive
plan. The creation of Westside Drive/Utica Ave as a minor arterial permitting bus
transport access to the neighborhood and a southbound corridor from Cedar Lake Road to
extend to Minnetonka Blvd as it loops around the Holiday. This creates a buffer between
TH 100 and the neighborhood. Slower traffic (35mph) and less volume than that
permitted on TH 100. North-bound traffic accesses TH 100 from Minnetonka Blvd.
Coordinate with Mn/DOT to build a better ramp entrance that will permit the existing left
turn to Nestle' and the "pretzel stretch" to the east frontage road.
I am opposed to an extension of Vernon Avenue to Nestle'. This is a local street, poorly
situated for a change to minor arterial status. We have a minor arterial in Westside/Utica.
It needs redesign to be recognized as this designation and to serve the rest of the
community.
I found that the changes mandated by Mn/DOT and the local solutions should be viewed
with the guidance of the SLP Comprehensive Plan, sections IV and V, thoughtfully put
together by our community leaders.
Thanks for taking my opinion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #7
From: Mike Rardin
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:18 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Highway 100 reconstruction and the 27th St ramp options
Thanks for your comments, I will include them with the others I have been receiving.
You also asked two questions;
1. How does the revised ramp work in Exhibit D? Answer - these will be parallel at-
grade lanes (one for cars entering from 27th and one for cars exiting to
Minnetonka). These two separate lanes will merge into two lanes just south of
W29th St then continue south as a two lane ramp to intersect Minnetonka Blvd at
a new intersection on the east side of the Holiday Station.
2. Is the Parkdale ramp closure total? That is, will both the exit onto Parkdale and
the entrance ramp from it be closed? If so, what effects will this have on the only
remaining outlet from the West End area (the 394/Xenia interchange)? Answer -
the actual ramp at the east end of Parkdale will remain as it is now. What will be
closed is the frontage road entrance ramp to southbound Hwy 100 between W23rd
and W24th Streets (simply called the Parkdale ramp). That ramp and the W27th
St ramp would be closed and a new entrance ramp constructed at about W25th St
(2 for 1). So Parkdale traffic would have to travel about 700’ further south along
the frontage road before being able to access Hwy 100 southbound. There would
be no outlet changes or impacts for West End area traffic.
Michael P. Rardin, PE
Director of Public Works
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 29
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Phone (952) 924-2551
City Website www.stlouispark.org
From:
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:00 AM
To: Mike Rardin
Cc:
Subject: Highway 100 reconstruction and the 27th St ramp options
Mike and City Council members,
Since you have all gotten several messages echoing the comments immediately below--
and one declaring a neighborhood consensus, I would like to offer a response to some of
these points and make a few comments on my own behalf.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM, < @yahoo.com> wrote:
If the ramp is closed I believe option E1, relocating the ramp along Utica makes
the most sense as 1) it impacts the fewest homes 2) there is already room to
expand the street 3) although Utica itself has a low number of cars on it, they
face the highway and only 50 feet away have thousands of cars going past their
homes.
This looks like a misunderstanding of what Exhibit E1 shows. The entrance ramp would
be relocated north to access Highway 100 southbound from the frontage road in front of
the apartments, *not* in front of the existing single family homes along Utica. Perhaps
this is meant to refer to Exhibit D.
Option E3 makes no sense as Vernon is a defined space, is too narrow to handle
all this traffic (navigating the street was a nightmare this winter with all the
snow), was never intended to be a thoroughfare carrying several thousand cars
daily, has a neighborhood park (Sunshine Park), and would involve disturbing a
wetland.
I don't know what "Vernon is a defined space" is supposed to mean. I disagree with the
assertion that it would become a "thoroughfare" (and I doubt that any of us know who
intended what and when). Winter driving is an unrelated issue, and seems like it could be
easily and adequately addressed by simple parking restrictions on one side if snow
storage becomes an issue (Note: I think investigating this would be a good idea anyway,
due to the heavy parking on Sunday nights in the neighborhood for Upper Room services
at the Lutheran Church of the Reformation). Wetland removal does not seem like an
inordinate obstacle thanks to existing laws requiring their replacement in kind.
And while the City should of course give safety in the vicinity of the park due
consideration, its mere presence should not be grounds for opposing change.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 30
If the ramp is relocated to the north as in Exhibit E1, the extension of Vernon in Exhibit
E3 *does* make some sense, because it provides much more convenient in and out
access to the neighborhood for its residents. I have a hunch that some in the
neighborhood are looking at the numbers on the map and imagining them as drivers from
Hwy 100 and 394 trying to shave a couple seconds off their commute by cutting through
our neighborhood on Vernon. That's understandable I suppose, given our current
familiarity with cut-through drivers along the frontage road. But I look at these numbers
and see *us*--the people who live here! If the ramp is relocated in this way without
access to 24th St, the larger numbers on the southern stretch of Vernon are the result of
not giving an outlet to Highway 100 southbound for the residents of the apartments and
everyone else living in the northeast portion of the neighborhood. We'd all have to go
down to Minnetonka Blvd like we already do to get northbound access.
I don't find predictions of cut-through traffic credible at all, because the entire point of
this major project is to improve the flow of 100 by widening the Hwy 7 and railroad
bridges--and even if traffic still does back up, getting off at 24th and trying to use Vernon
to bypass any congestion will be impractical because that path will now offer 5 stop signs
and 2 major signalized intersections before being able to get back on the highway. (see
the map I put together as a visual aid: http://goo.gl/maps/Cjze)
The option to revise the ramp in place (Exhibit D) is problematic. My recollection is that
Mn/DOT is retaining the right to irrevocably close the ramp at some point in the future if
safety remains a problem. By then they will have moved on to other projects and the
neighborhood would be left with the same inferior access to Highway 100 southbound as
described above (if the ramp is relocated and Vernon not extended). I'm also having a
hard time visualizing how this option would be implemented--is one stream of traffic
going above and on top of the other, or are these parallel at-grade lanes (one for cars
entering from 27th, one for cars exiting to Minnetonka)? I can't interpret the map in
Exhibit D properly.
I favor the city option to connect Utica up to the remnant of the current exit from
Highway 100, both on behalf of the residents of that street and Vernon, because it gives a
2nd option for residents headed south to Minnetonka Blvd. But if we are soliciting
opinions on this option, the greatest weight should be given to the views of Utica
residents.
Overall, I support the modifications shown in Exhibit E1. It seems clear the
neighborhood would like to preserve the access afforded by the ramp, and I think
relocating is preferable to revising it in place. The only way to retain southbound access
is by providing a link up to 24th St--whether that's an extension of Vernon to the north or
some other option that can be devised. One follow-up question I have is: is the Parkdale
ramp closure total? That is, will both the exit onto Parkdale and the entrance ramp from it
be closed? If so, what effects will this have on the only remaining outlet from the West
End area (the 394/Xenia interchange)?
Finally, speaking broadly--we all chose to live in very close proximity to a major urban
highway. It's just unrealistic to think that a project this large can be done without all of us
bearing some burden of the changes. The comments that have been made so far seem to
advocate for heaping all the impacts on the smallest group of people because they're
already living with it. I'd like to hear what Utica residents think of these options. Having
worked in government, I've always been struck by how quickly residents adjust to a new
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 31
normal, no matter how fierce their prior opposition to the change that came their way. I'm
confident it will be the same for our neighborhood.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #8
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:50 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Subject: Birchwood Neighborhood 100 ramp
Mike-
I was unable to attend the meeting on 5-26 regarding the closure of the Utica/ 27th ramp
to 100. I would however like to echo what our neighbors have expressed.
I would like to see the ramp redirected along Utica. I am concerned about having any
additional traffic routed through our neighborhood as most of our streets are very narrow
to begin with and with mostly single car garages our streets are often lined with cars as it
is. Additional traffic could risk damage to vehicles and with Birchwood park so near,
endanger the multitude of families walking to and from the park.
Thank you for your consideration, Please keep us in the loop with regard to additional
meetings as well as any changes to the neighborhood.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #9
From:
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:25 AM
To: Mike Rardin
Subject: Vernon Avenue HWY 100 Project
Hi Mike,
I got a flyer about tonight's meeting. I live at . I am unable to attend tonight
but am very concerned about the changes coming. I do NOT want to see any changes
that will increase the traffic on Vernon Ave. I have lived here since I was a child and
have seen this street go from a nice quiet street to a public transportation line, where the
traffic has taken over and changed the whole feel of the neighborhood.
I would want to see the traffic DECREASE here. Find ways to keep people from cutting
through our neighborhood. Another thing that should be done is to improve the
southbound exit from 100 to Vernon and to MTKA Blvd. This is a congested mess at
rush hour, routing everyone around the back of the Holiday Station with a 3 way stop.
That station should be moved somewhere else.
Thank you,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 32
Comment #10
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Cc:
Subject: closure of 27th street ramp to Hwy 100
I have a few comments to add to the email immediately below. We live across from the
Church of the Reformation and the garden plots.
I also support the comments in the 2nd email below. We may gather signatures from
people on Vernon Ave. S. to make our opposition to connecting Vernon Ave. S. to 24th
Street West even more emphatic.
Mike, as you pointed out at the meeting on May 26 (which I attended), Utica is in poor
repair and should be reconfigured and repaved soon. Utica will no doubt be repaved
(with new drain tile system) when Highway 100 is reconstructed at 100/Minnetonka. In
this reconstruction, Utica I believe should be the frontage road handling traffic to/from
the Rudy Luther Volkswagen/Alba/Novartis businesses & apartments to/from
Minnetonka Blvd. for the following reasons:
1) As pointed out, it is already the frontage road since it fronts Hwy 100 with thousands
of cars traveling 55-70 mph within 60-70 feet of the Utica properties. Therefore, “100”
cars on the Exhibit E3 map is not a realistic base line number from which to assess the
impact of more traffic if Utica were to be connected to Minnetonka as in the Concept C
map.
2) To elaborate further, the number of impacted homes on Utica would be about ¼ of the
homes impacted on Vernon because Vernon is two blocks longer that Utica with homes
on both sides (except for the ½ block where wooded/garden lot are located), and
3) To emphasize the point re wet land at north end of Vernon, the cost of connecting
Utica to Minnetonka (as in Concept C map) would likely be less than the cost of
connecting Vernon and 24th because the south end of Utica will be reconfigured in the
reconstruction anyway (along with repaving/retiling of entire length of Utica) AND there
is no wetland to fill in/relocate/pave over at the Utica/Minnetonka connection as there is
between Vernon and 24th St. W. I recall considerable discussion about the importance of
this wet land area at the council meetings before the new homes were built at the north
end of Vernon.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 2:40 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: closure of 27th street ramp to Hwy 100
I support and second the comments below.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 33
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 1:19 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Cc:
Subject: closure of 27th street ramp to Hwy 100
Dear Mike,
Thanks for hosting the session at city hall on May 26 to explain options for the 27th street
ramp closure. Although I don't know if the city has the power to prevent the ramp
closure, that would be my first choice regarding this issue.
If the ramp is closed I believe option D, relocating the ramp along Utica makes the most
sense as 1) it impacts the fewest homes 2) there is already room to expand the
street 3) although Utica itself has a low number of cars on it, they face the highway and
only 50 feet away have thousands of cars going past their homes.
Option E3 makes no sense as Vernon is a defined space, is too narrow to handle all this
traffic (navigating the street was a nightmare this winter with all the snow), was never
intended to be a thoroughfare carrying several thousand cars daily, has a neighborhood
park (Sunshine Park), and would involve disturbing a wetland.
If you have questions/comments for me, let me know.
Thanks very much.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #11
From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:29 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Subject: Proposed Hwy 100 Project
Hi Mike --
We live on Vernon Ave S, but will be unable to attend the meeting tomorrow. I wanted
you to be aware of our thoughts and feelings about this situation.
One of the reasons we purchased the house on Vernon was the quiet neighborhood and
the apparent safety of our future children. If Vernon was extended through the marsh
over to the car dealership, I feel that we risk a huge increase in traffic on our street. That
would be extremely detrimental to our property values, quality of life, and the safety of
our selves, our pets, and the children that live in the neighborhood.
We are unsure of the best solution for the 27th street ramp, but we do know that we don't
want it to affect Vernon Ave at all. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your time!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 34
Comment #12
From: Mike Rardin
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:41 AM
To:
Subject: Hwy 100 reconstruction - 27th St ramp relocation
Thanks for your input; I will include your comments with the others I have received.
If the ramp is closed, large trucks will only be able to exit that area by going north on
Utica / W23rd St and crossing under Hwy 100 to the east to the frontage road running in
front of Benilde. In a like manner, large trucks and buses will only be able to enter that
area the same way or from the Hwy 100 / Parksdale Ramp which exits to the Stephens Dr
/ W Frontage Road.
Finally, Mn/DOT proposes to retain the overhead pedestrian bridge so crossing Hwy 100
should not be altered. And, it does not appear any of the ramp / street options actually
increase frontage road traffic at that location so that should remain unchanged from
today. And, with the ramp options being considered, I see no change in access to the
Cedar Lake Trail - it would remain unchanged. Improving trail access could be done - it
would just be above and beyond the Mn/DOT project currently being considered.
Mike
From:
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 10:27 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Subject: Hwy 100 reconstruction - 27th st ramp relocation
Hello Mike,
Thanks for holding the very informative meeting with the Birchwood neighborhood on
May 26th. I wanted to weigh in with my 2 cents.
In my opinion, the best option is D - relocating the ramp along Utica and making Utica
into a frontage road. Fewer houses will be impacted, traffic will be decreased in front of
Sunshine park on Vernon ave, and the integrity of the neighborhood will remain intact.
If this option is not possible or cost prohibitive, my second choice would be to give up
the ramp altogether before pushing Vernon avenue out to the North. My big question if
the ramp is removed without being relocated is where will the truck traffic go coming and
going out of the car dealer and whatever may take over the Novartis space.
One question I have is what will happen to the pedestrian access to the pedestrian bridge
over Hwy 100. Whatever is done, I do think it is important to maintain or better yet
improve the access our neighborhood has to the Cedar Lake trail and bike or walking
access between Birchwood Neighborhood and the West End area.
Thanks for the chance to share my thoughts and I look forward to watching as this project
progresses.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 35
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #13
From:
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:29 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Subject: Proposed ramp closure, hwy 100 meeting
Dear Mr. Rardin,
We're unfortunately out of town and won't be able to attend the May 26th
city hall meeting. I would like to say that my wife and I are concerned and would
oppose the closing of the 27th street ramp to Hwy 100 and any rerouting of traffic onto
Vernon Ave. We would also be against adding a 25 1/2 street extension to the frontage
road to put traffic further up on Vernon as well. Adding a spillway of traffic from the
frontage road would change the neighborhood and safety dramatically. A revised ramp
would be much preferred.
Thanks for your consideration of our input.
Sincerely,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment #14
From:
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:36 PM
To: Mike Rardin
Subject: 27th Street Ramp closure & possible re-route
Mr. Mike Rardin,
Thank you for the good hard work you do here in St. Louis Park. I live in the 2600 block
of Vernon Av S, along with my husband and family. We have resided in our "starter"
home now for 18 years, choosing to stay and improve our property w/o changing the
footprint. We espouse the virtue of simplicity and accept that we have boundaries and
limits out of respect for our neighbors and the environment in our community.
I beg you, City Council, and Mn/DOT to consider the significant impact re-routing traffic
to our residential street would have to help alleviate congestion on Hwy 100. Poor
planning and our significant dependence on car transportation has been a recognizable
threat to our environment and standard of living for decades. The improvements slated
for Hwy 100 expansion well over 10 years ago, would have addressed what we face
today if we hadn't chosen to focus on lesser traveled portions of Hwy 100, (all that is
North of 394) and gotten busy w/improving the area that needed the most attention due to
congestion as well as honestly looked at the integrity of the bridges.
That aside, I implore you and all decision makers to reconsider any thought of re-routing
traffic from the frontage roads in our Birchwood neighborhood. To choose to subject
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 36
families and households to potentially hundreds/thousands cars driving down our street to
avoid congestion and save a car wash building is preposterous. Decades ago, the city &
county should have thought more clearly about expansion and not allowed that
commercial space, now owned by Holiday to expand their building, knowing that the
Minnetonka Ave bridge would need replacement. Let's not pretend that money doesn't
influence government to make decisions in favor of business, in that, let's be fair in
looking at all alternatives and offer our citizens equal weight when determining the best
outcome for our community.
Please know that our lifestyle, our very safety is at risk. We bought here because it was
what we could afford, even though it's only one block West of Hwy 100, we didn't buy a
house on Hwy 100, please don't ask us to take on the burden of relieving congestion.
Keep congestion and traffic where it belongs, on the highways and frontage roads, that's
what they were built for.
Thank you for listening, I will come to next Thursday's meeting to listen and respond,
however, I wanted to express my concern in writing for you and others who may our
decision-makers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Voice Message #1
Opposed to making Vernon Ave S a thoroughfare - do not extend to the north.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Voice Message #2
Opposed to making Vernon Ave S a thoroughfare - do not extend to the north. No more
traffic on Vernon - there is enough there now!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 37
c
c
c
c
c
c
cc
cc
c
c
c
c c
c
c
c
c
c
cc
c
c
c
ccc
c
c
c
c
c
Map Document: (G:\Geo\Projects\Pbwks\Hwy100\Hwy100_OpenHouse052611.mxd)
06/06/2011 -- 3:04:12 PM
Highway 100 / 27th Street Open House Attendees
Thursday May 26, 2011
¯
0 450 900225
Feet
Legend
c Attendees
38 Attendees: 1 bad address, 1 Council Member,
and 33 unique addresses including 3 addresses
having 2 people attend.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 38
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 39
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 40
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 41
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 42
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Phone: 952-924-2500 Fax: 952-924-2663 Hearing Impaired: 952-924-2518
Website: www.stlouispark.org
SUMMARY and RESULTS of the PUBLIC PROCESS
HIGHWAY 100
PROPOSED W27TH STREET RAMP CLOSURE
(June 20, 2011)
Mn/DOT has determined the W27th Street ramp must be closed, revised, or relocated in
conjunction with the reconstruction of Highway 100 in St. Louis Park. They have stated that if
this ramp is left as is, significant safety issues will arise. The city is faced with four (4) basic
options in responding to the Mn/DOT proposal:
1. Deny (oppose) the closing of the ramp (Option B)
2. Agree to the closing of the ramp (Option C):
a. with no other local street changes
b. revise Utica Ave at the south end so it becomes a two way frontage road from
Minnetonka Blvd north to Stephens Drive
3. Request the W27th Street access be retained (revised) by extending it south to
Minnetonka Blvd as a separate southbound ramp merging with Hwy 100 exit traffic
on the east side of the Holiday Station (Option D):
a. with no other local street changes
b. revise Utica Ave at the south end so it becomes a two way frontage road from
Minnetonka Blvd north to Stephens Drive
4. Request the ramp be closed and relocated to the north (to about W25½ Street area)
- this new ramp would replace the existing W27th Street and Parkdale entrance
ramps to Hwy 100 which would be closed (Option E):
a. with no other local street changes
b. create a local street connection to allow neighborhood traffic to travel north to
access this new ramp via W24th Street / Stephens Drive
c. revise Utica Ave at the south end so it becomes a two way frontage road from
Minnetonka Blvd north to Stephens Drive
The intent of the city’s public process associated with Mn/DOT’s proposal was to:
1. Inform area residents of the proposal
2. Inform residents of the options available to the city
3. Inform residents of impacts associated with the various options under consideration
4. Obtain resident input
5. Attempt to ascertain which option might best meet area resident needs
Due to the various neighborhood needs, interests, and impacts along with the complexity of
these options, staff is not able to say there is overwhelming neighborhood support for any one
particular option. However, it appears there is general support for the following several themes
thought to be heard over the course of the past few months:
1. desire to keep the ramp as is
2. Hwy 100 or Minnetonka Blvd access at or near W27th Street is needed
3. need to eliminate traffic cutting through the neighborhood
4. do not increase traffic on interior neighborhood streets (Vernon, W27th Street, etc)
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 43
Summary and Results of the Public Process for Hwy 100 (ramp options) - June 20, 2011
O:\Pubwks\Agendas\Study Sessions\2011 - Current\06-June\June 27\Hwy 100 Report docs\Results of Public Process.doc
Created on June 20, 2011
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Phone: 952-924-2500 Fax: 952-924-2663 Hearing Impaired: 952-924-2518
Website: www.stlouispark.org
5. do not allow trucks on interior neighborhood streets (Vernon, W27th Street, etc)
6. current access to the commercial areas (W24th St / Stephens Drive area as well as the
new West End area ) is convoluted and undesirable
7. simple and direct routes are better
8. simple and direct access is better
9. acceptance of general neighborhood area being considered / consulted (Mtka Blvd to
BNRR and Hwy 100 to Louisiana Ave)
10. lack of trust in Mn/DOT (project delivery and ramp closure necessity are both suspect)
The following meeting summary documents were created for information purposes:
1. April 12th area meeting:
a. list of attendees
b. map showing attendee representation
c. summary of staff observations
d. summary of written comments received
e. written comments received (names removed)
2. May 26th Birchwood Neighborhood meeting:
a. list of attendees
b. map showing attendee representation
c. summary of staff observations
d. summary of written comments received
e. written comments received (names removed)
3. June 1st W24th St / Stephens Drive area business owners meeting:
a. map showing invited property owners (no owners appeared for the meeting)
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 44
Highway 100 Reconstruction MeetingOpen House April 12, 2011Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 45
Tonight’s Agenda• 5:00-5:30pm Staff Available for Discussion• 5:30-6:00pm Short Presentation and Q&A• 6:00-7:00pm Staff Available for Discussion• 7:00-7:30pm Repeat Presentation and Q&A• 7:30-7:45pm Staff Available for DiscussionStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 46
Goals for Tonight’s Meeting• Review Project Schedule and Recap Project Progress• Review Proposed Closure of W27th Street Entrance Ramp to Hwy 100• Review Other Possible Ramp / Street Options• Summarize Possible Next Steps• Listen – Answer Questions• Identify Concerns• Request CommentsStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 47
Project Development Process1. Scoping and Concept Alternatives• May 2010 – May 20112. Municipal Consent Process• Jun 2011 – Dec 20113. Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment• January 2012 – January 20134. Final Design, R/W, and Construction Documents• January 2013 – September 20155. Construction• 2016 thru 2018Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 48
Project Recap• Mn/DOT Developed and Evaluated Four Concepts (A-D)• Mn/DOT, County, and City Select Concept C for Further Evaluation• Concept C Enhancements Proposed by City• W27th Street Ramp Closure or Revisions Required by Mn/DOT• City to Provide Mn/DOT Input on Ramp OptionsStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 49
Concept CStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 50
W27th Street Ramp Options• Close Ramp (Exhibit C)• Revise Ramp at Current Location (Exhibit D)• Relocate Ramp to the north (Exhibits E1 – E3)– Close W27th Street entrance ramp– Close Parkdale entrance ramp– Possible Revisions to Local StreetsStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 51
Exhibit A - Existing Situation and TrafficStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 52
Exhibit B – Leave Ramp As IsStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 53
Exhibit C – Close RampStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 54
Exhibit D – Revise RampStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 55
Exhibit E1 – Relocate RampClose W27th St Ramp Close Parkdale RampStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 56
Exhibit E2 – Relocate RampClose W27th St Ramp Close Parkdale RampStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 57
Exhibit E3 – Relocate RampClose W27th St Ramp Close Parkdale RampStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 58
Next Steps• City schedules additional area meetings - if needed• City staff evaluates input and reports back to Council• Council chooses ramp option and notifies Mn/DOT• Mn/DOT revises Concept C• Mn/DOT performs modeling / traffic analysis on revised Concept C• Mn/DOT revises / finalizes Concept C and begins Municipal Consent process with CityStudy Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction ProjectPage 59
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed. This report is being provided as background information for the discussion at
the Study Session. Actual information on the impact of a shutdown will be dependent on what
specifically happens at the State of Minnesota.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council need any additional information regarding this topic at this time?
BACKGROUND:
Question: What impact will a State government shutdown have on the operations of the
City of St. Louis Park and the services it provides?
Answer: It depends on what functions of the State are shutdown and how long a
shutdown might last.
As a State government shutdown on July 1 is before us, there is little certainty about what
services will be deemed “core functions” by the Ramsey County District Court, which is
scheduled to hear arguments on the matter on June 23, 2011. In addition, other legal action
which is raising constitutional questions is pending before the courts that could have an impact
on this issue.
Watching the Facts: Department Directors have been monitoring information, emails and
official documentation from the State. Staff has reviewed operations in preparation to handle, as
best as possible, any operational issues that may surface if a shutdown takes place.
Funding from MVHC and LGA: At the present time, we expect a shutdown will have a minimal
effect on our basic operations. The City no longer receives Local Government Aid or the Market
Value Homestead Credit. Cities that rely on LGA or MVHC are in a much tougher financial
cash flow situation than we are since we no longer receive these funds.
What will be impacted in our City operations? Attached to this document is a listing of areas and
operational activities that have been officially identified by the State that deal with our City
functions. This list changes by the hour as we receive more information from State agencies.
We know there is much media attention, theory and opinion on this topic, and we are working to
gather the facts so we can continue to handle our business needs for our residents as best as
possible. We will know more once it is determined a shutdown will take place and after the
court determines what State operations are considered “core functions”. As noted earlier, other
legal action has been filed with the courts which raise constitutional questions about the process
of determining “core functions”. This could also have an impact on the shutdown.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown
What else may impact our residents from a shutdown? This is to be determined. As stated
earlier, the core functions of City are not expected to be negatively impacted. However,
secondary or ripple effects of a shutdown are being considered. We expect the shutdown will
have more of a direct impact on our residents who may be employed by the State, use public
health services and are in need of State approvals for business or personal matters. Private
companies that have contracts with the State may also be impacted by the shutdown. There are
many questions about court services, education programs, medical, transportation, lending and
banking, and property information at the State level. There are many other possibilities that
won’t be specifically identified until the shutdown takes place and the determination of “core
functions” is documented.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not know at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Summary of Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Assisted by: All Departments
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Human Resources
Administrative Services
To: Tom Harmening, City Manager
From: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Subject: Summary of Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown
Date: June 22, 2011
Thank you to staff from all departments that have contributed information they have received
from State agencies regarding State shutdown information. Each day and hour, more official
information is received and we are monitoring the impact, if any, on our operations. The
purpose of this memo is to provide an update on City services as it relates to a possible State
government shutdown.
Question: What impact will a State government shutdown have on the City of St. Louis
Park?
Answer: It depends on what portions of State government is shutdown and how long it
lasts.
Listed below are some specific communications from State agencies that may have a direct
impact on our operations. The Directors continue to monitor this and this listing will change
based on the timing of the information we receive.
State Auditor
What is the information from the State Auditor related to our City?
The Auditor’s website will shutdown as of June 30. The City will not be able to access reporting
forms, online training videos, or educational materials such as form instructions, Statements of
Position and our TIF Newsletter.
The State Auditor’s Form Entry System (SAFES), web application for downloading and
submitting reporting forms, will also shutdown at 4:30 p.m. on June 30. To prepare for this
possibility, the Auditor’s Office strongly urges you to download, print and/or save any
documents that you may need.
OSA staff will not be working, and therefore, will not be available to provide assistance and
support by phone or email.
St Louis Park: No direct impact anticipated.
Department of Health
What is the information from Department of Health?
MDH has a website with information on activities as it relates to a shutdown or partial shutdown.
Much of this information is related to public health and healthcare and can be found at
http://www.health.state.mn.us/topics/shutdown/factsheet.html.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown Page 3
- 2 -
St Louis Park: Staff is reviewing and aware of this information and anticipates a minimal
operational impact to our operations.
Housing
What is the information from Human Services as it relates to housing?
A State shutdown could impact a number of our tenants and Section 8 participants that receive
income funds through the State, including MFIP, MSA and GA.
St Louis Park: We are working on a plan to process rent adjustment requests due to income
reductions.
Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health
What is the information from Hennepin County regarding Human Services and Public Health?
If State funding is stopped, funding through the County will be stopped.
St. Louis Park: No direct impact to City operations. Residents who use the services provided
through the County will be impacted.
Department of Labor and Industry
What is the information from DOL?
In the absence of a budget, all services will shutdown effective July 1, 2011 unless deemed
essential. DOL services include: issuance of licenses, permits, building plan approval,
vocational rehabilitation, worker’s compensation dispute resolution and mediation services,
OSHA consultation, administration of exams required for licensure, the approval of
apprenticeship agreements, approval of electrical and other inspections related to imminent
danger or catastrophic situations.
St Louis Park: Impact on residents/businesses and our service delivery seem limited to:
We are a delegated full-service review/inspection City. State regulations state any
plumbing plans for hospitals and nursing homes must additionally be reviewed by the
State. This would delay our ability to issue plumbing permits for Methodist or the
Golden Living Center Nursing Home.
We would be unable to issue permits to building/plumbing/electrical contractors who are
not current with a State license or are new to the State.
Residential contractor complaint and recovery fund operations at the State would stop.
Golden Valley has contacted us to explore St. Louis Park performing electrical
inspections.
MN Department of Health has stated that they intend to maintain only minimum staffing
during a shutdown. This would affect St. Louis Park only in the case of investigating
food borne illness reports. With the resources possible through Hennepin County and all
cities mutual aid agreement, the concern is minimal.
Elevator inspections will not be conducted by the State of Minnesota. St Louis Park
anticipates minimal impact since we do not have any plans requiring review on this topic
at the present time.
Continue collecting the State surcharge fee (which we will) and either send or hold it
based on direction from State.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown Page 4
- 3 -
Mn/DOT Transportation
What is the information from Mn/DOT regarding shutdown as it relates to our City?
In the absence of an appropriation signed into law, Mn/DOT will have no or limited authority to
expend or release funds to pay for goods or services after June 30, 2011. In this event,
expenditures will be limited to fund or support only critical life, health and safety functions of
State government.
Mn/DOT must advise all contractors, vendors and grantees that in the absence of legislatively
authorized appropriations as of July 1, 2011, all work, activity and performances under our
contracts must be suspended as of that date, pending authorized appropriations. All payments
required of this agency under those contracts will also be suspended.
In the absence of legislatively authorized appropriations as of July 1, Mn/DOT (cities assist with
this notification) must advise all holders of Federal aid construction contracts to suspend all work
activity.
Agencies who are currently advertising Federal projects should be aware that effective July 1, in
the event of an interruption in government services, it is likely that no staff will be available
within Mn/DOT to process the DBE clearances. Cities should be considering the possibility that
those projects let after June 15 may not move to award within the normal 30 day window nor
should a contractor plan to start work during a shutdown of State services.
Federal aid work under special agreement for preliminary engineering or similar services can
continue if they are in process since our agreement with the FHWA does not require constant
oversight. The agreement you signed accepting the funds specifically states that you understand
that you must carry the costs until reimbursement can be made.
Regular State aid, turnback, town bridge and bridge bonding funded construction projects that
are already approved can continue operations; however, it is likely no Mn/DOT lab or bridge
staff will be available for consultation or services. It is also likely that no additional projects will
be processed nor will any payments be made.
The State Master Agreements that we have with each agency will likely be suspended. The
suspension includes any work orders associated with them. You will receive a separate
notification of that suspension by the end of the month.
If your State aid or Federal aid work includes cooperative agreement money from Mn/DOT TH
you must suspend work. No option! Mn/DOT is incurring a liability if you continue to do work
on a project that they are participating in and that is not legally allowed.
If your State aid work includes work on the TH right of way but no Mn/DOT funds are included
in the project, you can continue to work but your contractor can not touch anything on the
Mn/DOT right of way.
All of these requirements are subject to change based on a review by the court system.
St. Louis Park: Public Works staff is working closely with Mn/DOT on this information as this
relates to the following projects in our City:
Highway 7 and Wooddale.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown Page 5
- 4 -
Hennepin County project on Excelsior Boulevard bridge replacement by Methodist is a
Federal project and we assume it will be suspended (to be determined).
Another project in question that we will watch is the work planned by Centerpoint
Energy by Knollwood (possible delay).
Highway 100, 169 noise wall and entrance ramps. We can continue the public process
and may be on hold if shutdown is for an extended period of time.
May have delays if permits, projects or review on projects are needed by Mn/DOT (to be
determined).
Finance Review of Transfers
Has the City reviewed the impact of financial transfers and funding as it relates to the possible
shutdown?
Yes, below are areas on the watch list for Finance and the impact to St. Louis Park:
Aid transfer is in October. We do not anticipate an operational issue with this area.
Drug Task Force: Quarterly funding provided by June 30 so we expect to receive this
prior to shutdown. Fund balance adequate for operations at this time.
MSA Funds: Reimbursements are made based on requests from Public Works. None
anticipated at this time.
2% “Fire Funds” (Police, Fire and PERA Aid) estimated at $600,000 in October. We do
not anticipate an operational issue with this area.
Tax settlements of $8.7 million were received on June 20, 2011.
SAC funding is quarterly and do not expect an issue with this area.
Other
What other areas may be affected by the possible State shutdown?
Tree Grant
We have not received anything official. We will have a $25,000 grant submittal for trees
that may be delayed with the shutdown.
Impact may be a delay in St Louis Park receiving the grant from the DNR.
POST Licensing for Sworn Officers in Police Department
The only official notice we have received is related to POST license renewals. Chief
Luse has informed us that we have submitted all the renewals and do not anticipate any
problems.
BCA and Courts
Some additional concerns may pop up related to several types of licensing, evidence
processing, and information sharing via BCA, particularly if the shutdown lasts more
than a week or two.
We are monitoring information on the courts. Nothing on the courts or prisoner handling
processing is being mentioned right now.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown Page 6
- 5 -
Primary Election in St Louis Park
Our City Clerk reports that there are meetings with Hennepin County taking place
regarding planning of primary elections and a possible shutdown of State operations. It
appears absentee voters would be the most affected because we would not be able to see
voter history on the State system causing some to re-register. Impact and work around:
- State database SVRS would not be accessible (used to look up registration of voters
and enter absentee voter data). Plan is to use an Excel spreadsheet prepared by the
County and hand enter the new voter information daily. With the small amount of
absentee voters, this should not be a major issue. We will be using the SVRS until
June 30 or as long as we can before a shutdown. We also have our own software for
absentee voting data that we will be using instead of the State system.
- Election Day Roster pages for each precinct will be handled by the County if the
State shuts down. This actually works better for St. Louis Park because Hennepin
County can print the pages closer to the election to show more of our Primary
absentee voters recorded so the judges won’t have to do it on election day.
- The State Election Reporting System (ERS) would not be accessible to report election
results. No problem here because we can use our own website to show immediate
results instead of linking to State.
Community Development Related Activities
Grants: We have a handful of DEED (Department of Employment and Economic
Development), Met Council and BWSR (Board of Water and Soil Resources) grants that
could be affected by a shutdown. In the case of the DEED and BWSR grants, no activity
is expected until fall of this year, which means we should not have a problem unless the
shutdown is very long.
MNS EAW: Currently under review at Mn/DOT. They officially have 15 working days
and a possible additional 15 working day extension to complete their review if they need
it. The 15 day review period would end July 7. However, our understanding is that they
are trying to complete their review prior to the end of June and any potential shutdown.
If they do not complete their review, the State Commissioner of Transportation has the
authority to make the decision himself during the shutdown.
We are uncertain about implementation of private projects for which we have contracts in
place like the Hardcoat Construction Assistance Program recipient. This could get stalled
by a State shutdown, which in turn could delay their closing on the purchase of the Flame
Metals’ property and their financing. A delay could push them past the deadline for
starting the project under the terms in our development contract.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Possible Implications of a State Government Shutdown Page 7
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Interim Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. A three month interim report of food/liquor sales through May, 2011 for Toby
Keith’s is being provided for Council review as required by Resolution No. 11-30 adopted
February 22, 2011 in regards to the 6 month probationary status of the licensee. In accordance
with the Resolution, a final 6 month report through August, 2011 will be provided to Council in
September, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council need any additional information on this item at this time?
BACKGROUND:
Toby Keith I Love this Bar began operation June 4, 2010 with a liquor license approved by
Council on April 5, 2010. Each year, liquor establishments must meet certain requirements in
order to allow for Council approval of the renewal of their liquor licenses. The renewal
application received in January 2011 from Toby Keith’s did not meet the requirement of at least
50% of the gross receipts attributable to the sale of food.
City Ordinance Section 3-71 states the City Council may attach special conditions to the
approval of a liquor license based upon the nature of the business, the location of the business
and verified complaints, if any, to protect the health, safety, welfare and quietude of the city, and
ensure harmony with the location where the business is located. Violation of any of the
conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the license.
On February 22, 2011, Council adopted Resolution No. 11-30 (attached) approving the on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for Toby Keith’s for the license year term through March
1, 2012 with the following conditions:
1. Licensee is put on a probationary status for 6 months. (starting March 1 – Aug.31)
2. Licensee shall provide an interim report of food/liquor sales from Jan. - May, 2011 by June
15, 2011 for Council review.
3. Licensee shall provide a second report of food/liquor sales for the period of Jan. - Aug., 2011
by September 15, 2011.
4. Licensee will continue working with city staff to meet liquor license compliance requirements.
5. Staff will report final probationary results of the 6 month period to Council in September
2011 and, if in non-compliance, Council may take further action during this license period up
to and including revocation of the license.
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No.8) Page 2
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Interim Report
This report is to inform Council of the food/liquor sales reported from Toby Keith’s during the
first half of their 6 month probation period up to May 31, 2011 as required by condition two
above.
Food and Liquor Sales were reported as follows:
2010 Previous Reported Sales
Months Food
%
Liquor
%
Other Retail
%
Total Sales
%
June - Dec. 2010 30.92% 67.16% 1.92% 100%
2011 Reported Monthly Sales
Month Food
%
Liquor
%
Other Retail
%
Total Sales
%
January 2011 28.53% 69.53% 1.93% 100%
February 2011 28.12% 71.05% .83% 100%
March 2011
(probation begins) 31.11% 68.21% .68% 100%
April 2011 31.52% 67.72% .76% 100%
May 2011 38.33% 61.33% .34% 100%
Attached is a letter received from the licensee stating steps they are taking to achieve the
requirement that at least 50% of the gross receipts are attributable to the sale of food.
NEXT STEPS:
1. City Clerk’s office will receive the final report of food and liquor sales through August 2011
by September 15, 2011.
2. Council will receive the final 6 month probationary results at the September 26 Study
Session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Letter from Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar
Copy of Resolution No.11-030 Approved February 22, 2011
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No.8) Page 3
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Interim Report
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No.8) Page 4
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Interim Report
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
May 2011 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues
and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds
should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the
discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
Actual expenditures should generally run about 42% of the annual budget through May.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 38.9% of the adopted budget and the Park
and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 40.9% of budget. Revenues tend to be harder to gauge
in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include
property taxes and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc).
As is not always the case every month, all May payroll expense had been recorded at the time
this report was prepared. However, please note that due to a change in practice beginning in
May 2011, vendor invoices submitted for payment will no longer be posted back to the prior
month. This means that invoices received in June will be expensed in June, even though the
associated expense may have been applicable to the month of May. This change will likely
cause some slight positive budget to actual variances until the end of the year.
Significant variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied
with a general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
As of May, 61% of the license and permit revenues have been received in the General
Fund. This is consistent with prior years in that most 2011 liquor and business license
payments have been received. In the Administration Department, 98.9% or $219,000 of
the budgeted liquor license revenues have been received. In the Inspections Department,
96.6% or $502,000 of the business license revenues for the year have been recorded, with
most of the payments coming in late 2010 and deferred to 2011 to accurately reflect the
year that the license revenue is earned. Permit revenues are at 44.4% through May.
Expenditures:
Personal Services under Facilities Maintenance is currently well below budget at 31%
and will most likely continue to be under budget for the remainder of the year. This is
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No.9) Page 2
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report
due to the retirement of the Facilities Superintendent and the subsequent staffing
reorganization.
Under the Police Department, the Supplies budget is running high through May at 48.6%.
This is due to some larger purchases in the first part of the year for uniforms, vests, and
other operational supplies, and should only be a temporary variance.
The Community Outreach budget for Services and Other Charges is at 52.75% of budget
because the annual fee for mediation services was paid in May.
Public Works Administration is currently exceeding budget under Personal Services at
45.2%. An allocation change needs to be made for how the Solid Waste Inspector’s time
is recorded to coincide with the adopted Solid Waste Utility Budget. After this
adjustment is made, Personal Services will be correctly reflected in the General Fund.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
Certain Park & Recreation Divisions, such as the Recreation Center and Environment,
appear to be running well below budget for Personal Services at 31% and 34%
respectively. Both of these divisions have a significant portion of the Personal Services
budget for temporary help, and due to the seasonal nature of the work, very little of the
temporary salaries budgets have been spent to date. This is anticipated to even out over
the summer months.
In the Organized Recreation Division, Supplies are exceeding budget at 59%. A $9,900
purchase was made in January of youth recreational equipment components, which will
be installed this summer to replace or repair existing play structures. In May, $5,500 was
spent for tables and storage at the splash pad. Many expenses incurred in this division
are seasonal and a budget overage at end of year is not anticipated.
Also in the Organized Recreation Division, Services & Other Charges are exceeding
budget at 64%. This is due in part to a $15,000 payment made in April for the 4th of July
fireworks display. The full 2011 Community Education contribution in the amount of
$187,400 was also paid to the School District in March. Both of these payments are
consistent with the prior year.
Under Vehicle Maintenance, both Supplies (48.7%) and Services & Other Charges
(77.5%) are exceeding budget through May. There have been many unanticipated
equipment repairs requiring external service and labor work, which is a primary reason
for this. The total expenses for the Vehicle Maintenance Division as a whole are at
50.3% through May due to these unforeseen expenses. Staff will continue to monitor
expenses in this division closely throughout the remainder of the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:12:18R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 15,426,072.00-15,426,072.00-|14,889,605.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,345,910.00- 161,118.39- 1,436,016.69- 909,893.31- 61.21 |2,294,768.00-1,368,431.81- 59.63
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 328,200.00- 23,666.90- 100,072.57- 228,127.43- 30.49 |311,750.00-104,330.16- 33.47
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,136,187.00-5,310.08- 275,852.22- 860,334.78- 24.28 |1,598,787.00-445,695.60- 27.88
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,152,643.00- 107,631.40- 272,451.15- 880,191.85- 23.64 |1,138,018.00-304,526.36- 26.76
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,150.00-8,460.51- 61,950.98- 38,199.02- 61.86 |100,000.00-57,395.62- 57.40
4001 REVENUES 20,489,162.00-306,187.28-2,146,343.61-18,342,818.39-10.48 |20,332,928.00-2,280,379.55-11.22
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,397,016.00 1,524,290.77 7,463,073.78 10,933,942.22 40.57 |18,132,004.00 7,570,785.79 41.75
6210 SUPPLIES 768,410.00 29,007.15 256,798.33 511,611.67 33.42 |846,535.00 270,119.43 31.91
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 63,425.00 234.42 11,624.30 51,800.70 18.33 |67,775.00 40,707.03 60.06
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,851,437.00 251,057.16 1,245,707.91 2,605,729.09 32.34 |3,922,858.00 1,301,449.64 33.18
6001 EXPENDITURES 23,080,288.00 1,804,589.50 8,977,204.32 14,103,083.68 38.90 |22,969,172.00 9,183,061.89 39.98
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,589,876.00- 212,573.00- 1,062,865.00- 1,527,011.00- 41.04 |2,583,825.00-1,076,593.70- 41.67
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 4,000.00-7.88- 1,739.77-2,260.23- 43.49 |1,500.00-16,628.42- 1,108.56
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-38,720.75 238,720.75- 19.36- |200,000.00-1,624.04- .81
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 261.60- 1,160.87-1,160.87 |
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 750.00-125.00- 2,950.00-2,200.00 393.33 |3,078.00-
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 1,585.22- 1,853.56-1,853.56 |100.00-35.54- 35.54
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,794,626.00-214,552.70-1,031,848.45-1,762,777.55-36.92 |2,785,425.00-1,097,959.70-39.42
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 182,000.00 3.52 260.99 181,739.01 .14 |181,181.00 7.13-
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21,500.00 1,855.80 7,785.87 13,714.13 36.21 |19,000.00 8,702.84 45.80
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 203,500.00 1,859.32 8,046.86 195,453.14 3.95 |200,181.00 8,695.71 4.34
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,285,708.84 5,807,059.12 5,807,059.12-|51,000.00 5,813,418.35 *********
01000 GENERAL FUND 1,285,708.84 5,807,059.12 5,807,059.12-|51,000.00 5,813,418.35 *********
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:12:18R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,000,561.00-4,000,561.00-|4,014,872.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,600.00-110.00-6,490.00-1.67 |6,275.00-512.00- 8.16
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 77,652.00-7,724.36- 27,738.69- 49,913.31- 35.72 |71,219.00-45,988.01- 64.57
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,095,250.00- 80,722.21- 344,951.65- 750,298.35- 31.50 |1,073,900.00-367,256.40- 34.20
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 937,400.00- 80,864.96- 304,091.94- 633,308.06- 32.44 |906,900.00-287,060.50- 31.65
4001 REVENUES 6,117,463.00-169,311.53-676,892.28-5,440,570.72-11.06 |6,073,166.00-700,816.91-11.54
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,524,740.00 292,757.96 1,355,387.69 2,169,352.31 38.45 |3,440,416.00 1,305,106.23 37.93
6210 SUPPLIES 854,846.00 81,092.47 345,217.86 509,628.14 40.38 |906,881.00 255,840.20 28.21
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00 4,681.57 113.63
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,729,657.00 96,034.94 799,436.31 930,220.69 46.22 |1,712,749.00 725,756.31 42.37
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,500.00 1,500.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,114,863.00 469,885.37 2,500,041.86 3,614,821.14 40.88 |6,071,166.00 2,291,384.31 37.74
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |680.89-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-1,100.00- 13,900.00-7.33 |13,000.00-5,556.56- 42.74
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 5,440.00-5,440.00 |5,440.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-6,540.00-8,460.00-43.60 |13,000.00-11,677.45-89.83
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 203.51 203.51 203.51-|39.00
8580 MISC EXPENSE 5.09 5.09 5.09-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17,600.00 2,648.77 7,757.16 9,842.84 44.07 |15,000.00 6,910.34 46.07
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17,600.00 2,857.37 7,965.76 9,634.24 45.26 |15,000.00 6,949.34 46.33
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 303,431.21 1,824,575.34 1,824,575.34-|1,585,839.29
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 303,431.21 1,824,575.34 1,824,575.34-|1,585,839.29
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
100 GENERAL
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 15,426,072.00-15,426,072.00-|14,889,605.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-5,331.79- 15,995.37- 29,209.63- 35.38 |45,205.00-25,586.40- 56.60
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 33.53-50.92-50.92 |117.92-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 37,765.92- 47,234.08- 44.43 |85,000.00-40,343.82- 47.46
4001 REVENUES 15,556,277.00-12,448.65-53,812.21-15,502,464.79-.35 |15,019,810.00-66,048.14-.44
6001 EXPENDITURES
6210 SUPPLIES 75.09 75.09-|1,984.56
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 708.18 708.18-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 15,987.96 15,987.96-|24,676.12
6001 EXPENDITURES 16,771.23 16,771.23-|26,660.68
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,550,876.00- 212,573.00- 1,062,865.00- 1,488,011.00- 41.67 |2,583,825.00-1,076,593.70- 41.67
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-38,720.75 238,720.75- 19.36- |200,000.00-1,624.04- .81
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,750,876.00-212,573.00-1,024,144.25-1,726,731.75-37.23 |2,783,825.00-1,078,217.74-38.73
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,681.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |1,013.92
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,681.00 1,013.92 .56
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 18,127,153.00-225,021.65-1,061,185.23-17,065,967.77-5.85 |17,622,954.00-1,116,591.28-6.34
100 GENERAL 18,127,153.00-225,021.65-1,061,185.23-17,065,967.77-5.85 |17,622,954.00-1,116,591.28-6.34
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 5
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
110 ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 221,590.00-9,075.53- 219,065.53-2,524.47- 98.86 |183,360.00-189,231.67- 103.20
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-250.00-7,750.00-3.13 |8,000.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 860.16- 3,022.12-3,022.12 |313.11-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00-50.00 |
4001 REVENUES 229,590.00-9,935.69-222,387.65-7,202.35-96.86 |191,360.00-189,544.78-99.05
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 469,088.00 37,294.76 178,524.10 290,563.90 38.06 |444,400.00 205,739.24 46.30
6210 SUPPLIES 2,900.00 17.60 326.95 2,573.05 11.27 |3,100.00 453.84 14.64
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 417,810.00 24,751.13 143,206.96 274,603.04 34.28 |476,972.00 146,032.29 30.62
6001 EXPENDITURES 889,798.00 62,063.49 322,058.01 567,739.99 36.19 |924,472.00 352,225.37 38.10
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 100.00-100.00 |
8200 MISC REVENUE 1,585.22- 1,785.22-1,785.22 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,585.22-1,885.22-1,885.22 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 2.37 2.37 2.37-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2.37 2.37 2.37-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 660,208.00 50,544.95 97,787.51 562,420.49 14.81 |733,112.00 162,680.59 22.19
110 ADMINISTRATION 660,208.00 50,544.95 97,787.51 562,420.49 14.81 |733,112.00 162,680.59 22.19
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 6
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 ACCOUNTING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 48,318.00-8,053.02- 20,132.54- 28,185.46- 41.67 |48,318.00-16,496.88- 34.14
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-8,053.02-20,132.54-28,185.46-41.67 |48,318.00-16,496.88-34.14
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 452,004.00 42,386.85 193,880.58 258,123.42 42.89 |444,200.00 230,389.44 51.87
6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 106.21 590.27 2,409.73 19.68 |3,000.00 972.14 32.40
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 155,710.00 12,354.23 56,986.18 98,723.82 36.60 |140,650.00 51,473.21 36.60
6001 EXPENDITURES 610,714.00 54,847.29 251,457.03 359,256.97 41.17 |587,850.00 282,834.79 48.11
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 750.00-125.00- 2,950.00-2,200.00 393.33 |2,900.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 750.00-125.00-2,950.00-2,200.00 393.33 |2,900.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 2,000.00 2,000.00 |500.00 7.13- 1.43-
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 250.00 250.00 |500.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2,250.00 2,250.00 |1,000.00 7.13-.71-
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 563,896.00 46,669.27 228,374.49 335,521.51 40.50 |540,532.00 263,430.78 48.74
120 ACCOUNTING 563,896.00 46,669.27 228,374.49 335,521.51 40.50 |540,532.00 263,430.78 48.74
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 7
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
121 ASSESSING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00-150.00-100.00 |
4001 REVENUES 150.00-150.00-100.00 |
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 488,690.00 42,367.70 205,855.09 282,834.91 42.12 |476,600.00 196,908.59 41.32
6210 SUPPLIES 1,200.00 94.06 386.48 813.52 32.21 |1,225.00 220.19 17.97
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 10,251.00 156.57 1,582.32 8,668.68 15.44 |12,255.00 3,418.61 27.90
6001 EXPENDITURES 500,141.00 42,618.33 207,823.89 292,317.11 41.55 |490,080.00 200,547.39 40.92
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |.01-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |.01-
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 499,991.00 42,618.33 207,673.89 292,317.11 41.54 |490,080.00 200,547.38 40.92
121 ASSESSING 499,991.00 42,618.33 207,673.89 292,317.11 41.54 |490,080.00 200,547.38 40.92
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 8
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
130 HUMAN RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 11,000.00-1.00 5,171.00-5,829.00- 47.01 |9,000.00-9,026.00- 100.29
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |264.00-
4001 REVENUES 11,000.00-1.00 5,171.00-5,829.00-47.01 |9,000.00-9,290.00-103.22
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 497,170.00 44,573.03 211,904.81 285,265.19 42.62 |482,400.00 200,067.93 41.47
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 221.07 1,508.92 491.08 75.45 |2,000.00 627.17 31.36
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 153,600.00 8,829.18 62,062.77 91,537.23 40.41 |160,550.00 60,742.14 37.83
6001 EXPENDITURES 652,770.00 53,623.28 275,476.50 377,293.50 42.20 |644,950.00 261,437.24 40.54
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 3.52 3.52 3.52-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 3.52 3.52 3.52-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 641,770.00 53,627.80 270,309.02 371,460.98 42.12 |635,950.00 252,147.24 39.65
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 641,770.00 53,627.80 270,309.02 371,460.98 42.12 |635,950.00 252,147.24 39.65
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 9
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 9,000.00-1,395.00- 5,165.00-3,835.00- 57.39 |9,000.00-4,950.00- 55.00
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 48.22 1,201.78-1,201.78 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 613,225.00- 90,911.61- 215,524.54- 397,700.46- 35.15 |594,000.00-223,189.35- 37.57
4001 REVENUES 622,225.00-92,258.39-221,891.32-400,333.68-35.66 |603,000.00-228,139.35-37.83
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,036,336.00 88,829.98 420,345.50 615,990.50 40.56 |1,001,700.00 579,781.38 57.88
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 131.04 1,568.96 7.71 |1,700.00 213.03 12.53
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,150.00 496.53 2,870.71 53,279.29 5.11 |47,750.00 1,025.02 2.15
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,094,186.00 89,326.51 423,347.25 670,838.75 38.69 |1,051,150.00 581,019.43 55.27
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 471,961.00 2,931.88-201,455.93 270,505.07 42.68 |448,150.00 352,880.08 78.74
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 471,961.00 2,931.88-201,455.93 270,505.07 42.68 |448,150.00 352,880.08 78.74
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 10
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 43,000.00-43,000.00-|43,000.00-17,250.00- 40.12
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,307.47- 8,961.29-6,038.71- 59.74 |15,000.00-7,500.00- 50.00
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,307.47-8,961.29-49,038.71-15.45 |58,000.00-24,750.00-42.67
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 543,009.00 32,717.83 168,924.95 374,084.05 31.11 |546,200.00 213,096.58 39.01
6210 SUPPLIES 79,650.00 7,694.15 25,608.10 54,041.90 32.15 |86,150.00 21,236.49 24.65
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 20,000.00 423.21 19,576.79 2.12 |26,000.00 3,837.73 14.76
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 471,892.00 46,288.73 185,453.36 286,438.64 39.30 |423,392.00 134,153.98 31.69
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,114,551.00 86,700.71 380,409.62 734,141.38 34.13 |1,081,742.00 372,324.78 34.42
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 68.34-68.34 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 68.34-68.34 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |34.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |34.00
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,056,551.00 85,393.24 371,379.99 685,171.01 35.15 |1,023,742.00 347,608.78 33.95
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,056,551.00 85,393.24 371,379.99 685,171.01 35.15 |1,023,742.00 347,608.78 33.95
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 11
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 342.29-342.29 |
4001 REVENUES 342.29-342.29 |
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 529,075.00 45,194.79 219,955.28 309,119.72 41.57 |516,850.00 241,266.09 46.68
6210 SUPPLIES 29,000.00 850.07 3,385.15 25,614.85 11.67 |23,500.00 11,133.88 47.38
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,400.00 4,358.95 1,958.95- 181.62 |23,556.10
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 833,751.00 47,157.13 294,473.24 539,277.76 35.32 |860,316.00 343,393.49 39.91
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,394,226.00 93,201.99 522,172.62 872,053.38 37.45 |1,400,666.00 619,349.56 44.22
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |35.54-
8001 OTHER INCOME |35.54-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 12.22-12.22 |42.31
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 12.22-12.22 |42.31
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,394,226.00 93,201.99 521,818.11 872,407.89 37.43 |1,400,666.00 619,356.33 44.22
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,394,226.00 93,201.99 521,818.11 872,407.89 37.43 |1,400,666.00 619,356.33 44.22
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 12
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |3,000.00-
4001 REVENUES |3,000.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 196,370.00 15,587.20 75,786.92 120,583.08 38.59 |188,280.00 55,016.61 29.22
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |100.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 98,000.00 7,082.10 29,888.57 68,111.43 30.50 |93,525.00 24,377.72 26.07
6001 EXPENDITURES 294,470.00 22,669.30 105,675.49 188,794.51 35.89 |281,905.00 79,394.33 28.16
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 294,470.00 22,669.30 105,675.49 188,794.51 35.89 |278,905.00 79,394.33 28.47
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 294,470.00 22,669.30 105,675.49 188,794.51 35.89 |278,905.00 79,394.33 28.47
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 13
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
160 POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 4,500.00-2,850.00- 4,500.00-100.00 |900.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 320,000.00- 23,666.90- 99,382.57- 220,617.43- 31.06 |303,500.00-104,190.73- 34.33
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 446,982.00-26.51-355.68- 446,626.32-.08 |800,582.00-170,956.38- 21.35
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 100,700.00-7,315.75- 26,308.00- 74,392.00- 26.13 |109,700.00-27,458.75- 25.03
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 14,514.08- 14,514.08 |9,287.80-
4001 REVENUES 872,182.00-33,859.16-145,060.33-727,121.67-16.63 |1,213,782.00-312,793.66-25.77
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,599,679.00 549,238.50 2,677,919.13 3,921,759.87 40.58 |6,609,294.00 2,672,564.46 40.44
6210 SUPPLIES 96,600.00 11,411.41 46,908.80 49,691.20 48.56 |141,050.00 23,401.36 16.59
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,025.00 234.42 6,133.96 26,891.04 18.57 |33,775.00 10,713.20 31.72
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 478,958.00 30,164.63 131,155.16 347,802.84 27.38 |521,783.00 155,578.75 29.82
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,208,262.00 591,048.96 2,862,117.05 4,346,144.95 39.71 |7,305,902.00 2,862,257.77 39.18
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 39,000.00-39,000.00-|
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 4,000.00-7.88- 1,739.77-2,260.23- 43.49 |1,500.00-16,628.42- 1,108.56
8001 OTHER INCOME 43,000.00-7.88-1,739.77-41,260.23-4.05 |1,500.00-16,628.42-1,108.56
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 250.00 30.76 172.26 77.74 68.90 |500.00 101.67 20.33
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 250.00 30.76 172.26 77.74 68.90 |500.00 101.67 20.33
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,293,330.00 557,212.68 2,715,489.21 3,577,840.79 43.15 |6,091,120.00 2,532,937.36 41.58
160 POLICE 6,293,330.00 557,212.68 2,715,489.21 3,577,840.79 43.15 |6,091,120.00 2,532,937.36 41.58
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 14
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 78,960.00 7,158.37 33,311.33 45,648.67 42.19 |76,700.00 31,834.88 41.51
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 4,318.23 4,591.39 4,113.61 52.74 |8,705.00 4,564.98 52.44
6001 EXPENDITURES 88,515.00 11,476.60 37,902.72 50,612.28 42.82 |86,255.00 36,399.86 42.20
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 88,515.00 11,476.60 37,902.72 50,612.28 42.82 |86,255.00 36,399.86 42.20
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 88,515.00 11,476.60 37,902.72 50,612.28 42.82 |86,255.00 36,399.86 42.20
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 15
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-2,277.27- 14,276.44- 25,723.56- 35.69 |40,000.00-14,593.62- 36.48
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 194,000.00-4,323.89- 189,676.11-2.23 |300,000.00-8,239.82- 2.75
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-435.00- 1,995.00-2,005.00- 49.88 |4,000.00-8,932.35- 223.31
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 60.00-60.00 |
4001 REVENUES 238,000.00-2,712.27-20,655.33-217,344.67-8.68 |344,000.00-31,765.79-9.23
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,877,201.00 224,572.22 1,168,479.41 1,708,721.59 40.61 |2,826,180.00 1,116,887.37 39.52
6210 SUPPLIES 69,560.00 2,286.43 10,556.87 59,003.13 15.18 |71,810.00 9,219.66 12.84
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 5,000.00 |5,000.00 2,600.00 52.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 212,583.00 16,763.79 69,060.25 143,522.75 32.49 |219,183.00 53,499.76 24.41
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,164,344.00 243,622.44 1,248,096.53 1,916,247.47 39.44 |3,122,173.00 1,182,206.79 37.86
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 261.60- 1,060.87-1,060.87 |
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES |178.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 261.60-1,060.87-1,060.87 |178.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,926,344.00 240,648.57 1,226,380.33 1,699,963.67 41.91 |2,778,173.00 1,150,263.00 41.40
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,926,344.00 240,648.57 1,226,380.33 1,699,963.67 41.91 |2,778,173.00 1,150,263.00 41.40
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 16
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,995,700.00- 129,600.59- 1,165,769.72- 829,930.28- 58.41 |1,987,288.00-1,131,549.52- 56.94
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,400.00-23.33-247.03-2,152.97- 10.29 |242.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 37.69-37.69 |
4001 REVENUES 1,998,100.00-129,623.92-1,166,054.44-832,045.56-58.36 |1,987,288.00-1,131,791.52-56.95
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,763,169.00 147,623.95 711,288.00 1,051,881.00 40.34 |1,713,100.00 676,021.13 39.46
6210 SUPPLIES 17,000.00 520.89 2,016.01 14,983.99 11.86 |21,500.00 2,545.14 11.84
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 62,127.00 2,720.15 15,663.72 46,463.28 25.21 |63,627.00 28,245.99 44.39
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,842,296.00 150,864.99 728,967.73 1,113,328.27 39.57 |1,798,227.00 706,812.26 39.31
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS |100.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |100.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21,000.00 1,822.67 7,623.46 13,376.54 36.30 |18,000.00 7,510.95 41.73
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 21,000.00 1,822.67 7,623.46 13,376.54 36.30 |18,000.00 7,510.95 41.73
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 134,804.00-23,063.74 429,463.25-294,659.25 318.58 |171,161.00-417,468.31-243.90
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 134,804.00-23,063.74 429,463.25-294,659.25 318.58 |171,161.00-417,468.31-243.90
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 17
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 795,548.00 74,737.01 359,786.20 435,761.80 45.22 |825,800.00 357,050.91 43.24
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 1,652.07 2,837.58 1,162.42 70.94 |4,000.00 846.78 21.17
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 29,150.00 495.00 3,530.33 25,619.67 12.11 |24,100.00 17,174.45 71.26
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,698.00 76,884.08 366,154.11 463,543.89 44.13 |854,900.00 375,072.14 43.87
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 829,698.00 76,884.08 366,154.11 463,543.89 44.13 |854,900.00 375,072.14 43.87
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 829,698.00 76,884.08 366,154.11 463,543.89 44.13 |854,900.00 375,072.14 43.87
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 18
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00- 15,920.00- 27,030.00- 47,970.00- 36.04 |75,000.00-27,057.00- 36.08
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-330,000.00-|330,000.00-1,500.00- .45
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 69.71-69.71-69.71 |
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-15,989.71-27,099.71-377,900.29-6.69 |405,000.00-28,557.00-7.05
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 772,432.00 66,596.41 303,768.76 468,663.24 39.33 |750,000.00 287,747.87 38.37
6210 SUPPLIES 6,850.00 817.61 1,484.37 5,365.63 21.67 |7,050.00 3,529.26 50.06
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 64,750.00 5,660.37 13,255.36 51,494.64 20.47 |70,750.00 11,148.90 15.76
6001 EXPENDITURES 846,032.00 73,074.39 318,508.49 527,523.51 37.65 |829,800.00 302,426.03 36.45
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 257.47 257.47-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 257.47 257.47-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 441,032.00 57,084.68 291,666.25 149,365.75 66.13 |424,800.00 273,869.03 64.47
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 441,032.00 57,084.68 291,666.25 149,365.75 66.13 |424,800.00 273,869.03 64.47
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 19
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 120.00-210.00-90.00 175.00 |120.00-150.00- 125.00
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 200.00-440.00-240.00 220.00 |250.00-139.43- 55.77
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-253,975.50- 196,024.50- 56.44 |450,000.00-240,913.00- 53.54
4001 REVENUES 450,320.00-254,625.50-195,694.50-56.54 |450,370.00-241,202.43-53.56
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,298,285.00 105,412.17 533,343.72 764,941.28 41.08 |1,230,300.00 506,413.31 41.16
6210 SUPPLIES 454,000.00 3,335.58 160,982.70 293,017.30 35.46 |479,500.00 193,735.93 40.40
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 798,000.00 43,819.39 215,939.63 582,060.37 27.06 |799,300.00 241,944.23 30.27
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,550,285.00 152,567.14 910,266.05 1,640,018.95 35.69 |2,509,100.00 942,093.47 37.55
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,099,965.00 152,567.14 655,640.55 1,444,324.45 31.22 |2,058,730.00 700,891.04 34.04
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,099,965.00 152,567.14 655,640.55 1,444,324.45 31.22 |2,058,730.00 700,891.04 34.04
01000 GENERAL FUND 1,285,708.84 5,807,059.12 5,807,059.12-|51,000.00 5,813,418.35 *********
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 20
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,000,561.00-4,000,561.00-|4,014,872.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-44,702.00-|44,702.00-22,351.00- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 263,000.00- 16,208.00- 171,474.66- 91,525.34- 65.20 |261,000.00-163,520.38- 62.65
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-1,617.50- 8,707.59- 22,692.41- 27.73 |31,400.00-5,691.00- 18.12
4001 REVENUES 4,339,663.00-17,825.50-180,182.25-4,159,480.75-4.15 |4,351,974.00-191,562.38-4.40
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 724,457.00 58,229.20 295,625.60 428,831.40 40.81 |715,280.00 263,132.03 36.79
6210 SUPPLIES 51,541.00 7,144.78 30,339.57 21,201.43 58.86 |59,451.00 7,838.99 13.19
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 446,232.00 23,219.67 285,289.61 160,942.39 63.93 |455,677.00 271,099.97 59.49
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,222,230.00 88,593.65 611,254.78 610,975.22 50.01 |1,230,408.00 542,070.99 44.06
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |680.89-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-750.00- 14,250.00-5.00 |15,000.00-4,350.00- 29.00
8200 MISC REVENUE 5,440.00-5,440.00 |5,440.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-6,190.00-8,810.00-41.27 |15,000.00-10,470.89-69.81
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |39.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17,000.00 2,468.53 7,335.06 9,664.94 43.15 |15,000.00 6,593.64 43.96
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17,000.00 2,468.53 7,335.06 9,664.94 43.15 |15,000.00 6,632.64 44.22
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,115,433.00-73,236.68 432,217.59 3,547,650.59-13.87-|3,121,566.00-346,670.36 11.11-
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,115,433.00-73,236.68 432,217.59 3,547,650.59-13.87-|3,121,566.00-346,670.36 11.11-
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 21
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
201 RECREATION CENTER
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 638,000.00- 53,132.34- 117,655.06- 520,344.94- 18.44 |630,000.00-135,831.76- 21.56
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 771,000.00- 69,480.64- 245,443.73- 525,556.27- 31.83 |744,500.00-226,780.17- 30.46
4001 REVENUES 1,409,000.00-122,612.98-363,098.79-1,045,901.21-25.77 |1,374,500.00-362,611.93-26.38
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 786,207.00 54,349.77 245,340.74 540,866.26 31.21 |785,638.00 232,569.71 29.60
6210 SUPPLIES 170,750.00 10,740.08 40,444.45 130,305.55 23.69 |170,350.00 44,387.18 26.06
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 485,490.00 25,167.05 140,644.47 344,845.53 28.97 |480,870.00 176,414.40 36.69
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,442,447.00 90,256.90 426,429.66 1,016,017.34 29.56 |1,436,858.00 453,371.29 31.55
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 203.51 203.51 203.51-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 82.00 82.00 82.00-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 285.51 285.51 285.51-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 33,447.00 32,070.57-63,616.38 30,169.38-190.20 |62,358.00 90,759.36 145.55
201 RECREATION CENTER 33,447.00 32,070.57-63,616.38 30,169.38-190.20 |62,358.00 90,759.36 145.55
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 22
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
202 PARK MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,600.00-110.00-6,490.00-1.67 |6,275.00-512.00- 8.16
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-344.90- 10,155.10-3.28 |10,500.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-1,108.40- 5,311.33- 28,688.67- 15.62 |30,000.00-8,601.86- 28.67
4001 REVENUES 51,100.00-1,108.40-5,766.23-45,333.77-11.28 |46,775.00-9,113.86-19.48
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 970,504.00 90,169.37 388,978.50 581,525.50 40.08 |926,500.00 385,833.72 41.64
6210 SUPPLIES 102,555.00 10,446.31 30,062.46 72,492.54 29.31 |97,755.00 41,315.82 42.26
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00 4,353.75 105.67
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 358,195.00 23,959.50 143,563.10 214,631.90 40.08 |361,340.00 126,146.74 34.91
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,435,374.00 124,575.18 562,604.06 872,769.94 39.20 |1,396,715.00 557,650.03 39.93
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,384,274.00 123,466.78 556,837.83 827,436.17 40.23 |1,349,940.00 548,536.17 40.63
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,384,274.00 123,466.78 556,837.83 827,436.17 40.23 |1,349,940.00 548,536.17 40.63
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 23
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
203 WESTWOOD HILLS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 95,000.00- 11,306.00- 47,907.85- 47,092.15- 50.43 |86,400.00-53,013.49- 61.36
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 270.00-842.00-842.00 |1,792.25-
4001 REVENUES 95,000.00-11,576.00-48,749.85-46,250.15-51.32 |86,400.00-54,805.74-63.43
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 431,151.00 36,506.34 171,300.89 259,850.11 39.73 |421,200.00 167,924.07 39.87
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 408.40 4,140.39 22,859.61 15.33 |27,000.00 4,228.03 15.66
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |327.82
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 43,615.00 2,209.92 10,025.36 33,589.64 22.99 |45,250.00 11,398.63 25.19
6001 EXPENDITURES 501,766.00 39,124.66 185,466.64 316,299.36 36.96 |493,450.00 183,878.55 37.26
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 350.00-350.00 |1,860.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 350.00-350.00 |1,860.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 5.09 5.09 5.09-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 600.00 98.24 340.10 259.90 56.68 |316.70
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 600.00 103.33 345.19 254.81 57.53 |316.70
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,366.00 27,651.99 136,711.98 270,654.02 33.56 |407,050.00 127,529.51 31.33
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,366.00 27,651.99 136,711.98 270,654.02 33.56 |407,050.00 127,529.51 31.33
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 24
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
204 ENVIRONMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 7,500.00-1,500.00- 13,681.69-6,181.69 182.42 |12,100.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 88,750.00-75.87- 7,569.18- 81,180.82-8.53 |86,000.00-14,354.01- 16.69
4001 REVENUES 96,250.00-1,575.87-21,250.87-74,999.13-22.08 |86,000.00-26,454.01-30.76
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 112,204.00 12,168.81 37,698.31 74,505.69 33.60 |108,648.00 52,515.60 48.34
6210 SUPPLIES 17,100.00 1,345.29 3,275.22 13,824.78 19.15 |19,425.00 7,255.60 37.35
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 240,520.00 1,120.23 99,347.78 141,172.22 41.31 |223,470.00 81,518.82 36.48
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,500.00 1,500.00 |
6001 EXPENDITURES 371,324.00 14,634.33 140,321.31 231,002.69 37.79 |351,543.00 141,290.02 40.19
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |2,000.00 653.44 32.67
8001 OTHER INCOME |2,000.00 653.44 32.67
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 275,074.00 13,058.46 119,070.44 156,003.56 43.29 |267,543.00 115,489.45 43.17
204 ENVIRONMENT 275,074.00 13,058.46 119,070.44 156,003.56 43.29 |267,543.00 115,489.45 43.17
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 25
6/21/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:26:30R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
22Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20115/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 25,450.00-6,224.36- 14,057.00- 11,393.00- 55.23 |26,517.00-11,537.01- 43.51
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |536.76-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 43,787.29- 57,212.71- 43.35 |101,000.00-44,195.22- 43.76
4001 REVENUES 126,450.00-14,612.78-57,844.29-68,605.71-45.74 |127,517.00-56,268.99-44.13
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 500,217.00 41,334.47 216,443.65 283,773.35 43.27 |483,150.00 203,131.10 42.04
6210 SUPPLIES 485,900.00 51,007.61 236,955.77 248,944.23 48.77 |532,900.00 150,814.58 28.30
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 155,605.00 20,358.57 120,565.99 35,039.01 77.48 |146,142.00 59,177.75 40.49
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,141,722.00 112,700.65 573,965.41 567,756.59 50.27 |1,162,192.00 413,123.43 35.55
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,015,272.00 98,087.87 516,121.12 499,150.88 50.84 |1,034,675.00 356,854.44 34.49
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,015,272.00 98,087.87 516,121.12 499,150.88 50.84 |1,034,675.00 356,854.44 34.49
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 303,431.21 1,824,575.34 1,824,575.34-|1,585,839.29
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 26
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Mayor, City Council, and Economic Development Authority Compensation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council is asked to notify staff if they’d like to change the compensation levels for Mayor, City
Council, and Economic Development Authority members.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to change the compensation of Mayor, Council, or EDA members?
BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statute 415.11 states that Council can fix their own salaries in such amount that they
deem reasonable. Any increases to salaries must take effect after the next municipal election but
any decreases to salaries can take effect anytime.
A history of Mayor, Council, and EDA salaries:
Year Council Mayor EDA EDA President
2010-Present $6,807 $11,796 $4,299 $4,299
2008-09 $7,165 $12,417 $4,299 $4,299
2006-07 $7,165 $10,985 $4,299 $5,731
2002-05 $6,365 $9,760 $3,819 $5,092
2000-01 $6,000 $9,000 $3,600 $4,800
1985-99 $4,800 $7,200 $2,400 $3,600
As a reminder, Council decreased their salaries by 5% effective January 1, 2010.
Other metro area suburbs with a population between 25,000 – 90,000 have salaries as shown in
the table below:
Mayor/Council Salary Survey - June 2011
City Mayor Salary Council Salary
Andover $ 9,500.00 $ 7,500.00
Apple Valley $ 11,220.00 $ 8,028.00
Blaine $ 13,632.00 $ 10,000.00
Bloomington $ 26,400.00 $ 12,396.00
Brooklyn Center $ 11,166.00 $ 8,549.00
Brooklyn Park $ 17,100.00 $ 11,400.00
Burnsville $ 12,000.00 $ 8,400.00
Coon Rapids $ 14,000.00 $ 12,250.00
Cottage Grove $ 9,216.00 $ 6,780.00
Eagan $ 13,624.00 $ 10,005.00
Study Session Meeting of June 27, 2011 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Mayor, City Council, and Economic Development Authority Compensation
Eden Prairie $ 9,900.00 $ 7,500.00
Edina $ 10,348.00 $ 7,758.00
Fridley $ 10,531.00 $ 8,650.00
Inver Grove Heights $ 9,000.00 $ 7,000.00
Lakeville $ 9,996.00 $ 8,664.00
Maple Grove $ 14,500.00 $ 12,500.00
Maplewood $ 12,302.00 $ 10,827.00
Minnetonka $ 12,000.00 $ 9,000.00
Plymouth $ 14,000.00 $ 10,146.00
Richfield $ 9,980.00 $ 7,746.00
Roseville $ 9,300.00 $ 7,020.00
Shakopee $ 7,854.00 $ 6,715.00
Shoreview $ 9,060.00 $ 6,720.00
Woodbury $ 8,520.00 $ 6,540.00
AVERAGE $ 11,881.21 $ 8,837.25
St. Louis Park $ 11,796.00 $ 6,807.00
St. Louis Park w/ EDA $ 16,095.00 $ 11,106.00
What are the next steps?
Council will let staff know if there is to be a change in compensation.
If there is to be a change to Mayor and/or Council salaries, a public hearing along with 1st
and 2nd reading is required to pass an ordinance to make the change effective. This must
be done prior to the next election if an increase is recommended, but can be done anytime
if compensation is decreased.
If there is to be a change to EDA Commissioner and/or EDA President salaries, a
resolution is required to make the change effective.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for Mayor and Council salaries are in the general fund. Funds for EDA Commissioner
and President salaries are from the EDA (non-general fund).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager