HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/09/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
SEPTEMBER 26, 2011
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 10, 2011
2. 6:35 p.m. Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation
3. 7:05 p.m.
Bader Development’s Preliminary Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Application – Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former
American Inn site)
4. 7:50 p.m. Proposed 2012 Utility Rates
5. 8:20 p.m. Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
6. 9:05 p.m. Administrative Rules for Allowing Chickens
7. 9:15 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:20 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
8. August 2011 Monthly Financial Report
9. Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History
10. Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background Information
11. St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award Program
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: September 26, 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 – October 10, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study
Session on October 10, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda 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 October 10, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 10, 2011
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 10, 2011
Study Session, October 10, 2011 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Toby Keith Food/Liquor Sales Report – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Staff will present results of the final report of food/liquor sales covering the period of
January through August for Toby Keith’s current intoxicating liquor license. Discussion is
required to determine Council’s direction regarding the results of the probationary status of
the licensee and the remainder of the license term which expires March 1, 2012.
3. Budget Discussion – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Staff will review the 2012 proposed budgets including utility rates. We will also have a discussion on
the proposed property tax levy and related impacts. This discussion is to help prepare us finalize
budget documents and prepare for the December 5th Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
4. Citizen Notification System Policy (Reverse 911) – Information Resources (30 minutes)
A contract with Everbridge has been signed and implementation steps have begun. Staff
wishes to receive Council’s direction regarding policy for use of the citizen notification
system.
5. Hardcoat Supplemental CAP Funding – Community Development (30 minutes)
Hardcoat Inc. is requesting additional funding thru the Construction Assistance Program
(CAP) due to sizable and unforeseen expenses incurred in the purchase and renovation of the
former Flame Metals building. Additional funding would allow the project to be fully
completed as envisioned.
6. 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
7. 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6
End of Meeting: 9:40 p.m.
Meeting Date: September 26, 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:
Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council an evaluation of the City’s Housing
Improvement Programs. This report is intended to be informational and assist with the study
session discussion; no action is required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should modifications be made to any of the City’s housing programs?
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of evaluating the City’s housing improvement programs is to determine if the City’s
programs meet the City’s Vision, Strategic Directions and housing goals while also being
effective for residents and cost effective. While staff evaluates programs annually during budget
preparation, the goal of this comprehensive evaluation is to take a step back to review all our
programs and their effectiveness.
Please see the attached housing programs evaluation as prepared by staff.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The city’s housing programs are designed to meet St. Louis Park’s Vision commitment to
provide a well-maintained and diverse housing stock and to incorporate and provide incentives
for “green” building design.
Attachments: Housing Improvement Programs, September 2011
Prepared: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
0
St. Louis Park Housing Programs Evaluation - September 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary Page 1
II. Summary City Vision, Strategic Directions and Housing Goals Page 2
III. Comparison to Other Cities Page 3
IV. Programs Evaluations and Recommendations
a. Discount Loan Page 4,5
b. Move-Up in the Park Loan Page 6,7
c. Green Remodeling Discount Loan Page 8
d. Green Remodeling Rebate Page 9
e. CDBG Single Family Programs
i. Low Income Rehab Loan Page 10
ii. Low Income Emergency Grant Program Page 11
f. Technical and Informational Services
i. Home Remodeling Fair Page 12
ii. Home Remodeling Tour Page 13
iii. Remodeling Advisor Visits Page 14
iv. Architectural Design Service Page 15
g. Housing Improvement Area Loans Page 16,17
h. Affordable Ownership Programs
i. Live Where You Work Page 18
ii. Homes within Reach and Habitat for Humanity Page 19
i. Multifamily Rehab and Activities Page 20
V. Loan Income Guideline Evaluation Page 21,22
VI. Housing Rehabilitation Fund Page 23
VII. Opportunities for Further Consideration Page 24,25
VIII. Attachments
a. Report Methodology Page 26,27
b. City Housing Goals Addressed by Programs and Services Page 28-32
c. Summary of Housing Programs
d. Location Map of Discount and Move Up Loans
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 2
1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report evaluates the City’s housing improvement and homeownership programs to
determine how the programs meet the City’s Vision and housing goals while also being effective
for residents and cost effective for the city. This comprehensive evaluation goes beyond the
program review conducted for the annual budgeting process and the Semi-Annual Housing
Activity Report.
Key Findings
Housing improvement programs continue to meet the City Vision, Strategic Directions and
Housing Goals.
- They leverage other funds and providers, and programs are within budget.
- The income guidelines for loans are consistent with other local, state and federal
guidelines.
- The current economic conditions have an impact on housing improvements.
Residents have expressed reluctance about making improvements to their homes with
the uncertainty of declining housing values, employment uncertainty and the
tightened credit market as evidenced by lower loan participation rates in 2011.
The dedicated Housing Rehab Fund provides funding for housing programs and staff.
Compared to other suburban communities St. Louis Park’s home improvement programs are
more comprehensive, and include services for all owners at all income levels. Participation
rates of the discount loan are higher due to the City’s interest rate write-down. Move-Up
loans are eligible up to households at 120% of MAI and the forgiveness period results in a
very generous program.
Program opportunities for further consideration have been identified.
Recommendations
Retain housing improvement programs and services with modifications as follows:
- Consider reductions to city’s overall cost for the Move-Up in the Park Loan.
- Replace Green Remodeling Discount Loan with new State/CEE Energy Loan.
Monitor and ensure the Housing Rehab Fund is sustainable to meet future housing needs.
Opportunity areas for consideration:
- increase marketing efforts;
- explore senior housing needs;
- explore garage – alley maintenance campaign,
- enhance green remodeling program to increase participation.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 3
2
II. SUMMARY: VISION & STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
Two of Vision’s four Strategic Directions provide direction for the
housing improvement programs.
1. Strategic Direction - St. Louis Park is committed to providing a
well-maintained and diverse housing stock by focusing on:
a. Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner occupied homes.
b. Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics.
c. Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city.
This strategic direction has been addressed by our Home Improvement Financing Programs,
Technical Assistance and Home Improvement Resources, Single Family Ownership and
Multifamily Programs.
2. Strategic Direction - St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of
city business by focusing on work in areas such as the rehab loan program to encourage and
incent green building design.
This strategic direction has been addressed through the pilot green remodeling program
which has evolved to a program of rebates for energy efficient equipment and green technical
advisory service. A green remodeling theme has been incorporated into both the remodeling
fair and tour. The City promotes the State’s low interest green loan and the City adopted a
Green Building Policy.
SUMMARY: HOUSING GOALS
The following Housing Goals are being addressed by the Home Improvement Programs.
1. Property maintenance to foster quality housing.
2. Preserve and enhance housing quality.
3. Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types.
4. Maintain affordable ownership housing.
5. Promote expansion of existing homes through remodeling.
6. Create single family homes large enough to accommodate families.
7. Promote and encourage green building design.
The “City Housing Goals Fulfilled by City’s Housing Programs and Services” attachment
enumerates the City’s housing goals and the strategies that have been implemented to meet the
goals.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 4
3
III. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
It is difficult to make direct comparisons between cities’ programs as every city is unique.
Nonetheless, staff reviewed housing programs of nearby cities; Hopkins, Richfield, Golden
Valley, Edina, Minnetonka, Brooklyn Park and Crystal. Staff also looked at Roseville -
considered to be a city with active housing programs, as well as cities cited in the State’s Best
Practices for Housing Preservation. Generally, the state and federal funded programs such as
CDBG and Mn Housing are quite similar. Cities generally use CDBG funds and/or HRA levies
to fund their programs. One city established a housing foundation that funds affordable housing
programs, and St. Louis Park established the Housing Rehab Fund.
Dedicated Funding Makes a Difference
The City established the Housing Rehabilitation Fund (HRF) in the mid 90’s. The HRF is
intended to fund or assist proposed projects that focus on housing rehab and initiatives that
further city housing goals. One-eighth of one percent of the principal of outstanding revenue
bonds is dedicated to this fund and generates approximately $600,000 annually.
This independent fund allows flexibility and opportunity to design and implement programs and
services beyond the county, state and federal guidelines that fund most municipal housing
programs. It funds: the interest rate write-down for discount loans, the Live Where You Work
loan and housing programs serving all income level households – home remodeling fair and
tour, architectural design service, remodeling advisor and energy rebates. It also funds staff
dedicated to housing programs.
Below are a few distinguishing differences of St. Louis Park’s programs:
Highest Mn Housing loan participation rate of any Hennepin County city, including
Minneapolis.
Programs have been replicated by other cities, first city to: write down interest rate on Mn
Housing loans; combine a citywide property evaluation with financial and technical
assistance; provide an Architectural Design Service and first suburban city to sponsor an
annual home remodeling tour.
The Home Remodeling Fair is a collaborative effort of four cities and their Community Ed
Departments that results in educational well attended seminars.
One of only two cities that provide deferred loans to assist residents with home expansions.
Live Where You Work, home buyer assistance program has been recognized in national
business publication.
Another important factor to maintaining housing quality is the City’s Inspection services. Over
thirty years ago the City established the Point of Sale inspection program – for over 30 years, as
housing has turned over, inspections have been conducted and housing brought to code
requirements. Additionally, the Citywide Property Evaluation conducted every four years along
with the inspection of all rental properties for rental licensure ensures that the condition of all
housing is reviewed regularly. These ongoing activities are designed to ensure housing is safe
and well maintained, and are activities not conducted by all suburban communities.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 5
4
IV. HOUSING PROGRAMS EVALUATION
Discount Loan
This program is designed to meet the housing goal to preserve and enhance the city’s housing
stock and is targeted to low and moderate income owner occupied households. The city provides
an interest rate discount on the Mn Housing fix up loan. The loan terms are: 4 or 5 percent fixed
interest rate, maximum loan of $35,000, up to 15 year term.
Participation
Since 1999, over 700 City discounted Mn Housing loans have been closed in St. Louis Park.
When compared to use of the Mn Housing loans in other cities, St. Louis Park far exceeds use in
any other Hennepin County city. The extremely high use documented by Mn Housing for the
past five years – 405 loans in SLP compared to the next city at 80 - is due primarily to the city’s
interest rate write down and marketing.
Chart 1. Historical Use - Discount Loan Chart 2. City Comparison
Discount Loans by Year
19
52
125
84 88
6440
36
38
52
50 48
0
50
100
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
YearNumber of Loans
Chart3. Household Income of Borrowers
Almost half, 45%, of borrowers are low and
moderate income households with incomes at
or below 80% MAI - $64,200 in 2011.
Just over half of the households have incomes
between 80-115% - $64,200 - $95,150.
Factors contributing to use
Favorable Interest Rate of Discount Loans. The interest rate for the city’s discount loan is
lower than private sector rates for home improvement loans; in August rates ranged from a
low of 6.25% (Citizen’s Bank) to 26.99% (Home Depot Residential Credit). However,
Discount Loans
Household Incomes
81 - 115% MAI
$64,200 - $95,150
55%
50% MAI or Less
$41,350
12%
51 - 80% MAI
$41,350 - $64,200
33%
Comparison of Mn Housing Loans from 2005-2010
405
80
60
49
35
21
17
0 100 200 300 400 500
SLP
Richfield
Roseville
Golden Valley
Minnetonka
Hopkins
Edina
Number Loans
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 6
5
Discount Loan (continued)
residents with strong home equity and credit and higher incomes have the option of private
market home equity loans or lines of credit with rates varying from 1.85% to 6.75%.
Longer Loan Application Process. The city’s application can require more time and
“paperwork” than private sector applications in that borrowers must provide bids as
documentation of scope and cost of work and attend a closing at the lenders’ office.
Improvements
Typical improvements include basic maintenance and updating projects of roof, siding, window
and furnace replacements along with interior updating of kitchens and baths, and improvements
to driveways and garages.
Financial
The average loan is $15,650; loans total over $10,870,000. Residents are responsible for
repayment of the loan.
The city cost to cover the discount on interest rate averaged $1,285 per loan, with a $125
admin fee per loan for a total of just over $1,400 per loan.
The city cost since 1999 has been $895,000.
Leveraging of City Resources
For every dollar the City invests, residents invest almost twelve dollars.
Mn Housing has provided funds to match the city’s discount in the program’s pilot phase, for
the citywide property maintenance program and for energy related loans totaling $68,000.
Contracting with the non-profit Center for Energy & Environment for loan administration
reduces staff time is a cost effective way to administer program.
City Risk
Mn Housing assumes the loan risks - not the city.
Our contracted lender, CEE, is a Mn Housing approved lender and complies with state
underwriting process, criteria and is audited annually by the State.
Evaluation Summary
Participation rate Extremely high
Target market Meets target of low and moderate income households
Cost to City Low
City Risk Low
Leverage High – state program and funding, non-profit administration
Staff time Low
Housing Goal Meets housing goal to preserve housing stock using an affordable finance
tool.
Recommendation
Retain this program that fulfills the city housing goal of preservation, has extremely high
participation rate as evidenced by comparisons with other cities and is cost effective.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 7
6
Move Up in the Park Loan
This loan is designed to meet the housing goal to increase the number of large single family
homes by expanding existing homes. Only owners making significant expansion of living space
are eligible for this deferred loan. The income guideline is highest of all SLP loans at 120%
median area income; owners provide 75% match; maximum loan amount $25,000, 3% admin
fee paid by borrower, and loan forgiven if resident remains in home for 30 years.
Participation
101 loans since the program began in mid-2005.
Twenty-three percent of residents that have
expanded their homes since 2005 have used this
loan.
Participants Age and Incomes
This loan generally meets the target of family age households as illustrated in the following
charts. It also provides the financing gap for more modest income households to expand their
homes. Over 70% of the borrowers are between 31-50 years of age, and 80% have incomes
between 81-120% MAI. 20% of the borrowers had household incomes below 80% MAI.
Chart 1. Participant Ages Chart 2. Participant Incomes
Participants with Children
Over 70% of the households have children less than 18 years of age. The borrowers’ household
size of 3.6 persons/household significantly exceeds the citywide average of 2.05 persons/
household.
Chart 3. Participants with Children Chart 4. Participants Household Size
7
28
20 17 17
8 40
15
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1st
Half
2011
Number of Loans
Year
Move Up Loans 2005 - 1st Half 2011
With
Children <
18 Years
Old
29%
Move Up Loans
Households with Children
80% MAI
19%
80 - 120%
MAI
81%
Move Up Loans
Household Incomes
[T t f th d t th
Under 30
years
6%
31-40 yrs
34%41-50 Years
36%
51-60 Years
17%
Over 60
Years
7%
Move Up Loans
Age of Borrowers
2.05
3.6
024
Avg HH Size
City Wide
Avg HHSize
Move Up Loan
HH
Persons per Household
Move Up Loans Household Size
and Average SLP Household Size
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 8
7
Move Up in the Park Loan (continued)
City Comparisons
Staff found only three cities, including SLP, that have loans with the higher 120% MAI
guideline. The difference is that SLP’s loan is deferred, while Roseville and Shoreview offer
traditional private sector type loans. The rates and terms of their loans are consistent with loans
already available in the private sector that higher income households can already access.
Financial
Costly incentive; to date $2,364,000.
The average deferred loan is $23,400
Residents pay admin cost of $400 per loan.
Unpredictability of pay back when/if
residents move. To date four loans
($101,639) have been repaid.
Leveraging of City Resources
For every dollar the City invests, residents
invest almost seven dollars.
Residents provide 75% match.
Contracting with the non-profit CEE for loan administration reduces staff time.
City Risk
Due to the loan’s higher income cap, state and federal funds cannot be used which leaves city
funds as the only funding source. Because the loans are no-interest and forgivable there is
limited potential to fund the program from repayment of loans. Only 4 loans have been repaid to
date and if the loan is a home that ends up in foreclosure, there is little chance of getting money
back. Three of the 101 homes that used this loan have gone into foreclosure; the value of those
loans was $112,500. Citywide residential foreclosure rate during the same time period is just
over 4%. Despite the foreclosures theses homes were improved by the program. Three larger
homes were added to the city’s housing stock and purchased by new owner occupants.
Evaluation Summary
Participation rate High, 25% of owners making expansions since 2005 used this loan.
Target market Meets households w/ children and modest incomes for expansions.
Cost to City High upfront cost, but less expensive than subsidizing single family home
projects such as the Brookside Development of five single family homes.
Leverage Residents match 75%, non-profit loan administrator.
City Risk Medium, substantial city funding required to keep program alive.
Staff time Low
Housing Goal Meets goal to increase number of larger family homes and retain families.
Recommendation
This program meets the goal to increase the number of large single homes for families, with a
high cost and should continue as is through 2011. Staff will monitor funding levels and analyze
the impact of decreasing the deferred loan amount and possibly adjustments for the future if we
want to continue this program.
Year
Number Move
Up Loans
City Cost
2005 7 $182,806
2006 28 $603,764
2007 20 $621,267
2008 17 $330,937
2009 17 $329,650
2010 8 $209,769
First half 2011 4 $84,617
Total 101 $2,362,810
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 9
8
Green Remodeling Program – Green Discount Loan
This program is designed to meet the City’s Vision to increase environmental consciousness by
focusing on work in areas such as the rehab loan to encourage and incent green building design.
The interest rate on the City’s discount loan was reduced an additional one percent.
Participation
During the pilot phase three “discount green loans” were used. In 2009 the program was revised
to provide a discount incentive with the state’s Energy Saver Rebate and resulted in 30 loans.
Factors Contributing to Use
The MN GreenStar green building standard and certification program proved to be
cumbersome for contractors and owners and only three residents used the pilot “green” loan.
The end of generous stimulus rebates and tax credits in 2010 has slowed green loans.
Improvements
Three homes were remodeled to Mn GreenStar standards and the thirty homes installed high
efficient windows, doors and insulation.
Financial
The average loan was $10,543. Residents are responsible for repayment.
The city cost to pay the discounted interest rate was $17,910, the State matched this amount.
The city / private investment ratio: for every dollar the City invests, residents invested
nineteen dollars.
Leveraging of City Resources.
Mn Housing provided matching funds to discount all these loans.
Residents using this loan received a State Energy Cash Rebate.
Contracting with the non-profit CEE for loan administration is cost effective.
City Risk Mn Housing assumed the loan risk –not the city.
Evaluation Summary
Participation rate Low, dependent upon stimulus funds
Target market Moderate income households.
Cost to City Low
City Risk Low
Leverage High, state product and matching discount, non-profit administration.
Staff time Low
Housing Goal Meets Vision to encourage green building design.
Recommendation
The loan experienced low use and should be discontinued since CEE has just introduced an
Energy Loan. The rate on CEE’s/State loan is 0-4.99%, and available to households of any
income. This loan replaces the existing green loans, will cost the city nothing, and will be
promoted through citywide marketing materials.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 10
9
Green Remodeling - Energy Efficient Rebates
This program is designed to meet the City’s Vision to increase environmental consciousness by
focusing on work in areas such as the rehab loan to encourage and incent green building design.
The city matches 50% of utility rebates for efficient furnaces, air conditioners and water heaters.
Participation
Over 100 residents have received matching City rebates for installing high efficiency furnaces,
air conditioners and water heaters.
Table. Number of Energy Efficient Rebates by Year
Year 2009 2010 1st Half 2011
# Rebates 22 42 38
Factors Contributing to Use
The increased use of the rebate likely results from increased marketing.
Decision Resources survey indicates residents support home energy activities.
Improvements
Energy efficient furnaces, air conditioners and water heaters that qualify for utility rebates.
Financial
The average rebate is $200. Total city cost to date is $20,400
There is no contracted administrative cost.
This city / private cost ratio: for every dollar the City invests, residents invest thirty-two.
Leveraging of City Resources
The city piggybacks on the rebates provided by CenterPoint and Excel which process the
application paperwork and test the appliances for efficiency.
City Risk There is no financial risk to the city.
Evaluation Summary
Participation rate Increasing to high
Target market All owner occupied households
Cost to City Low
City Risk Low
Leverage High, matches utility rebates and uses utility documentation.
Staff time Low
Housing Goal Meets goal to encourage green remodeling.
Recommendation
Although some residents would install high efficiency appliances without this incentive,
Decision Resources’ City Survey (August 2011) indicates that residents support energy efficient
incentives, even if tax dollars are used. Staff supports retaining this rebate and will be exploring
how the green/energy efficient program can be more effective with higher residential
participation.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 11
10
CDBG Low-Income Deferred Home Rehab Loan
This program meets the housing goal to preserve housing and retain affordable home ownership.
CDBG funds are HUD funds disbursed through Hennepin County. Low-income homeowners
receive up to $20,000 of basic home improvements through this deferred loan that is forgiven
after fifteen years. Hennepin County Housing administers this program for the city.
Participation
Over 430 deferred low income rehab loans since the program began in the 70’s.
Factors Contributing to Use
Most residents are single female seniors and disabled homeowners
There is an ongoing waiting list for this program
Improvements
Typical improvements include basic maintenance improvements that provide long-term
maintenance free living, such as siding, window replacement and roofs. Health and safety issues
are also addressed.
Financial
The average loan is $20,000.
13% contracted administrative fee for each loan and is covered by CDBG.
Household income must be 50% or less of MAI, $33,100 for two person household.
Asset limitation of $25,000.
Three to five owners assisted annually for a cost of $60,000 - $100,000.
When residents move, the deferred repayments fund additional projects.
Leveraging of City Resources
Contracting with County Housing staff allows residents to benefit from additional county
funding for accessibility and lead abatement costs and provides referral services to residents.
City Risk. There is no financial risk to the city, CDBG funds are used.
Evaluation Summary
Participation rate High
Target market Low income homeowners
Cost to City Low, CDBG funds
City Risk None
Leverage High, CDBG funds and County administration.
Staff time Low - medium
Housing Goal Meets the goals to preserve housing and maintain affordable ownership.
Recommendation
This CDBG funded loan ensures basic maintenance of housing for low income homeowners,
primarily seniors and disabled residents on fixed incomes, and ensures housing stock is safe and
well maintained and should be one of the top considerations for CDBG funding allocation.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 12
11
CDBG Low Income Emergency Repair Grant Program
This program meets the housing goal to preserve housing and retain affordable home ownership.
CDBG funds are HUD funds disbursed through Hennepin County. This program provides up to
$4,000 for emergency repairs and is administered by Community Action Partnership for
Suburban Hennepin County (CAPSH).
Participation
Low income home owners have used over 140 emergency repair grants since 2000.
Factors Contributing to Use
Only emergency repairs are eligible uses
Flexibility allows response to emergencies in a timely manner.
Improvements
Typical improvements include plumbing and sewer repairs, replacement of water heaters and
leaking roof repair.
Financial
The average grant is $3,000 and is used for emergency repairs.
There is a 10% contracted administrative fee for each loan which CDBG covers.
Approximately fifteen owners assisted annually for a cost of $60,000.
Household income must be 50% or less of MAI, $33,100 for two person household.
Asset limitation of $25,000.
Cost to city is staff time to monitor CDBG program.
Leveraging of City Resources
Partnering with Community Action Partnership of suburban Hennepin provides residents on-site
information and referral services to assist with other needs beyond home repair.
City Risk There is no financial risk to the city, CDBG funds are used for the program.
Evaluation Summary
Participation rate High
Target market Low income homeowners
Cost to City Low, CDBG funds
City Risk None
Leverage High, CDBG funds, administered by non-profit agency that provides
referral services to residents
Staff time Low - medium
Housing Goal Meets goals to preserve housing and maintain affordable ownership.
Recommendation
This CDBG funded grant provides a critical service to low income owners in crisis, primarily
seniors and disabled residents and ensures that housing stock is safe and maintained. This
program should remain as a primary use of CDBG funds to assist low income homeowners.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 13
12
Home Remodeling Fair
The Fair is designed to meet the goals to preserve and enhance housing, promote remodeling and
expand single family homes, promote green building design through education and technical
assistance. The cities and Community Education Departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Golden Valley co-sponsor the fair.
Participation
Between 1,000- 2,000 residents attend the annual fair, which is going on its 20th year, of these
almost two-thirds are St. Louis Park residents.
Factors Contributing to Use
No cost to owners
Timely themes
Helpful seminars
Improvements
The vendors and seminars cover all types of interior and exterior home and yard improvements,
from DIY projects to full remodeling projects
Financial
Self-sustaining event where the vendor registration fees cover the annual cost of the fair,
approximately $35,000.
Leveraging of city resources
The city partners with three other cities and three community education departments.
City Risk
There is no financial risk to the city and insurance coverage is provided by vendors.
Evaluation Summary
Participation Extremely High
Target market Households desiring to make additions, improvements
Cost to City Low
Leverage High, other cities, Community Ed Departments, vendors pay registration
fees and numerous non-profits provide information.
Staff time Low, staff work the fair.
Housing Goal Meets the goals to increase number of large homes through remodeling
and encourage green building design.
Recommendation
The Fair meets the goal of property maintenance, preserve housing, promote expansion of homes
and encourage green building design through education and promotion. The city should continue
to support the Fair.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 14
13
Home Remodeling Tour
The annual tour is designed to meet the housing goal to remodel and expand single family owner
occupied homes. Six residents open their homes to showcase a variety of home remodeling
projects to provide ideas, information and inspiration to other residents considering remodeling.
Participation
Approximately 1,500 residents have attended annually since it began in 2005, with between 350-
550 attendees at each of the six tour homes. The number of families with young children is
significant, though not measured.
Factors Contributing to Use
Ease of self-guided four-hour tour.
Well publicized through glossy tour brochure mailed to directly to all home owners and
promoted through city media.
Dependent upon finding tour volunteers.
Improvements
Tour homes are selected to showcase basic remodels, kitchen & bath remodels as well as
significant additions and green remodeling.
Financial
Contract with CEE for event coordination, tour staffing and brochure mailing.
Annual cost of $7,000.
Leveraging of City Resources
Partner with non-profit to coordinate and staff event.
Contractors pay sponsorship fee that help defray expenses.
City Risk
No financial risk and residents sign participation agreements releasing city of responsibility.
Evaluation Summary
Participation Extremely High
Target market Households desiring to make additions, improvements
Cost to City Low
Leverage Medium, contractors pay sponsorship fee and non-profit administrator.
Staff time Low, staff work the tour.
Housing Goal Meets the goal to increase number of large homes through remodeling and
encourage green building design.
Recommendation
Retain this cost effective service that meets housing goal by providing ideas, information and
inspiration to residents considering remodeling homes. The continuing high attendance, positive
response from residents, and fact that most homes on the tour were remodeled by owners that
had attended previous tours speaks to its success.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 15
14
Remodeling Advisor
This educational and technical tool meets the housing goals to preserve and enhance housing
quality and promote expansion of existing homes through remodeling. All homeowners are
eligible for a no cost remodeling advisor visit to assist them with their individual home
remodeling project.
Participation
Over 940 residents have had visits since the program began in 2005.
Factors Contributing to Use
No cost to owners and individualized visits tailored to specific project.
No income limit.
Convenient scheduling options.
Use of third party provider mitigates concerns about “city in the house”.
Improvements
Home owners are advised about all type of home improvement projects.
Financial
The cost to the city per visit is $130 with an annual average cost of $19,500
The city cost since 2005 has been $117,200
Performance based contract, city only pays for visits conducted.
Leveraging of City Resources
City contracts with CEE to provide a third party housing rehab specialists.
City Risk. No financial risk to city.
Evaluation Summary
Participation Extremely high
Target market All homeowners
Cost to City Low
Leverage Medium, non-profit administrator.
Staff time Low
Housing Goal Meets the goal to preserve housing, increase number of large homes
through remodeling and encourage green building design.
Recommendation
This program meets housing goals to preserve and enhance housing by providing educational
and technical assistance to owners. The performance based contract ensures a low cost to the
city. Homeowner evaluations demonstrate a high level of satisfaction for this service.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 16
15
Architectural Design Service
This service is designed to meet the housing goal to promote the expansion of existing housing
and preserve housing. The architectural consultation assist residents with design consideration
and residents pay a $25 co-pay.
Participation
350 residents have received design
consults since the program began in
2005, with more visits occurring in
the flush housing years.
Factors Contributing to Use
Ease of use – owners select
architect from approved list
No income limit
Low cost to residents
Lower use in current market
Improvements
Residents using this service generally plan large remodeling projects and/or additions.
Financial
Residents make a $25 co-pay
City pays $225 to architects for each visit. Total cost to city to date $75,625
Leveraging of City Resources
Mn Chapter of the American Institute of Architects assisted with program development
Many use this as first step to expansion projects.
City Risk. No financial risk to city
Evaluation Summary
Participation Medium
Target market Owners planning major remodeling projects
Cost to City Low
Leverage Medium
Staff time Low
Housing Goal Meets the goal to increase number of large homes through remodeling.
Recommendations
This service meets the housing goal to promote expansion of existing homes and enhances
housing quality. Resident surveys have provided ideas to refine the program and indicate a high
level of satisfaction with the service. Staff recommends continuing this first of its kind service.
Technical Advisory Services 2005- 1st Half 2011
68
102
62 48 32 30
8
221
157
179
130 126
89
38
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1st Half
2011YearNumber of VisitsArchitect Services Remodeling Advisor
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 17
16
Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Loan
This tool meets the goal of preserving affordable owner occupied housing while providing
owners of modest valued condos and townhomes an affordable option to make housing
improvements. The HIA tool authorizes cities to lend funds to Associations with owner
repayment made through property tax payments.
Participation
Five associations, representing 742 units, have established HIAs since 2002.
Table. Established HIAs
Association
Number
of Units
Loan
Amount EMV* Established
Avg
Fee/Unit
Cedar Trails Condominiums 280 $1,366,000 $112.80 2002 $4,878
Sungate One Association 20 $183,884 $131,700 2006 $9,194
Wolfe Lake Condominiums 130 $1,238,000 $127,300 2007 $9,754
Westmoreland Hills 72 $1,026,125 $101,400 2008 $14,250
Sunset Ridge Condominium 240 $3,935,195 $118,500 2009 $16,625
Totals 742 $7,749,204
*Estimated Market Value
Factors Contributing to Use
Only associations with modest valued housing are eligible.
This tool allows owners to have affordable payments over a period of time.
Associations must approach city for assistance.
State Statute sets comprehensive guidelines and the application process is complex and time
consuming for Associations.
Financial
Almost $8,000,000 has been loaned to association; four HIAs funded with internal funds and
one with bonds.
The average loan is $10,440 per dwelling unit.
The city is reimbursed for all project costs and receives an admin fee.
Interest revenue generated on loans funded with internal funds.
Leveraging of City Resources
The city’s loan is fully repaid with interest by owners.
City Risk
This has proven to be a low risk activity for the city – default rate of property tax payments is the
same as citywide default rate of less than 1%. City risks are minimized by:
The loan’s debt service coverage ratio is 105%, to cover possible non-payments.
Taxes and assessed fees are paid if units go into foreclosure.
Associations assign assets to the city for the term of the loan.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 18
17
HIA (Continued)
Evaluation Summary
Participation rate High compared to other cities.
Target market Modest valued condo and townhouse associations.
Cost to City City generates interest revenue on internally funded HIAs. Project soft
costs are included in projects costs and the city receives admin fee.
City Risk Low
Leverage High as owners repay the city.
Staff time High during establishment phase and tax certification process.
Housing Goal Meets the goal to preserve housing and affordable owner occupancy.
Recommendation
This tool has a high participation rate (742 units have been improved), addresses affordable
owner occupied housing. It is cost effective and actually generates interest income for the city.
For the past ten years on average an HIA has been established every other year. Using a
combination of bonds for larger HIA projects and internal funding for smaller HIA projects
provides flexibility to finance future HIAs.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 19
18
Live Where You Work
This program is designed to meet the housing goal to increase affordable ownership
opportunities. It provides homebuyer assistance for employees of St. Louis Park businesses to
purchase a home in the city. It is a deferred loan of $2,500 with an additional $1,000 when a
vacant foreclosed property is purchased.
Participation
Eight households served since 2009.
Factors Contributing to Use
Slow housing sales.
New program – getting word out during slow market is a challenge.
Maximum household income of 120% MAI ($99,420) for a 4 person household.
Improvements
The deferred loan can be used for closing costs, down payment assistance, applied to the
mortgage or for code required repairs.
Financial
Average loan amount $2,750.
Additional $1,000 available for purchasing vacant foreclosed homes.
Total city investment $22,000.
Loan forgiven after 3 years of owner occupancy.
Leveraging of City Resources
Non-profit loan administrator
Businesses encouraged to match city grant
City Risk. Little financial risk
Evaluation Factors
Participation Low
Target market Employees of St. Louis Park businesses purchasing homes.
Cost to City Low
Leverage Medium, one business has matched city’s contribution, non-profit loan
administrator.
Staff time Low
Housing Goal Meets the goal to increase affordable ownership.
Recommendation
Staff recommends continuing this program despite the low participation rate and is renewing
marketing efforts. This program is subject to the slow housing market, and even if underused is
a low cost program requiring minimal staff time that will assist a limited number of buyers with
ownership. Staff will be considering expanding homeownership assistance to other households.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 20
19
Homes within Reach (HWR) and Habitat for Humanity
These programs are designed to meet the housing goal to increase affordable ownership
opportunities. HWR purchases homes and sells them to low income homeowners. Buyers pay
for the cost of the building only and lease the land for 99 years. Habitat for Humanity purchases
or builds new homes and sells them to low income homeowners.
Participation
HWR has sold eight homes to low- income families since it began in 2008.
Habitat for Humanity developed eight homes from 1996-2003, and is currently working on
one project.
Factors Contributing to Use
Limited availability of homes valued at prices affordable to HWR and Habitat.
Capacity of non-profits.
Significant involvement/guidance of homebuyers required.
Improvements
Homes are sold in rehabbed condition with long-term maintenance items addressed, and remain
permanently affordable.
Financial
Only CDBG funds are used for Habitat Projects and average $20,000 per home
HWR – average per home is $20,000.
City provides HWR a $250,000 interest free line-of-credit which is repaid following the sale
of home.
Leveraging of City Resources
Met Council, Hennepin County HOME and AHIF funds, and CDBG funds
HWR and Habitat staff administer these programs
City Risk. The HWR line of credit could be tied up if home sale is slow; however this is
mitigated by the fact that HWR has a niche market of lower income buyers.
Evaluation Factors
Participation Low
Target market Low income families
Cost to City Medium, combination of CDBG and HRF
Leverage High, other funders and non-profits administrators
Staff time Low
Housing Goal Meets the goal to increase affordable ownership opportunities.
Recommendation
These programs meet the city’s goal to increase affordable ownership opportunities, are low cost,
effect, guarantee long term affordability, and the city should continue participation.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 21
20
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING – REHAB AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
CDBG Multifamily Housing Rehab: CDBG funds are used to assist with capital
improvements of rental housing for low-income residents. Generally, the lowest income
residents live in subsidized/assisted housing. CDBG funds have been used to assist the St. Louis
Park Housing Authority, Project for Pride in Living, Perspectives Inc., Wayside Housing,
Community Involvement Program and Vail Place. Council reviews annual allocations to these
providers during the CDBG public hearing process.
St. Louis Park Rental Coalition (SPARC): SPARC is composed of St. Louis Park rental
owners and managers; its mission is to provide a community wide forum that promotes effective
management practices and quality multi-housing in St. Louis Park. The coalition meets quarterly
and provides a valuable network opportunity for rental owners, managers and city staff.
Crime Free Multihousing: This program for rental property owners and managers is designed
to reduce the incidents of crime and disorder in rental housing. It provides training on tenant
screening, lease addendum, evictions, etc.; a physical survey of the building to make sure it
meets minimum security requirements; and a crime prevention meeting to show tenants security
precautions they can take to protect themselves and their belongings. All rental owners are
required to attend the training program. The Police Department implements this program.
Louisiana Court/Oversight Committee: A joint housing agency oversight committee has been
established to oversee the ongoing operation of the Louisiana Court development and work with
the owner in an effort to stabilize Louisiana Court both operationally and financially. Committee
members include representatives from Project for Pride in Living, Enterprise, the limited partner,
and other funders of the development including MN Housing, Hennepin County and the City.
Louisiana Court Max 200 Shallow Rent Subsidy Program: The Max 200 Shallow Rent
Subsidy Program for Louisiana Court will provide up to 20 rent subsidies at a maximum of $200
per month for 1 and 2 bedroom participating households. Families will be selected from active
applicants currently on the Section 8 Voucher Program waiting list and the Excelsior and Grand
waiting list.
Meadowbrook Collaborative: The Collaborative is a unique partnership between the City of St.
Louis Park, St. Louis Park Public Schools, Park Nicollet Health Services, and the Ridgedale Branch
YMCA. These organizations work cooperatively with the Meadowbrook residents and property
owner. The Collaborative's mission is to enhance the self-direction of the Meadowbrook residents
toward the betterment of their lives in the areas of health, education, and safety.
Project Based Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Housing Authority has designated 45
units of project based Housing Choice Voucher rental units at three housing developments in St.
Louis Park. The rental assistance ensures affordable housing for the development residents, two
of which are support housing projects serving households with specific needs and one project
that would not be affordable to Housing Choice Voucher participants without the assistance of
project based vouchers.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 22
21
V. LOAN INCOME GUIDELINE EVALUATION
Generally housing loan and grant programs are focused on homeowners with low to moderate
incomes, people with limited resources. This is especially true for federal or state funded
programs. St. Louis Park along with most cities have home improvement programs with income
qualifications that are based on household incomes of 30%, 50%, 80%, and 115 % MAI,
consistent with state and federal funding. The guidelines for state and federal programs are fixed
and cannot be modified by the city. St. Louis Park also has loans for households with income up
to 120% MAI. The chart below outlines our programs and respective income guidelines.
Table: St. Louis Park Loans and Income Guidelines
Low Income Deferred -0 %
Interest Repaid at time of
Sale
City Discounts Mn Housing
Loans - Monthly Payment
Required
Deferred - 0%
Interest - Repaid
at time of Sale
Low Income Loan and
Emergency Repair Grant
funded with CDBG
Discount Loan
4% Interest
Rate, 80% MAI
& Less
Not based on
HH size
Discount Loan
5% Interest
Rate, 115%
MAI & Less
Not based on
HH size
Move Up In the
Park Expansion
and Live Where
You Work
Deferred Loans,
120% MAI &
Less
FAMILY
SIZE
30% OF
MEDIAN
AREA
INCOME
50% OF
MEDIAN
AREA
INCOME
80% OF
MEDIAN
AREA
INCOME
115% Of
MEDIAN
AREA
INCOME
120% OF
MEDIAN AREA
INCOME
1 $17,640 $29,400 $69,480
2 $20,160 $33,600 $79,440
3 $22,680 $37,800 $89,400
4 $25,200 $42,000 $67,200 $95,150 $99,240
5 $27,240 $45,400 $107,280
6 $29,250 $48,750 $115,200
7 $31,260 $52,100 $123,120
8 $33,270 $55,450 $131,040
The Move Up in the Park Loan funded through the city has a higher income guideline of 120%
of the MAI and is the subject of this review. A few residents have commented that the Move Up
in the Park Loan income cap is too low: that is, families with an income of 120% median area
income (MAI) or $99,240 for a family of four really cannot afford to expand their homes. They
argue that the income cap should be increased to higher income families. To address the income
guideline question, staff reviewed participation rates, reviewed other municipalities’ guidelines,
and talked with lenders. Following are the summarized findings:
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 23
22
INCOME GUIDELINE EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
Participation Rate
The Move Up in the Park Loan has been used by almost a quarter of residents making additions
to their homes since we began the program in 2005. Twenty five percent is a significant
participation rate. Despite the downturn in the economy and fewer additions being constructed,
the percentage of residents adding on and using this loan has remained consistent.
City Comparison
Staff found only three cities, including SLP, that have loans with the higher 120% MAI
guideline. All three cities act as the lender and assume the risks. The difference is that ours is
only available to residents making expansions and it is deferred, while Roseville and Shoreview
offer traditional private sector type loans for home improvements. The rates and terms of their
loans are consistent with loans already available in the private sector that higher income
households can already access.
We also found that St. Anthony Village and some of the Minneapolis neighborhoods have
revolving loan pools that fund loans with no income cap; these loans are generally at 4-5 %
interest with a 3-10 year term and maximum loan amount of $10,000. Again, these cities act as
lenders, assume the risks, and yet the loans have rates and terms consistent with private sector
industry standards that higher income families can already access.
Factors Contributing to Use
Since the Move Up in the Park loan began in 2005, our lender has denied only four residents due
to higher than allowed incomes. That being said, we do not know how many people did not
apply as the income limits are noted on the application and website.
Services Available to All Residents Regardless of Income
In addition to loans, the city provides popular and cost effective services designed to provide
ideas, inspiration and information for all homeowners. The following services have no income
limits:
home remodeling tour
home remodeling fair
home remodeling advisor
architectural design service
energy efficient rebates for furnaces, air conditioners and water heaters
CEE/State Energy Loan.
Recommendation. Staff recommends retaining the 120% MAI for the Move-Up Loan based on:
the participation rate for the Move-Up Loan has remained consistent, so it does provide gap
financing for 25% of residents making additions; there are limited resources for low and
moderate income residents while higher income households can access private sector loans, and
the City provides technical services to all income households including higher income
households.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 24
23
VI. ENSURING A SUSTAINABLE HOUSING REHABILITATION FUND
(HRF)
The City established the Housing Rehabilitation Fund (HRF) in the mid 90’s. The HRF is
intended to fund or assist proposed projects that focus on housing rehab and initiatives that
further city housing goals. One-eighth of one percent of the principal of outstanding revenue
bonds is dedicated to this fund and generates approximately $600,000 annually.
This fund is used both as leverage to secure other funding and as a stand-alone fund for programs
the City feels are important and that do not meet the constraints of state or federal housing funds.
This fund covers: the cost of discounting state and the Live Where You Work loans; and funds
services for all income level households – energy rebates, home remodeling tour, architectural
design service, and remodeling advisor.
The table below shows revenues and expenses for the past two and half years. The expenses
related specifically to the Housing Programs do not exceed revenues, while total expenses
funded do exceed revenues. Other expenses funded by the HRF include: transfers to the
community outreach budget and general fund as well as neighborhood association grants, public
art and culture grants, and Hoigaard Village Public Art. The funding shown in the table only
includes the Private Activity Bond Revenue; it does not include loans to be repaid such as the
HIA and Move Up in the Park loans. The fund balance at the end of 2010 is $1,093,000.
Table. Housing Rehabilitation Fund
2009 2010 June 3, 2011
Private Activity Bond Revenues $559,798 $622,385 $529,309
Housing Program Expenses $458,917 $377,865 $190,881
Other Expenses $244,636 $435,969 $299,095
Total Expenses $703,553 $813,835 $489,976
Important to note the HRF is not the only source for housing program funding. The Park Shore
TIF generates approximately $130,000 annually. It has been used for the Shallow Rent Subsidy
Program and could absorb the cost of other affordable housing programs.
Recommendation.
Continuation of dedicated local funding ensures the City’s Vision and housing goals are fulfilled
and residents’ needs addressed. The flexibility to design programs and services to serve all
income residents, including higher income households, has set St. Louis Park apart from other
communities, and will continue to do so in the future. Staff will be exploring financial options to
ensure that adequate funds are available for funding housing improvement programs and services
that continue to meet the City’s housing goals and residents’ needs.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 25
24
VII. OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Review of the city’s existing housing programs leads naturally to the question, what additional
programs or activities should be considered that we are not currently doing. Several ideas for
future actions are explored below.
1. Marketing
Some of the City’s programs are heavily used, others less so. A fresh marketing campaign
could improve the effectiveness of our existing programs at a modest cost. Increased outreach of
our existing technical and informational services can increase awareness of the city’s programs
and services. A fresh marketing campaign to residents via direct mailing, the Park Perspective,
Sun Sailor and electronic messaging will be explored. Outreach to the real estate community
through the first SLP real estate forum scheduled to be held this fall, will build upon the
residential outreach campaign.
2. Garages/Alleys Maintenance Campaign
The attractiveness and quality of our neighborhoods and
housing stock is affected by more than just the condition of
the dwellings themselves. Often garages are in poor
condition and a detriment to the quality of the property and
neighborhood. The 2011 Citywide Property Maintenance
Evaluation identified over 300 properties with exterior
maintenance problems – many of which were garages.
Inspection staff noted that approximately 80% of garages
with maintenance corrections are located in alleys, and most
are original single car garages. The most common garage
correction is painting and replacing portions of deteriorated
siding.
Reasons why garage – alley areas are not maintained: As Inspection staff has worked with
owners of the 330 properties the following commonalities have been expressed:
The garage and alley space is not a priority and owners have other priorities for their time
and money.
Out of sight – out of mind. Residents are generally aware of the deteriorated conditions, and
once notified by Inspections say something like, “yes we know, we’ll fix it”.
Some residents are planning/waiting to build a two-car garage and in the interim neglect the
existing garage.
Lack of outdoor storage space and resistance to scheduling and paying an additional
sanitation pick-up fee leads to unused items such as couches and appliances being “stored”
near garages and alleys.
Staff will be exploring a “Garage/Alley Campaign”. This could be a pilot program targeted to
the neighborhoods with the greatest number of offenders, taking a comprehensive approach with
a highly visible promotion campaign that could include the following elements:
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 26
25
OPPORTUNITIES (continued)
A rebate incentive for residents making garage improvements.
Neighborhood garage “Paint – A – Thons”.
A review of the outdoor storage ordinance to provide a clearer message to residents.
Provide information about car ports.
Garage & storage space planbook.
Promote use of existing City discount loans.
3. Senior Housing Study
Staff will be exploring working with the County to conduct a Senior Housing Analysis that
would include St. Louis Park. Decision Resource’s City Survey indicates that 24% of the
respondents think that there are too few senior assisted living units and too few associations with
senior one-level housing units. The new census data will provide further insight into the city’s
demographics and possible senior housing needs. The City’s role in the possible development of
alternative housing options, both affordable and market rate, for seniors/empty nesters that
provides lateral financial movement will require study and consideration.
4. Green Remodeling Program Enhancement
Staff will be exploring how the green, energy efficient program can be more effective through
higher residential participation. Decision Resources’ City Survey cited that 83% of the
respondents think the City should continue to promote energy efficiency improvements in
residential homes, and 57% would still support these activities even if they cost tax payers more
up front. Among considerations for future energy efficient programs are: providing home
energy analysis which could include a blower door test to determine how leaky homes are; City
rebates for installing water saving appliances; building on the State’s energy loan, and adapting
the Green Remodeling Planbook being developed by the Family Housing Fund and City of
Roseville for St. Louis Park residents.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 27
26
VII. ATTACHMENTS
Report Methodology
A variety of evaluation tools were explored, and the framework staff used to evaluate the current
housing improvement programs and services has been adapted from the Office of the Legislative
Auditor report on Best Practices for Housing Preservation and Urban Land Institute’s
Opportunity City’s Housing Audit. Four major areas have been explored in this evaluation and
have been incorporated into findings and recommendations.
1. Data from all our housing improvement programs and services was compiled to provide the
full picture of how the program and services serve our residents and meet the City’s Vision,
Strategic Directions and Housing Goals
2. Staff then reviewed suggestions from the Housing Action Team of Vision; the 2011 Citywide
Property Evaluation findings; and Decision Resource City Survey to determine if programs
are meeting the City goals and residents’ expectations.
3. Staff compiled a list of thirty-one different programs/services provided by twelve other cities,
including cities cited in the State’s Best Practices for Housing Preservation and ULI’s
Opportunity Cities. The list of programs from other municipalities was reviewed and service
providers including CEE, CAPSH and the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corp were
interviewed to inform and provide ideas to help look at the “what is missing” question of the
evaluation.
4. City Demographics were considered.
The median household income of St. Louis Park’s households is below the metro median
area income. The 2009 St. Louis Park median household income was $58,300, compared
to the metro median household income of $84,000. SLP has a majority of households
with incomes that meet the income guidelines for Mn Housing’s Loan programs.
Age of households is younger than most communities – first time homebuyers are
common.
The single family detached housing stock is aging, and has ongoing maintenance and
rehab needs. Over 87% of the single family homes are over 50 years old and another
10% are between 30-50 years old.
Condominiums and townhomes are aging, 90% of the complexes were built in the 1970’s
and 80’s.
The Office of the Legislative Auditor conducted A Best Practice Review – Preserving Housing
“this study identified best practices for local governments that have decided to become involved
in preserving housing.” St. Louis Park was cited in this study for our best practice in housing
programs and inspection activity. Our housing programs were cited for sound management
controls and managing city risk with HIAs, collaborative efforts to provide housing information
through our four cities and community education depts. home remodeling fair, and partnering to
offering housing expertise – home remodeling advisor. As well as leveraging other funds to
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 28
27
provide financial and technical assistance to owners with properties identified in the citywide
inspection program.
Also cited as examples of best practice is the use of the International Property Maintenance Code
which was spurred by resident survey input, along with the Point of Sale Inspections, and rental
license inspections. Also noted was the use of customer friendly permit technicians who efficient
issuing permits and schedule inspectors.
The study found that cities should implement the following best practices, all of which are being,
or have been implemented by the City:
Identify housing needs and analyze info in context of long range planning and strategic
thinking.
Set housing goals, objectives and strategies.
Apply enforcement codes consistently, use variety of enforcement methods and encourage
voluntary compliance.
Publicize code requirements, offer technical assistance, and make permit process convenient.
Financial assistance should find partnerships that give cities the capacity to access myriad
complex programs. Program administered need to manage project risks and identify clients.
Seek collaborations with other governmental entities and non-profits to provide housing
information and expertise. Identify residents’ information needs, and provide information in
a variety of ways.
Manage, plan, implement and market repair and rehab services...
Periodic evaluation to determine how well housing strategies meet objectives.
The second source for evaluation is The Urban Land Institute (ULI) MN/Regional Council of
Mayor’s Opportunity City Pilot Program’s Housing Audit. This program identified criteria to
review and evaluate cities’ housing programs.
The evaluation criteria cited by ULI includes;
Loan activity – number and amounts of loans and grants,
Number of residents served,
Median income levels,
Value of improvements,
Property value increases, and
Staff resource level required.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 29
28
ATTACHMENT
City’s Housing Goals Addressed by Programs and Services.
This narrative describes how strategies are being, and have been implemented to address housing
goals.
Housing Production Goals
1. Promote and facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both
today and in the future.
2. Establish target numbers of units for each housing type needed to ensure life-cycle housing
options are available for residents, with housing types disbursed throughout the city.
3. The City acknowledges that there is demand for different types and sizes of housing units,
but due to limitations of available space and other resources, all demands cannot be fully
satisfied. At the present time, the greatest deficit and need is for the creation and maintenance
of detached, owner-occupied single-family housing which are large enough to accommodate
families. City housing efforts and resources should primarily address this need.
Strategies Implemented
1. A matrix has been developed of existing housing types including detached/attached,
owner/rental, family/senior; and affordable/market rate with production numbers for
each. This is provided semi-annually to policy makers to assist in evaluating future
housing development proposals.
2. Public/private partnerships and incentives have been created for the development of a
variety of new housing stock including most recently Hoigaard’s Village, Ellipse on
Excelsior, Wooddale Point, and the West End Apartments. See Land Use Goals for
further development activity.
3. The Excess Land Task Force identified unused public land to sell for constructing large
single family home. Six single family parcels were sold, four new large homes have been
constructed and one existing expanded by purchasing a side yard. One more home is
tentatively being proposed for construction.
4. The Move Up in the Park Program began in 2005: the move-up loan has been used by
over twenty three percent of the residents that have completed remodeling projects; the
remodeling tour has proven very successful, and the remodeling advisor service has
proven very effective.
Housing Condition and Preservation Goals
1. Ensure housing is safe and well maintained.
2. Preserve and enhance housing quality through proactive promotional and educational
activities and housing programs related to home rehabilitation, code, and design and safety
issues.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 30
29
Strategies Implemented
1. Implement Housing Improvement loan programs, providing financial incentives to
leverage private remodeling.
2. Implementation of Property Maintenance Code, i.e. inspections, licensing requirements
and enforcement to encourage well-maintained housing is ongoing. In 2011 the third
Citywide Property Evaluation was conducted with 330 properties identified as needing
exterior maintenance repairs. Residents are being directed to the City’s financial and
technical assistance.
3. Promotional and education activities on building maintenance for owners of single-family
homes and multi-family buildings include:
a. Promotional activity includes regular features in the Sun Sailor, Park Perspective and
website. Inspection requirements has been updated and a list of the top ten things
cited by Point of Sale Inspections created and disbursed.
b. The annual home remodeling tour and home remodeling fair are two very well
attended promotional activities that provide ideas, information and inspiration.
c. Both the home remodeling advisor and architectural design service provide technical
and design assistance for single-family home maintenance and remodeling.
d. Public/private partnerships for maintenance of single family and multifamily housing
continue through the ongoing partnership of SPARC, the coalition of rental owners
and managers, promotes quality multifamily housing in St. Louis Park. The City also
partners with the Center for Energy and Environment, Homes Within Reach, Habitat
for Humanity and Condo Associations.
Owner / Rental Ratio Goals
1. The ratio of owner/rental housing should be approximately 60% owner-occupied and 40%
rental.
2. Explore traditional and non-traditional owner-occupied housing options such as, but not
limited to: row houses, courtyard housing, alternative housing, cluster housing, hi-rises, 3-
story homes, multi-generational housing, etc. (See Land Use Strategies)
Strategies Implemented
3. The City promotes the first time home buyer program, homeownership counseling and
down payment assistance to encourage and support home ownership. The Live Where
You Work program is another tool to encourage home ownership.
4. Promote affordable ownership opportunities.
a. The partnership with Homes Within Reach, an affordable land trust has resulted in
low income families achieving home ownership.
b. A partnership with Habitat for Humanity and Twin City Community Land Trust has
been developed to build a new affordable home.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 31
30
Affordable, Workforce and Supportive Housing Goals
1. Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of
affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Future affordability goals
negotiated with the Metropolitan Council should reflect the average percentages of other first
ring suburbs in Hennepin County.
2. Mixed income units should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one
area of the City or any one development.
Strategies Implemented
1. CDBG funds are used to provide limited financial support of transitional and supportive
housing programs for specialized groups and affordable multifamily housing providers.
2. The Live Where You Work program partners with businesses to provide ownership
opportunities for employees of St. Louis Park businesses.
3. The City has assisted Project for Pride in Living with a re-finance of the Louisiana Court
property and has provided funds for capital improvements.
4. In 2010 new affordability and life cycle goals were negotiated with the Met Council for
2010 through 2020.
5. Land trust homes, Habitat for Humanity homes and private new construction on single
family lots have been disbursed throughout the city.
6. Foreclosure prevention counseling has been heavily promoted by the City to assist
residents to retain their homes.
Large Homes for Families Goals
1. Promote and facilitate the expansion of existing homes through remodeling projects which
add more bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities.
2. Promote and facilitate construction of large family-size homes with more bedrooms and more
bathrooms, (e.g. minimum 3+ bedrooms and 2+ bathrooms, 2+ car garage and additional
amenities such as den/fourth bedroom or porch or superior architecture) suitable for families
with children.
Strategies Implemented
1. Create new large family housing with more bedrooms and baths.
a. Through the Excess Land process opportunities for new construction of large family
homes were identified and resulted in addition of large homes to the city.
b. Two blighted and vacant properties have been identified and redeveloped or rehabbed
at 2944 Brunswick Ave and 3317 Texas Ave.
2. Develop a strategy to create more large family housing by expanding existing homes.
a. The Move Up in the Park program was implemented in 2005 and provides a deferred
loan to owners expanding their homes. One hundred residents have used this loan.
b. The Home Remodeling Tour promotes and assists with expansion ideas.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 32
31
c. The Architectural Design Service and Home Remodeling Advisor encourage quality
remodeling and home additions through technical and design assistance programs,
etc.
d. CEE assists our residents to leverage and layer financing of expansion project costs.
Senior Housing Goals
Promote and facilitate more housing options for seniors.
Strategies Implemented
The Village in the Park market rate senior building was built in 2006, and Wooddale Pointe,
assisted senior housing is under way. Decision Resource’s City Survey supports that senior
housing is an area for further study. Updated census data will provide further insight into the
City’s demographics. The City’s role in the possible development of alternative housing
options (both affordable and market rate) for seniors/empty nesters within St. Louis Park that
provide lateral financial movement will require study and consideration.
Land Use Goals
1. Planning Goals:
a. Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals.
b. Promote higher density housing near transit corridors & employment centers.
c. Encourage housing density in commercial mixed use districts.
2. Explore and, if appropriate promote ordinances to allow development of non-traditional
housing types and increased density in single family neighborhood that is compatible with
surrounding neighborhood.
3. Explore and promote reclassification of non-residential properties and designate for housing
and other purposes.
Strategies Implemented
1. Planning strategies
a. Strategies implemented to using infill and redevelopment opportunities resulted in the
sale of excess city land and the redevelopment of several sites, including Hoigaard's
Village, West End, Ellipse I and Wooddale Pointe, all of which include housing.
There have also been several new single-family homes constructed on infill sites with
several small subdivisions, notably three in the Cobblecrest neighborhood.
b. Staff is currently working on exploring higher density near LRT corridors through the
SWLRT Community Works and ongoing studies of areas around the LRT stations –
and along bus routes in the City. A reduction in the City’s off-street parking
requirement is allowed in redevelopment near major bus routes, and has been
successfully applied in several redevelopments. Higher density redevelopment is
expected on major corridors and at commercial crossroads in the city.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 33
32
c. Housing density in commercial mixed use districts was accomplished with the
Hoigaard’s Village and Wooddale Pointe projects and is nearing fruition with the
proposed West End Apartments. Park Summit also achieves higher density in an area
that is adjacent to grocery and convenient shopping.
2. Ellipse is an example of working with single family neighbors on land use issues,
involving increased density in single-family neighborhoods. We work with developers to
provide an extensive neighborhood involvement component prior to redevelopment and
throughout the development process.
3. Re-re-using non-residential properties for housing redevelopment occurred at Ellipse,
West End Apartments, Hoigaards and Wooddale Pointe developments. Additional
potential for conversion of non-residential properties for housing is recommended near
the future Wooddale Ave. LRT station.
Assessing infrastructure and traffic impacts of new development proposals is an ongoing
activity. For example, the Park Summit apartment building proposal includes a study of
traffic impacts to an adjacent intersection, and will result in a new traffic signal and other
intersection modifications. The Ellipse project had impacts to France Ave, and resulted
in the construction of mitigation measures, including a landscaped median intended to
deter traffic entry to the neighborhood.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 34
HIADiscount LoanMove-Up in the Park Loan *Green Discount LoanGreen RemodelingRebatesLow Income Rehab LoanLow Income Emegency GrantHome Remodeling FairHome Remodeling TourRemodeling Advisor VisitsArchitectural Design ServiceHousing Improvement Area (HIA) Live Where You Work LoanHomes Within ReachHabitat for HumanityYear Started 1999 2005 2009 2009 1975 2000 1982 2005 2005 2005 2002 2009 2008 1996Maximum Assistance$35,000 $25,000 $35,000 $500 $20,000 $4,000Not applicableNot applicableOne visit One visitVariable $3,500 $20,000 $22,000 Income Upper Limit -MAI80-115% 120% 80-115%No income limit50% 50%No income limitNo income limitNo income limitNo income limitEMV for owners 80% 120% 60-80% 30-60%Annual HH Income$95,150$99,240 $95,150No income limit $28,950 $28,950 No income limitNo income limitNo income limitNo income limitBased on Unit Value$99,240 - 4 person HH$64,200 - 4 person $41,350 - 4 person ParticipationAverage Loan Amount$15,650 $23,400 $10,500 $200 $20,000 $3,000NA NA NA 350 10440/unit $2,750 $20,000 $21,000 2010 Number units/loans64 9 30 42 4 181500 attendees1500 attendees $89 300420Total Number to date700 101 33 102 45 13219 Fairs7 Tours940 3505 HIAs 742 units 8 8 9FinanacialCity cost/unit$1,400 $23,400 $540 $200 CDBG CDBGNo City Cost $7,000 $130 $225 Reimbursed by Project $3,150 $10,000 CDBGContracted Admin Costs$125/loanBorrower Pays$125/ loan None 13% 10% None $7,000 $130/visit $225/visitReimbursed by Project $400 None NoneRatio of City$ : Private$ 1:12 1:71:191:32CDBG CDBGNA NA NANAAll Private NANA NAProgram Fund Source HRFHRF/Dev FundHRF & State HRF CDBG CDBG Vendor FeesHRF, Contractor HRF HRFHRF, Dev Fund HRFHRF CDBG CDBG2011 Budget$80,000 $350,000 $30,000 $10,000 $56,040 $37,500 $0 $7,000 $25,000 $10,000$5,000 $73,000 $50,000 $21,000 Staff Resource LevelLow Low Low Low Low-Med Low-MedLowLow Low LowMedium LowLow LowAffordable Home OwnershipHousing Improvement and Ownership Programs Summary - September 2011* Move Up in the Park Deferred Loan - repaid when owner moves - forgiven after 30 years.Single Family Home Improvement LoansInformational & Technical ServicesStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Housing Improvement Programs EvaluationPage 35
Eliot
Aquila
Lenox
Fern Hill
Wolfe Park
Oak Hill
BlackstoneWestwood Hills
Birchwood
Elmwood
Sorensen
Triangle
Creekside
Bronx ParkCedar Manor
Cobblecrest
Lake Forest
Texa Tonka
Willow Park
Minikahda Vista
Browndale
South Oak HillKilmer PondBrooklawnsMeadowbrook
Eliot View
Cedarhurst
Shelard Park
Brookside
Minne-haha
PennsylvaniaPark
Crest-view
AmhurstWest-dale
Minikahda Oaks
SLP Location of Resident Use of City Loans
Loans Map
2011_LOANS
TYPE
DISCOUNT LOANS
MOVE-UP LOANS
Neighborhoods
Shelard Parkway
I-394 I-394
Flag AveHighway 169Edgemore DrTexas AveLouisiana AveHwy 7
Texas AveExcelsior WayHwy 100Hwy 100Hwy 7
Minnetonka Blvd
28th St W
France AveExcelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Natchez Ave44th St
Douglas Ave
22nd St W
Hwy 7
0 0.5 1
Miles
Legend
DISCOUNT LOANS
MOVE-UP LOANS
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Housing Improvement Programs Evaluation Page 36
Meeting Date: September 26, 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:
Bader Development’s Preliminary Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Application - Redevelopment
of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn site).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff wishes to review and receive feedback on Bader Development’s proposed multi-family
residential development on the former American Inn site and Preliminary TIF Application.
Specific issues staff wishes to discuss include:
Site challenges (and parking concerns)
Proposed project and plans
Project economics/amount of TIF assistance
Compliance with the EDA’s TIF Policy
Next steps
In summary, Bader Development has offered $810,000 to purchase 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
from the EDA to construct a $12.6 million, 5-story, 58-unit, market rate apartment building that
would integrate with the developer’s recently completed Ellipse on Excelsior project. After
careful analysis by Ehlers & Associates it is clear the proposed project cannot proceed without
financial assistance. It is proposed that $700,000 in tax increment assistance be provided to
address the considerable site preparation costs involved with redeveloping the property so as to
move the project forward.
As a reminder, the purpose of a Preliminary TIF Application is to allow a developer to present a
proposal to the EDA in the initial stages of a project to determine if it merits consideration for
TIF financing. Even if the EDA should direct staff to pursue the project further, the EDA is not
obligating itself to providing the requested assistance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA preliminarily support Bader Development’s proposed E2 project and is it willing
to consider entering into a Purchase and Redevelopment Contract to convey the subject property
and provide financial assistance to facilitate the project?
Does the EDA support the submittal of grant applications to assist in the environmental cleanup
of the property?
Background:
The subject property, located at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard, is 31,597 SF or approximately 0.725
acres. The property was a forested, low-lying wetland until approximately the early 1950s. From
about 1940 to the mid-1950s, uncontrolled fill was deposited on the site. In approximately 1956,
a motel/restaurant building was constructed on the north and eastern portions of property. In
approximately 1967 a small Falcon Oil station was built to the south along Excelsior Boulevard.
In approximately 1977 the restaurant ceased operation along with the filling station and the
filling station was removed.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No.3) Page 2
Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior Blvd.
In November 2009 the EDA purchased the subject property from Gary T. Mulcahy, Sr. Soon
thereafter, the motel building was removed. As with other impacted properties the EDA has
acquired, the EDA entered the subject property into the MPCA’s Voluntary Investigation and
Clean-up Program (VIC) in order to separate the EDA from any responsibility for the
environmental problems present on the site. The City received a letter of “No Association
Determination” from the MPCA on December 16, 2009.
In September 2010 the EDA leased the subject property to Bader Development’s Ellipse on
Excelsior mixed use project next door for overflow customer parking purposes. Such overflow
use was authorized until September 1, 2011. Bader has subsequently requested to continue
leasing the property on a month-to-month basis as allowed under its amended Redevelopment
Contract with the EDA.
Subject property: 3924 Excelsior Boulevard.
Why was the subject property purchased?
The area near the intersection of Excelsior Blvd and France Avenue has been identified for
potential redevelopment in the city’s plans for some time. Acquiring the subject property
provided the EDA with the ability to control the future of the site and ensure that its
redevelopment was consistent with the France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development
Guidelines. Purchasing the subject property was a strategic move that precluded an undesirable
interim use of the property and afforded the EDA the opportunity to have it redeveloped to an
optimal use sooner rather than later.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No.3) Page 3
Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior Blvd.
Residents from the surrounding Minikahda Oaks and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods expressed
considerable interest in seeing the former motel building removed and redeveloped in a manner
consistent with the France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines.
Environmental Conditions
In 2009 the EDA retained AMEC (environmental consultants) to conduct both Phase I and Phase
II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) on the subject property. In summary, the results of the
field work and laboratory analysis indicated the following:
Approximately 11,000 cubic yards of fill soils at the site are impacted by diesel
range organics (DRO), and various polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
compounds at concentrations above both residential and industrial cleanup levels
as defined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
The native soils underlying the fill at the Site are also impacted by PAHs, DRO
and various petroleum related volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at
concentrations that exceed applicable cleanup standards. Some of these impacts
are the result of the former gasoline station that was located at the site. It is
estimated that there are approximately 3,000 cubic yards of petroleum
contaminated soil that will require removal and disposal.
Recently, Bader Development retained Liesch Associates to conduct a supplemental Phase II
ESA of the property. This was a more thorough investigation in which soil borings were taken on
a 40 foot grid across the entire property and test pits were dug. As a result of this investigation it
was estimated there are approximately 13,500 cubic yards of fill soil debris (containing a wide
variety of hazardous and non-hazardous materials in various concentrations), 4,100 cubic yards
of non-hazardous silty clay soil (not structurally suitable), and 700 cubic yards of
petroleum/arsenic impacted soils that will all need to be excavated, exported from the site and
properly disposed. Due to the presence of various floor covering materials (which contain
asbestos and is highly friable) detected in several of the boring samples, Liesch assumes the bulk
of the fill material will require special management given the residential nature of the proposed
project and in order to prevent institutional controls from being placed on the property. In sum,
Liesch estimates that the total cost to remediate the site and prepare it for residential
development is between $1.2 and $1.4 million.
Proposed Project
Bader Development is proposing to purchase the subject property, remove the existing
contamination and prepare the property for redevelopment. Bader plans to construct an upscale
apartment building similar to its Ellipse on Excelsior project next door. The proposed 58-unit
(62-bedroom) market rate project would be 100% residential and called E2. The structure would
have five stories including a mezzanine and would be less than 60 feet tall. E2 would also
include one level of underground structured parking that would be heated and ventilated. The
total size of the building including the structured parking would be approximately 90,000 square
feet. The underground garage would have 73 stalls and a car wash. E2 would have 31 surface
parking stalls; 9 reserved for visitors and 22 for customer parking from the Ellipse. Lastly, 3
inset parking spaces (that could accommodate short-term loading) are planned along Excelsior
Blvd as part of the project.
In conformance with the City’s Green Building Policy, E2 would feature the following
sustainable building elements:
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No.3) Page 4
Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior Blvd.
1. Re-use site which utilizes existing infrastructure
2. Clean-up of contaminated site
3. LEED for Homes Mid-rise as the design guideline for possible certification
4. Durable, long lasting construction products and materials
5. Energy Star windows and large windows for day lighting
6. Energy efficient lighting with occupancy sensors, off-hours partial shut down
7. Low-flow faucet and shower head plumbing fixtures
8. Continuous ventilation and fresh air at units
9. Proximity to mass transit, sidewalks, and trails
Bader envisions the project commencing next spring and taking a year to construct. E2 would
ideally be open for occupancy in May 2013.
To alleviate concerns that parking related to the Ellipse’s commercial tenants would be
dislocated during the construction of E2, Bader has arranged for employees of the Ellipse’s
commercial tenants to park in the parking lot behind the Minikahda Mobil station across the
street. This should free up sufficient parking spaces on the Ellipse property to discourage
customer parking from spilling into the adjacent neighborhood.
The Redeveloper
Bader Development, LLC, (a real estate development company) is headquartered in St. Louis
Park. It is led by Sid Bader, Scott Bader, and Robb Bader. The principals have more than 50
years experience building, managing, and owning apartment buildings in the Twin Cities with
over 6,000 units in their portfolio. The firm constructed the Ellipse on Excelsior project on the
former Al’s Liquor and Anderson Cleaners properties next door to the subject property. The 132-
unit mixed use development was completed in the fall of 2010 and has been 100% leased since
February. Currently it has a waiting list.
Market Demand
Substantial apartment development activity is currently occurring within the Twin Cities; in fact,
it is at a 20-year high. While all the proposed projects won’t be constructed at the same time
there is sufficient growing demand, according to industry experts, to absorb these new buildings.
The Cassidy/Turley Twin Cities Mid-Year Real Estate Report states that multifamily housing is
in high demand particularly in well-located locations within first and second ring suburbs. Bader
Development is confident that market demand will be strong for E2 given the quick lease-up of
the Ellipse project next door, its location along Excelsior Blvd., proximity to Uptown and mass
transit, as well as the high quality units and amenities proposed within the building.
Land Use and Zoning Requirements
The subject redevelopment site is guided and zoned High Density Residential. Thus, the
proposed project would conform to the required land use. Bader Development is proposing to
incorporate the E2 project into the existing Ellipse PUD. This would be done through a major
amendment to the Ellipse PUD requiring a public hearing at the Planning Commission and
approval by the City Council. The PUD amendment would allow the proposed E2 residential
density and setback flexibilities. There will be a preliminary and final plat for the E2 site and
variances for the rear yard and side yard setbacks adjacent to the Minikahda Court development.
PUD rules in general allow reduced setbacks, however not adjacent to residentially-zoned
parcels. Without the requested variances the proposed E2 development will not be possible. In
addition, an easement for an existing planter in the Excelsior Boulevard streetscape will need to
be vacated.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No.3) Page 5
Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior Blvd.
Conformance with Development Guidelines
Bader Development’s preliminary site and building plans for E2 are consistent with the majority
of standards listed in the Development Guidelines for the Northwest corner of Excelsior
Boulevard and France Avenue adopted in 2005. The Guidelines envisioned that development on
the former American Inn, Al’s Liquors, and Anderson Cleaners properties would be carefully
integrated. The proposed E2 project meets this and numerous other key design guideline
objectives.
Communication with Adjacent Neighborhoods
The Bader Development team introduced and discussed the proposed E2 project at a Minikahda
Oaks/Minikahda Vista neighborhood meeting on September 20th. The building itself was
generally well received however; parking management between both the Ellipse and E2 was of
considerable concern. Bader agreed to continue to seek solutions to prevent project parking from
routinely occurring in the adjacent neighborhoods.
Property Value and Taxes
The estimated market value of the subject property is less than $900,000 assuming the property
is in developable condition. The estimated market value of the property upon redevelopment as
proposed would exceed $6 million. Currently, the subject property is tax exempt. E2 would
annually generate over $100,000 in property taxes.
Developer’s Request for Financial Assistance
E2 is an expensive project and not financially feasible without assistance. Bader Development is
seeking help specifically with the higher cost of site preparation and structured parking.
Providing assistance makes it possible to maximize the development potential of the site and
construct a high quality project consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines.
As previously noted, the latest cost estimate to excavate, load, haul, and properly dispose of
impacted soil and remediate the subject property in conformance with MPCA standards for a
residential development is between $1.2 and $1.4 million. Bader Development has requested the
difference between the extraordinary excavation costs (between $1.2 and $1.4 million) and what
would be its normal excavation costs if the soils were clean (between $100,000 and $300,000)
which equals between $900,000 and $1,100,000 in assistance. Additionally, Bader has requested
funding to help offset a portion of the construction cost related to the structured parking which is
estimated in excess of $2 million. After extensive analysis by Ehlers, and Staff discussion with
Bader, a consensus was reached that $700,000 in pay-as-you-go tax increment assistance and
joint pursuit of cleanup grants would sufficiently allow the project to move forward.
Preliminary Pro Forma Analysis
Bader Development’s preliminary sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and
investor rate of return (ROR) related to E2 were reviewed by Staff and Ehlers. The estimates
were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of redevelopment.
Included in the analysis is a proposed purchase price for the subject property of $810,000 which
represents approximately $14,000/unit or $25.63 per square foot. The EDA paid $750,000 for
the property in 2009. According to the City Assessor, the proposed purchase price is reasonable
and within market.
Bader Development’s project proforma reflects an expected cash-on-cash (COC) return of less
than five (5) percent and an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of less than twelve (12) percent.
According to Ehlers, industry standards for COC returns is ten (10) percent and IRR returns of
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No.3) Page 6
Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior Blvd.
twenty (20) percent. If the EDA and the granting agencies were to provide the requested
assistance, it is estimated the development will attain a COC return of approximately five (5)
percent in the first five years and a cumulative COC return of ten (10) percent over fifteen (15)
years. In order for the developer to attain a higher return, it will have to rely on cost savings or
increased revenues over time. Based on its review of Bader’s proforma, Ehlers’ concludes that
the above costs are reasonable and warrant assistance. The proposed assistance would be
$700,000 provided through pay-as-you-go tax increment (generated from the project). Of this
amount approximately $340,000 would be allocated to contamination cleanup and $360,000
would be allocated toward the structured parking. It is proposed that the remaining balance
related to the contamination cleanup be addressed through grant applications to DEED, the
Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County. Staff and Bader representatives recently met with
the granting agencies regarding E2 and were encouraged to apply.
TIF Note
It will take approximately one year to construct E2. The first increment would be paid in 2014.
Given current estimates of market value, it is expected the note would be paid off in
approximately nineteen (19) years (on a net present value basis) using a 5.6% interest rate and no
inflation. The proposed project would be financed on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the
desired financing method under the City's TIF Policy. As with most of the City’s TIF
Development Agreements, the Redeveloper will be required to execute a Minimum Assessment
Agreement for the value utilized for projecting the amount of TIF assistance available.
The subject property is within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area and the existing Ellipse on
Excelsior TIF District (a redevelopment district). Thus it would not be necessary to create a new
TIF district to provide the requested assistance but an amendment to the TIF Plan approved in
2009 would be required.
Look Back Provision
As with other recent redevelopment projects with which the EDA has been involved, Bader
Development would be expected to agree to a "look back" provision in a future redevelopment
contract with the EDA for this project. Per the agreement, the Redeveloper would be required to
submit a final proforma detailing actual costs of the development upon completion and lease up
of the building. This will allow the EDA to calculate the estimated profit return to the
Redeveloper. It is proposed that profits exceeding the projected twelve (12) percent would be
split between the Redeveloper and the EDA which would then reduce the amount of TIF
assistance provided. This is an important provision as it ensures that if the project cash flows at
a higher rate, the EDA shares economically in the success of the project.
Preliminary Conformance and Analysis under the City’s TIF Policy
The proposed project meets the following housing-related goals as outlined in the city’s TIF
Policy:
Provides a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today
and in the future.
Promotes neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the removal of blight and
the upgrading of existing housing stock.
The proposed project meets the following “Desired Qualifications” as outlined in the TIF Policy:
It creates a higher ratio of property taxes paid before and after redevelopment and
provides a significant increase in tax base.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No.3) Page 7
Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior Blvd.
It redevelops an underutilized property.
The Redeveloper has demonstrated that the project plan is not financially feasible
“but-for” the use of tax increment financing.
The Redeveloper is able to demonstrate past general development capability as well
as specific capability in the type and size of development proposed.
In addition to the above, the proposed project could have the following additional benefits:
Removes contaminated soils and remediates the property.
Intensifies the subject property’s usage (which is vacant) with a high quality/high
value, “residential only” development.
Incorporates design features consistent with the Development Guidelines for the
Northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue.
Complements, supports, and integrates with the Ellipse on Excelsior project next door
which has proven to be an attractive gateway development at the eastern edge of the
city.
Incorporates modern interpretations of traditional architectural principles.
Further strengthens and diversifies the housing options available in the St. Louis Park
market.
Serves as a catalyst for additional redevelopment activities along the Excelsior
Boulevard and the stimulation of further private activity and investment in the area.
Incorporates Livable Communities and Transit Oriented Design principles.
Incorporates Green Building design and features.
Grading under City’s TIF Report Card
Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application was evaluated according to the City’s TIF
Policy. The project was thus graded as follows:
Promotes housing for large families.
The residential units in the development will cater to the demands of the market
which is for smaller units. Since none of the units will have more than 3 bedrooms a
grade of “F” was provided.
Provides economic integration of rental or ownership projects.
Of the proposed 58 residential units none would be designated as low income;
therefore a grade of “F” was provided.
Ratio of soft costs to Total Project Costs.
Soft costs of the total project were estimated at $2.58 million or 20% of the total
development costs which graded a “B”.
Ratio of private to public (TIF) financing.
$12.6 million in private development costs to $700,000 in TIF which equals a $18
private / $1 public ratio which garnered an “A”.
The value of the site before and after redevelopment (factor taken from the
Business & Redevelopment Report Card).
Estimated current market value: less than $100,000. Projected market value:
$6,000,000. This is a ratio of 1:60 which equaled an “A” on the scale.
The proposed project received bonus points for: redeveloping a blighted property, enhancing a
mixed-use development, adding value to the neighborhood, incorporating principles of livable
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No.3) Page 8
Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior Blvd.
communities and environmental sustainability, being located in one of the city’s targeted
redevelopment areas, and having a significant community impact.
Upon calculation of all applicable factors and bonus points, Bader Development’s proposed
project received a final grade of “B” according to the scale provided within the Policy.
Conformance with the City’s Business Subsidy Policy
Any proposed TIF assistance provided the subject project would be exempt from state business
subsidy requirements as it relates to housing, pollution control/abatement, and redevelopment
(Section 116J.993, Subdivision 3). Therefore, no public subsidy hearing would be required;
however, the EDA would still be subject a modified reporting requirements.
Summary
Bader Development’s proposed E2 project is consistent with the majority of the standards listed
in the Development Guidelines for the Northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France
Avenue adopted in 2005. It would cleanup a contaminated site and put the property to more
productive use. The proposed project is high quality, incorporates numerous sustainable features
and is urban in character. Visually, it would further improve the aesthetic image of the city from
the east and complement the adjacent Ellipse on Excelsior project. Furthermore, the proposed
project would make optimal use of the property and yield a significant increase in market value.
As with all such proposals it is at the EDA’s discretion as to whether it wishes to provide
financial assistance at the level proposed by Staff. If the EDA wishes to move forward on this
project, Staff would begin preparing a proposed Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with
Bader Development. The terms of which would be brought back to the EDA for its review at a
subsequent study session. In addition, Staff would prepare resolutions for EDA consideration
supporting the submittal of grant applications to fund the environmental cleanup of the subject
property. Finally, Bader would continue to address concerns related to project parking
management with representatives of the Minikahda Oaks/Vista neighborhoods.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Bader Development has offered $810,000 to purchase 3924 Excelsior Boulevard from the EDA
and it is proposed that $700,000 in financial assistance be provided to Bader to address the
considerable site preparation costs involved with redeveloping the property so as to enable the
construction of a $12.6 million residential project. It is proposed that the assistance be provided
through pay-as-you-go tax increment from the existing Ellipse on Excelsior TIF District and that
the remaining balance needed to cleanup the property be addressed through contamination
cleanup grant applications to DEED, the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project conforms to several of the Strategic Directions listed in Vision St. Louis Park
such as providing a diverse housing stock, integrating community aesthetics into developments and
promoting environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Preliminary Site Plan and Building Renderings
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 9
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2BD BaderDevelopmentBader Development is a highly respected Minneapolis-based development company that has made a name for itself for quality projects based on deep market experience, sound instinct, and ideas done right.DJR Architecture, Inc. is one to the area’s leading firms in all segments of the housing market. For ever twenty-five years, DJR has provided inventive solutions uniquely tailored to each site.SOLID EXPERIENCEKEEN INSTINCTSUPERB EXECUTIONPROJECT TEAMDEVELOPER:DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION:Dean Dovolis, DJR Architecture, Inc.Cornelia PlaceCreeksideThe GrovelandWaterstone PlaceThe Ellipse on ExcelsiorPROJECT TEAMcompleted projectsStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 10
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2SITE PLANNORTHPARKING/LOADINGREAR ENTRYSTEPBACKRETAILVALET PARKINGRAMP DOWN TO RESIDENT PARKINGFIRST FLOOR ROOF OVER GARAGEGUEST PARKINGexcelsior boulevardStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 11
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2STREET RENDERINGexcelsior boulevardStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 12
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2NORTHSIDE RENDERINGview from Minikahda CourtStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 13
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2FLOOR PLANfirst floor1BRUNIT1BR+UNIT1BRUNITYOGAFITNESSLOBBY/LOUNGEWMSTORAGEMECHSTSTRAELEVTRETAIL/VALETPRKG22 SPACESRAMP DOWNStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 14
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2FLOOR PLANgarage planRESIDENT PARKING73 PARKING SPACESRAMP UPStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 15
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2FLOOR PLANsecond/third floorSTUDIOUNIT1 BR+UNIT2 BRUNIT1 BR+UNIT1 BRUNITSTELEVT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNITSTUDIOUNITSTUDIOUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNITSTStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 16
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2FLOOR PLANfourth floorSTSTSTUDIOUNIT1 BR+UNIT2 BR+ LUNIT2 BR LUNITELEVT1 BRUNIT1 BR+ LUNITSTUDIOUNITSTUDIOUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BRUNIT1 BR+ LUNITStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 17
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2FLOOR PLANfifth floorOUTDOORPATIOPARTYROOM1BUNIT1BUNIT1BUNITSTUDIOUNITSTUDIOUNIT1BUNIT1BUNIT1B+UNITLOFTLOFTLOFTLOFTSTSTELEVTSTUDIOUNITStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 18
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2GARAGESITEGARAGESITEPARKING OVERVIEW ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR:E2:RESIDENTIAL PARKING: TOTAL UNITS TOTAL BEDROOMSRESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREDUNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDEDRETAIL VALET PARKINGRESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKINGTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED58626273 SPACES (1/BR + 11)22962 REQUIRED + 42 ADDITIONALRESIDENTIAL PARKING: TOTAL UNITS TOTAL BEDROOMSRESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREDUNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDEDSURFACE RESIDENTIAL PARKINGRETAIL / GUEST PARKING132177177 SPACES 177 SPACES (1/BR)2101101 RETAIL SPACES2 RESIDENTIAL SPACES177 RESIDENTIAL SPACES73 RESIDENTIAL SPACES22 RETAIL SPACES9 GUEST SPACESStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 19
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2SHADOW STUDY SUMMARYFEBRUARY 21DECEMBER 21Minikahda Ct100%100%30%0%0%0%0%Minikahda Ct100%100%45%0%0%0%0%Minikahda Ct100%100%25%0%0%0%0%Minikahda Ct 100%50% 0% 0%0%0% 0% JANUARY 6 JANUARY 21NOVEMBER 219:00 am10:00 am11:00 am12:00 pm1:00 pm2:00 pm3:00 pmMinikahda Ct 100%90%1%0%0%0%0%City of St. Louis Park Zoning CodeSection 36-366 Architectural Design (b) 1. (9):“All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow which covers more than 50 percent of another building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year.”Conclusion:e2 complies with the City of St. Louis Park Zoning Code on shading criteria for the neighboring properties.Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 20
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.21%0%SHADOW STUDYnovember 21 11:00amStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 21
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.230%0%SHADOW STUDYdecember 21 11:00amStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 22
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.245%0%SHADOW STUDYjanuary 6 11:00amStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 23
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.225%0%SHADOW STUDYjanuary 21 11:00amStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 24
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.20%0%SHADOW STUDYfebruary 21 11:00amStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Bader Development’s Preliminary TIF Application - Redevelopment of 3924 Excelsior BlvdPage 25
Meeting Date: September 26, 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:
Proposed 2012 Utility Rates.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion regarding proposed 2012 water, sanitary sewer, storm water, and solid waste rates in
preparation for the budget adoption later this year.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm, and Solid Waste rates recommended for 2012
acceptable to Council?
Does the Council need any other information regarding the water rate plan as adopted
in 2011?
Does Council support adding a surcharge to residents in the Bassett Creek Water
Management Commission area of the city as proposed by staff?
Is there any other information Council would like staff to prepare regarding Utility
Rates for 2012?
BACKGROUND:
History
In January 2010 Ehler’s and Associates reviewed our utility rates and provided long term
recommendations. In addition, during the 2011 budget process we had an extensive study and
review of our water rates based on information from Ehlers and PCE (Progressive Consulting
Engineers). From this analysis, Council adopted a longer term rate structure and developed a 10
year phase in approach for water rates. This approach uses current rate structures in place and
increases the fixed fee over 10 years (started in 2011) to reach the PCE recommended fixed rate.
Rates in this phased approach include meeting the anticipated higher level capital needs (not
including ownership of water service lines) and the targeted cash balance of 35% by 2020 (see
Exhibit A attached).
Water Rates
Since adoption of the 2011 water rates, we have been informed that Nestle’ operations will be
leaving the city by the end of 2012 or beginning of 2013. Staff reviewed this information and is
planning on adjustments in our rate structure, if any are needed, to be presented during the 2013
budget process. As of now, the long term water rate structure adopted in 2011 is acceptable until
further review and detailed analysis is performed by Public Works staff later in 2012. See
Exhibit D for the proposed rates for 2012
Sanitary Sewer and Solid Waste Rates
Over the past year, Public Works staff has reviewed the rates and program costs for these
enterprises. Staff has also reviewed the Ehlers study as it relates to these rates in preparation for
recommendations for 2012. As of now, the long term rate structures previously adopted for
these are acceptable for continued use, subject to review again during the 2013 budget process.
See Exhibits E and G for the proposed rates for 2012.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Proposed 2012 Utility Rates
Storm Water Rates
Over the past year, Public Works staff has reviewed the rates and program costs for this utility.
Staff has also reviewed the Ehler’s study as it relates to these rates in preparation for
recommendations for 2012. As of now, the long term rate structure previously adopted for this
utility is acceptable for continued use, subject to review again during the 2013 budget cycle with
one exception - staff feels the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC)
administrative charges made to the City ranging annually from $17,000 to $18,000 should be
paid for by the specific properties located within that watershed area (see Exhibit B attached).
These costs are currently being paid for by all properties in the city via our storm water utility
which raises fairness questions. Properties outside the BCWMC receive no benefits from the
BCWMC so it appears to staff this cost should be borne solely by benefitting BCWMC area
properties. The following properties are located in this area:
Property Type Number of Properties
Commercial/Office/Industrial/Hospital 45
Golf Course 1
Multi-Family/High Density 39
Multi-Family/Low Density 1
Schools 1
Single/Two Family Residential 840
Spreading this cost over these properties can simply be done via a rate surcharge in the amount
of $1.60 per quarter for a 1-2 family residential property and the $1.60 per quarter using the
existing storm water utility formula for all other properties, which would raise approximately
$17,700 annually.
See Exhibit F for the proposed rates for 2012.
What is the Overall Outlook?
The city is in a good position as it is planning for the future.
Water rates should continue with the plan adopted by Council in 2011 moving to a higher
fixed rate to minimize revenue fluctuations and to cover basic system costs.
Sanitary sewer rates should continue as planned. The sewer fund is very healthy and will
be reviewed during 2012 to see if it could or should be used to subsidize some of the
capital costs of the water fund.
Storm water rates should continue as planned. A quarterly surcharge rate of $1.60 for
residential properties should be added to properties located in the BCWMC watershed to
address fairness concerns.
Garbage and Recycling rates should continue as planned.
Utility Capital Improvements
Capital improvements and costs for each enterprise have been identified and included in the
City’s 5 year Capital Improvement Plan as well as the Long Range Financial Management plan
(see Exhibit C attached). Several significant improvements worth noting are:
“Reilly” required water treatment improvements at WTP #6 - approximate cost of
$2,190,000 - date and improvements uncertain at this time.
Recoat EWT (Tower #3 - 34th @ Wyoming) - approximate cost of $1,100,000 - 2013
Hwy 100 Reconstruction Improvements - approximate cost of $2,500,000 - 2015
o water system improvements - $900,000
o sanitary sewer system improvements - $1,000,000
o storm water system improvements - $600,000
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Proposed 2012 Utility Rates
Setting Utility Rates for 2012
In setting rates for Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water, and Solid Waste, we continue using the
projections based on the Ehlers study from January 2010. Staff worked closely with Ehlers on
this study which slowly inflates rates over a period of time to maintain the sustainability of these
funds. Public Works also reviews rates in accordance with contract requirements for solid waste
and recycling. Water rates are proposed based on the plan adopted by Council in 2011 moving
to a higher fixed rate over the next ten years.
Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water, and Solid Waste rates for 2011 and 2012 proposed are
shown in Exhibits D thru G attached.
Financial Impact to Residential Property Owners
The cumulative impact of all of the utility rate adjustments for a household of four using 30 units
of water per quarter (22,500 gallons) and a 60 gallon solid waste service would be approximately
$2.95 a month which equals $8.86 per quarter or $35.43 per year as shown in Exhibit H.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This discussion is intended to show how the City may adjust utility rates to ensure long-range
stability and sustainability in operating and maintaining our utility systems.
The suggested timeframe for discussing the matter is as follows:
November 14 - Continued discussion on rates (if necessary) prior to TNT hearing
December - Adopt 2012 utility rates effective January 1, 2012
December / January - Communication of new rates
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Attachments:
The following Exhibits are attached to assist with Study Session discussion in setting 2012 rates:
A. 2011-2020 Water Usage Charges and Fixed Rates for all Customers Based on Phased
in Approach
B. BCWMC Area Map
C. Long Range Financial Management Plan - Utility Funds
D. 2011 and Proposed 2012 Water Rates
E. 2011 and Proposed 2012 Sewer Rates
F. 2011 and Proposed 2012 Storm Water Rates
G. 2011 and Proposed 2012 Solid Waste Rates
H. Estimated Quarterly Utility Bill - Actual 2011 and Proposed 2012
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Assisted by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Steve Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by Brian Swanson, Controller
Pat Sulander, Accountant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
EXHIBIT A Water Rates - Phased in Option ActualActual2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Projected Rates Based on Current Rate Stucture *Fixed Charge Per Quarter (5/8" or 3/4" Meter Size) 5.94$ 7.71$ 10.15$ 12.59$ 15.03$ 17.47$ 19.91$ 22.35$ 24.79$ 27.23$ 29.67$ 32.11$ Residential (per unit)Block 1 - (0 - 40 Units) 1.21$ 1.29$ 1.35$ 1.39$ 1.44$ 1.49$ 1.53$ 1.59$ 1.64$ 1.69$ 1.75$ 1.80$ Block 2 - (41-80 Units)1.51$ 1.62$ 1.69$ 1.74$ 1.80$ 1.86$ 1.92$ 1.99$ 2.05$ 2.12$ 2.19$ 2.26$ Block 3 - (81+ Units)2.27$ 2.43$ 2.53$ 2.61$ 2.69$ 2.78$ 2.88$ 2.97$ 3.07$ 3.17$ 3.27$ 3.38$ Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (per Unit)1.21$ 1.29$ 1.35$ 1.39$ 1.44$ 1.49$ 1.53$ 1.59$ 1.64$ 1.69$ 1.75$ 1.80$ Irrigation (per Unit)1.21$ 1.82$ 2.53$ 2.61$ 2.69$ 2.78$ 2.88$ 2.97$ 3.07$ 3.17$ 3.27$ 3.38$ MN Dept of Health Qtrly Fee (pass thru) -$ -$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ Bond ProceedsWater1,255,000$ -$ -$ -$ Reilly-$ Total Cash Inflows5,142,113$ 5,400,463$ 5,287,894$ 5,298,042$ 5,605,289$ 5,914,061$ 6,257,489$ 6,585,205$ 6,940,289$ 7,324,678$ 7,719,853$ 8,126,550$ Capital Expenses (CIP)1,159,051$ 1,039,238$ 278,000$ 717,100$ 1,373,900$ 130,500$ 1,300,000$ 708,000$ 150,000$ 240,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Total Cash Outflows6,082,836$ 5,326,611$ 4,927,492$ 5,329,178$ 6,335,379$ 5,197,759$ 6,468,471$ 5,989,184$ 5,543,223$ 5,749,762$ 5,778,453$ 5,398,466$ Net Increase (or Decrease) in Cash(940,723)$ 73,852$ 360,402$ (31,136)$ (730,090)$ 716,302$ (210,982)$ 596,020$ 1,397,066$ 1,574,916$ 1,941,400$ 2,728,084$ Cash BalanceCash Balance Jan 1350$ 74,202$ 434,604$ 403,469$ (326,621)$ 389,680$ 178,698$ 774,719$ 2,171,784$ 3,746,700$ 5,688,100$ Cash Balance Dec 31 ***350$ 74,202$ 434,604$ 403,469$ (326,621)$ 389,680$ 178,698$ 774,719$ 2,171,784$ 3,746,700$ 5,688,100$ 8,416,184$ NOTES:Targeted Cash Balance is $2,414,594 (35 % of 2020 Total Expenses)Fixed Fee per Quarter increases by $2.44 per yearUsage Fees increase at a rate of 3.3% annuallyDescriptionProjectedStudy Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Proposed 2012 Utility RatesPage 4
EXHIBIT B BCWMC Area Map Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Proposed 2012 Utility RatesPage 5
EXHIBIT C Long Range Financial Management Plan 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021ActualActual Budgeted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedWater Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of water services including administration, billing and collection, maintenance and operations.Total Revenues4,370,130 4,145,463 5,287,894 5,298,042 5,605,289 5,914,061 6,257,486 6,585,200 6,940,283 7,324,671 7,719,844 8,126,550 8,447,070 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures8,657,984 4,732,508 4,927,492 5,329,178 6,335,379 5,197,759 6,468,468 5,989,179 5,543,217 5,749,755 5,778,443 5,398,467 5,901,908 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(4,287,854) (587,045) 360,402 (31,136) (730,090) 716,301 (210,982) 596,021 1,397,065 1,574,916 1,941,401 2,728,083 2,545,162 Cash Available at Year End350 74,202 434,604 403,469 (326,621) 389,680 178,698 774,719 2,171,784 3,746,700 5,688,100 8,416,184 10,961,346Cash Available Percentage0.01% 1.51% 8.16% 6.37% -6.28% 6.02% 2.98% 13.98% 37.77% 64.84% 105.37% 142.60%Qtrly Fixed Fee Increase (3/4" meter)$0.36 $0.50 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44 $2.44Sewer Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of sewer services including administration, billing and collection, maintenance and operations.Total Revenues5,199,936 5,290,751 5,358,033 5,614,743 6,110,590 6,605,937 6,963,293 7,318,011 7,706,684 8,117,049 8,547,732 8,838,002 9,134,511 Total Expenditures4,992,924 4,898,316 5,352,534 5,846,919 5,639,371 5,779,734 7,041,691 6,297,345 6,559,728 6,919,392 7,161,920 7,492,921 7,813,034 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures207,012 392,435 5,499 (232,176) 471,219 826,203 (78,398) 1,020,665 1,146,956 1,197,657 1,385,813 1,345,081 1,321,477 Cash Available at Year End 1,851,591 2,142,599 2,148,098 1,915,922 2,387,141 3,213,344 3,134,946 4,155,611 5,302,568 6,500,225 7,886,037 9,231,118 10,552,595Cash Available Percentage37.80% 40.03% 36.74% 33.97% 41.30% 45.63% 49.78% 63.35% 76.63% 90.76% 105.25% 118.15%Percentage Rate Increase 7.00% 7.00% 10.00% 4.00% 10.00% 8.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 3.00% 3.00%Solid Waste Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of revenues and expenses related to the collection, disposal and recycling of residential solid waste.Total Revenues2,610,682 2,839,784 2,894,000 2,929,080 3,020,314 3,112,428 3,195,572 3,294,928 3,392,010 3,491,952 3,594,837 3,700,753 3,809,789 Total Expenditures2,413,640 3,402,749 2,829,735 2,861,366 2,947,207 3,685,623 3,126,692 3,220,493 3,317,107 3,416,621 3,519,119 3,624,693 3,733,435 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures197,042 (562,965) 64,265 67,714 73,107 (573,195) 68,880 74,435 74,903 75,331 75,718 76,061 76,354 Cash Available at Year End 1,999,051 1,408,672 1,472,937 1,540,651 1,613,758 1,040,563 1,109,442 1,183,877 1,258,780 1,334,111 1,409,829 1,485,890 1,562,245 Cash Available Percentage58.75% 49.78% 51.48% 52.27% 43.79% 33.28% 34.45% 35.69% 36.84% 37.91% 38.90% 39.80%Percentage Rate Increase 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Storm Water Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of storm water including administration, billing and collection, maintenance and operations.Total Revenues1,777,652 1,852,729 1,993,698 2,064,655 2,192,875 2,229,504 2,243,816 2,239,611 2,238,557 2,238,291 2,244,630 2,250,599 2,320,471 Total Expenditures1,655,693 1,647,295 1,992,010 1,709,699 2,362,347 2,186,391 2,832,316 2,274,739 2,247,427 2,026,991 2,045,660 2,098,118 2,150,358 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures121,959 205,434 1,688 354,956 (169,472) 43,114 (588,499) (35,128) (8,870) 211,300 198,970 152,481 170,112 Cash Available at Year End758,716 2,459,645 2,461,333 2,816,289 2,646,817 2,689,931 2,101,432 2,066,304 2,057,434 2,268,735 2,467,705 2,620,185 2,790,298 Cash Available Percentage46.06% 123.48% 143.96% 119.22% 121.06% 94.97% 92.38% 91.94% 101.50% 110.90% 117.62% 121.85%Percentage Rate Increase3.00% 7.00% 3.00% 3.33% 5.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Proposed 2012 Utility RatesPage 6
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Subject: Proposed 2012 Utility Rates
EXHIBIT D
2011 and Proposed 2012 Water Rates
Residential Units 2011 Proposed 2012 Dollar Change
Tier 1 0 - 40 1.35$ 1.39$ 0.04$
Tier 2 41 - 80 1.69$ 1.74$ 0.05$
Tier 3 81 - above 2.53$ 2.61$ 0.08$
Commercial All 1.35$ 1.39$ 0.04$
Irrigation All 2.53$ 2.61$ 0.08$
Usage Charge
Water Rates (1 unit equals 750 gallons)
(From the Phase In Option)
Meter
Size 2011 Proposed 2012 Dollar Change
5/8" 10.15$ 12.59$ 2.44$
3/4" 10.15$ 12.59$ 2.44$
1.0" 14.21$ 17.63$ 3.42$
1.5" 18.27$ 22.66$ 4.39$
2.0" 29.44$ 36.51$ 7.08$
3.0" 111.65$ 138.49$ 26.84$
4.0" 142.10$ 176.26$ 34.16$
6.0" 213.15$ 264.39$ 51.24$
2.0" Compound 29.44$ 36.51$ 7.08$
3.0" Compound 111.65$ 138.49$ 26.84$
MDH Fee (pass thru) 1.59$ 1.59$ -$
Meter
Size 2011 Proposed 2012 Dollar Change
5/8" 3.38$ 4.20$ 0.81$
3/4" 3.38$ 4.20$ 0.81$
1.0" 4.74$ 5.88$ 1.14$
1.5" 6.09$ 7.55$ 1.46$
2.0" 9.81$ 12.17$ 2.36$
3.0" 37.22$ 46.16$ 8.95$
4.0" 47.37$ 58.75$ 11.39$
6.0" 71.05$ 88.13$ 17.08$
MDH Fee (pass thru) 0.53$ 0.53$ -$
Commercial (Monthly)
Fixed Charge
Residential (Quarterly)
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Subject: Proposed 2012 Utility Rates
EXHIBIT E
2011 and Proposed 2012 Sewer Rates
Residential 2011 Proposed 2012 Dollar Change
Base Charge 12.54$ 13.04$ 0.50$ Quarterly
Usage 2.43$ 2.53$ 0.10$ Quarterly
Apartments 2011 Proposed 2012 Dollar Change
Base Charge 12.54$ 13.04$ 0.50$ Quarterly
Usage 2.43$ 2.53$ 0.10$ Quarterly
Commercial 2011 Proposed 2012 Dollar Change
Base Charge 12.54$ 13.04$ 0.50$ Quarterly
Usage 2.43$ 2.53$ 0.10$ Quarterly
Base Charge 4.18$ 4.35 0.17$ Monthly
Usage 2.43$ 2.53 0.10$ Monthly
Sewer Rates
$
$
EXHIBIT F
2011 and Proposed 2012 Storm Water Rates
Residential 2011 Proposed 2012 Dollar Change
Quarterly 15.00$ 15.50$ 0.50$
BCWMC (pass through) n/a 1.60$ 1.60$
Commercial 2011 Proposed 2012 Dollar Change
Monthly 25.00$ 25.83$ 0.83$
BCWMC (pass through) n/a 0.53$ 0.53$
Quarterly 75.00$ 77.50$ 2.50$
BCWMC (pass through) n/a 1.60$ 1.60$
NOTE: BCWMC - Bassett Creet Watershed Management Commission
Storm Drainage Rates
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Subject: Proposed 2012 Utility Rates
EXHIBIT G
2011 and Proposed 2012 Solid Waste Rates
Residential 2011 Proposed 2012 Dollar Change
30-gallon 47.13$ 48.07$ 0.94$ Quarterly
60-gallon 59.94$ 61.14$ 1.20$ Quarterly
90-gallon 72.74$ 74.20$ 1.45$ Quarterly
120-gallon 85.56$ 87.27$ 1.71$ Quarterly
150-gallon 98.37$ 100.34$ 1.97$ Quarterly
180-gallon 111.18$ 113.40$ 2.22$ Quarterly
210-gallon 123.99$ 126.47$ 2.48$ Quarterly
240-gallon 136.80$ 139.53$ 2.74$ Quarterly
270-gallon 149.61$ 152.60$ 2.99$ Quarterly
360-gallon 188.05$ 191.81 3.76$ Quarterly
450-gallon 226.48$ 231.01 4.53$ Quarterly
540-gallon 264.90$ 270.20 5.30$ Quarterly
Solid Waste Rates (including tax)
$
$
$
EXHIBIT H
Estimated Quarterly Utility Bill
Actual 2011 and Proposed 2012
Household Size 4
Units per quarter 30
Solid Waste Service 60-gallon
Meter size 3/4 inch
Actual Projected Dollar Percent
Service Type 2011 2012 Change Change Notes
Water
Per unit rate - Tier 1 1.35$ 1.39$ 0.04$ 3.00% Change per PCE/Ehlers
Service charge 10.15$ 12.59$ 2.44$ 24.04% Change per PCE/Ehlers
State testing fee 1.59$ 1.59$ -$ 0.00% Change per PCE/Ehlers
Consumption 40.50$ 41.72$ 1.22$ 3.00% Change per PCE/Ehlers
Sewer
Service charge 12.54$ 13.04$ 0.50$ 4.00% Change per Ehlers
Consumption 72.90$ 75.90$ 3.00$ 4.12% Change per Ehlers
Storm Drainage
Service charge 15.00$ 15.50$ 0.50$ 3.33% Change per Ehlers
Bassett Creek Fee*-$ 1.60$ 1.60$ n/a Bassett Creek fee
Solid Waste (includes tax)59.94$ 61.14$ 1.20$ 2.00% Change per Long Range Plan
Total Bill without Bassett* 212.62$ 221.48$ 8.86$ 4.17%Not including BCWMC
Increase per quarter (dollars)8.86$
Increase per year (dollars)35.43$
* Since not all property owners would be charged this fee, it is not included in the dollar or percentage change in total bill.
Meeting Date: September 26, 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 - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report and discussion is to update the Council on the recent planning and
project development activities related to this project – Project No. 2012-0100 and seek input on
the policy considerations below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The following input from Council is desired:
Is the City Council satisfied with the progress being made on project development and
Phase 4 work activities?
Does the City Council wish to request an extension to the Federal Funds sunset date if
that opportunity becomes available?
Is the City Council comfortable with the proposed construction staging plans?
Should the City initiate a contract at this time to begin the right-of-way acquisition
process?
Does the City Council have any questions or comments on the Public Art process?
Does the City Council want to use Mn/DOT personnel to perform the construction
contract administration duties or hire a consultant for this work?
Is the City Council comfortable with the City’s probable total funding commitment
needed to construct this project?
BACKGROUND:
History
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project, which provides for the
construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7, also includes
pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads
in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Highway 7 corridor and
Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting long term transportation
and safety needs of both Mn/DOT and the City.
Phase 3 Activities
Phase 3 activities include Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment. The
Environmental Assessment (EA) is undergoing final execution by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Upon its execution, a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) will
be issued for the project. This will conclude Phase 3 activities.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Phase 4 Activities
Council authorized SEH, Inc. to begin Phase 4 activities, expected to cost $958,600, on April 4,
2011. Phase 4 activities, described as Final Design and Plan Preparation, include detailed
engineering work needed to complete plans and specifications to obtain final Mn/DOT project
approvals and authorization for bidding. The following is a list of tasks associated with this
phase of the project:
Project Management
Public Involvement
Survey Work
Geotechnical Analysis
Drainage Design
Wetland Permitting
Roadway Design
Bridge Design
Construction Staging
Lighting
Aesthetic Design and Landscape
Architecture
Final Design: SEH is working on 60 percent plans. Comments from review of the 30 percent
plan are being incorporated into the design. 60 percent plans should be completed by mid-December.
As the consultant works to prepare plans and design the project, they are constantly evaluating
alternatives to determine the best design alternative and construction plan that is most cost
effective. At this time, SEH has determined the roadway design, bridge design, retaining wall
design, soil correction plan, drainage plan and construction staging plan that can be constructed
in a cost effective manner. As more design details are determined for the construction plans, a
more detailed and accurate construction estimate can be made. Based on the design work
completed to date, SEH now estimates construction costs for the entire project near $18.9 million
(does note include other costs such as engineering and design). This is approximately $2.4
million more than the most recent construction estimate that was being used for planning
purposes. This increase is attributed to costs associated with special work needed to remedy
poor contaminated soils as well as to accommodate staging needs (i.e., temporary Hwy 7 by-pass
or realignment). More discussion on overall project costs is provided below in the FINANCIAL
OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION section of the report.
Construction Staging
In last month‘s Project Update (August 2011), staging plans were briefly discussed. To recap, a
preferred staging plan has been developed which includes construction of a by-pass for Highway
7. The by-pass will consist of construction of temporary lanes and a signal just south of the
current roadway alignment allowing both Highway 7 and Louisiana thru and right turn
movements during most of the construction stages. However, left turns will not be allowed at the
intersection which will result in the need for detours for those movements. Attached are
drawings (attachments 1 and 2) illustrating the Highway 7 bypass and various construction
stages. This by-pass and staging plan was developed to satisfy Mn/DOT’s requirements to
maintain regional traffic through the corridor. Staff will review staging plans in more detail at
the Study Session.
Right-of-Way
As part of the design work accomplished to date, SEH has performed survey work and has
determined right-of-way needs for permanent easements (permanent right-of-way) and
temporary easements (easements to perform the construction work). There are 15 parcels that
will be impacted by the construction of this project. This includes 7 privately owned parcels and
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
8 parcels owned by the City. Based on the area of the easements, the City’s Assessing
Department has determined valuations for easement takings on each parcel. The valuation for all
seven private parcels is estimated at $1,720,453.00. Right-of-way needs and estimated costs are
shown in attachments 3 and 4.
In addition to the costs for the property takings, there are additional costs for the right-of-way
acquisition services. Staff proposes to use Evergreen Land Service for the right-of-way
acquisition service along with some minor support and coordination effort provided by SEH.
These costs are estimated at $81,188. These costs were not included in the previously approved
SEH Phase 4 work plan as right-of-way details at that time were unknown. Right-of-Way
acquisition activities are planned to be conducted during and as a part of Phase 4 activities.
Under the current project schedule these tasks are proposed to begin in September, 2011. One of
the policy questions staff has identified for Council consideration relates to when this effort
should start.
Adding costs for the valuations of the 7 private properties, plus the acquisition services, plus a 50
percent contingency to account for possible condemnation expenses and/or higher offers made
over the City’s estimated valuation, gives a total of about $2.7 million dollars which is very close
to our current planning estimate.
Public Art
As part of the Phase 4 activities, staff will be coordinating efforts with SEH to incorporate public
art into the design and construction of the project. SEH’s work plan includes aesthetic and
landscape design elements that seek to capture the context of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Staff also feels that public art should be integrated into the project and compliment the project’s
aesthetic and landscape design. Two meetings have been held to begin brainstorming ideas and start
coordination efforts for the integration of public art into the project. Numerous areas in the project
have been identified where public art and respective aesthetic design can be applied and/or
located: bridge, retaining walls, trails, lighting, roundabouts, storm water ponds and other areas.
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director, will lead the public art selection process.
Consultant Jack Becker from Forecast Public Art will be hired to assist in the selection of an
artist and to serve as a member of the project group to provide input and feedback on the
aesthetic design and public art integration for the project. Other members of that group will
include SEH team members, staff members from Engineering, Parks and Recreation and
Community Development, plus one or two residents that have participated in other City public
art selection processes.
It is anticipated that the public art selection process can begin shortly after Council has had an
opportunity to ask questions and provide comments on the proposed process. The first task will
be to hire consultant, Jack Becker, Forecast Public Art. Funding for the public art piece will be
included in the project expenses. Construction costs associated with aesthetic and landscape
designs should be eligible for State and/or Federal construction funding; public art will not be
and will need to be funded by the City. Staff feels public art costs for this project should
probably be in the $100,000 to $200,000 range in order to adequately address this need. Public
art does not need to be installed as part of the project, it can be done afterwards or over a period
of time as funding allows as long as it is planned for and incorporated into the overall project
design at this time.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Project Schedule
The work to this point has been proceeding to allow for construction of the project to begin in the
summer of 2012 (contingent on full project funding). A schedule summary is as follows:
September, 2011 – EA completed and approved (concludes Phase 3 activities)
September - December 2011 – Right-of-Way Acquisition Process
January 2012 – Condemnation Initiated (only if needed)
January – March 2012 – Construction Plan Review/Revisions/Approval (Phase 4 activity)
March 31, 2012 – Federal Funding Sunset Date
May, 2012 – Advertise for Bids
June, 2012 – Open Bids
July, 2012 – Award Contract and Begin Construction
At this time, Congress has yet to pass a federal transportation funding bill. They recently passed
another extension to the current federal transportation act through March, 2012. This has
resulted in uncertainty at the state and local level (Mn/DOT and Met Council) on whether current
and future federal monies will be available to fund the current Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) which includes federally funded projects programmed for 2012, 2013 and 2014.
The City’s Highway 7/Louisiana Interchange Project is included in the 2012 TIP. To help plan
for possible federal funding delays or shortages, the Met Council (working through Mn/DOT)
recently asked agencies with federally funded projects if they would have interest in delaying
their projects by one year. Staff has notified Mn/DOT the City is interested in this and to
provide us further information on this process should funding shortfalls occur and project delays
be needed. The process essentially includes making a formal request to the Met Council to
extend the project sunset date. The request goes through a review process and a decision is then
made by the Met Council to approve or deny the extension. Based on comments provided by
Mn/DOT staff, our project is in a good position to be granted an extension. They have indicated
that our project has made steady and significant progress towards delivering the project since the
start of the Phase I design work.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The following summarizes the project development phases and the costs contracted for with
SEH, Inc. to date:
Phase Contract Amount Cost to Date Status
1 & 2 $306,548.00 $296,420.77 Work Completed
3 $535,000.00 $498,564.08 Work Completed
4 $958,600.00 $215,664.56 22% Complete
Total $1,800,148.00 $1,020,649.41
Project Costs
As discussed previously in this report, estimated construction costs and other project
development costs are changing as more details in the final design are becoming known.
Presented below are project costs based on previous planning estimates and the new project costs
based on advanced design work. Funding sources known at this time are also presented below:
Previous Project Costs
Construction $16,500,000
Engineering $ 2,820,000
Right of Way $ 2,680,000
Total Costs $22,000,000
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
New Project Costs
Construction $18,900,000
Preliminary and Final Design Engineering $ 1,800,000
Construction Engineering (estimated consultant cost) $ 1,800,000
Right of Way $ 2,700,000
Total Costs $25,200,000
Increase in Total Project Cost $ 3,200,000
Funding Sources
Federal (STP) Funds $7,630,000
City (20% match – undetermined source) $2,398,000
Mn/DOT Access Management $1,000,000
Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement $ 594,000
Total Committed Funds $11,622,000
New Unfunded Amount $13,578,000
Funding Sources and Funding Gap
$7,630,000 in federal funds has been secured through the Met Council’s State Transportation
Program Urban Grant solicitation. $594,000 has been secured through the Mn/DOT Municipal
Agreement Program. Mn/DOT has also committed $1,000,000 in Access Management Funds
towards the project. The City’ commitment to date is Preliminary and Final Design Engineering
costs plus the $2,398,000 required as a 20% Federal grant match. The grant match amount will
only be spent should the project be constructed.
As an additional recent commitment to the project, Mn/DOT has offered to perform contract
administration and construction surveying activities for the project at their cost. This would
result in an estimated $1,800,000 savings for the city over using a consultant for this work which
would result in an unfunded amount of $11,778,000. Mn/DOT needs to know shortly if the City
would like them to perform this work so appropriate engineering staff can be programmed to this
project.
Not much discussion has taken place in the past to the actual project funding gap other than
awareness of attempts to obtain outside funds via legislative or program grants – none of which
have been successful to date. The desire has been to completely fund this gap with outside
funding; this is not realistic considering past project funding patterns as well as today’s climate.
Based on past experience and current funding programs (when accessed), the City should expect
to fund at least the following project activities:
Activity Cost
Preliminary Engineering $1,800,000
Construction Engineering $1,800,000
Construction (10 to 20%) $2,398,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition $2,700,000
Total $8,698,000
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
In other words, the City’s total commitment toward this project should be expected to be at least
$8,698,000 or about 35% of the total project cost. Should the City chose to use Mn/DOT to
perform the contract administration work, this would reduce the City’s share by about
$1,800,000 or down to $6,898,000 or about 27% of the total project amount.
Assuming the above activities / costs are funded by the City, that leaves a funding gap of
approximately $7,278,000. This is the funding amount (gap) the City realistically needs to fully
fund this project.
Funding Opportunities
Current funding for Phases 1 through 4 is coming from HRA levy proceeds which have been
designated to pay for infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas. Funding sources for
the City’s costs described above has not yet been determined. The following would be logical
sources to be considered:
HRA levy proceeds
Municipal State Aid Funds (gas tax monies)
General Obligation Bond Funds
Steps have been and will continue to be taken to secure outside funding needed for this project
(the $7,278,000 funding gap noted above).
Due the lack of action by Congress to enact a new federal transportation act, there are no federal
or state grant funding opportunities available to pursue at this time. A one year project delay
(sunset extension), should that become available, would allow further time to possibly obtain
outside funds to fully fund the project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area has been identified by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding
sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and
SWLRT.
Attachments: Attachments 1 and 2 – staging plans
Attachments 3 and 4 – right of way needs and costs
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Store
Station
Holiday
Group
Media
Mahoney
Printing
Presswrite
Design
By
Aud
io
Mfg
. Inc
.
Elec
tric
Eclipse
Exteriors
Northeast
Ciprico
Fabri-Top
Clinics
Kass
Club
Sam’s
Gallery
Furniture
Odds-n-Ends
Repair
Auto
Phoenix
Systems
Z
M
10+00
15+00
20+00
25+00
30+00
35+00
40
+00
WALKER ST
AVELOUI
SI
ANALAKE ST
TH
7
TH 7W 37TH ST
TEMP BYPASS
R/W
1:213’
11’
13’
11’
13’
24’
13’
24’
2’2’2’2’11’11’11’
22’
TH 7
8’ MIN.
WB EB EB
TEMPORARY SIGNAL
24
0
feetscale
100 100 200
50
11’
24
’13
’TH7 BYPASS CONCEPT
(45 MPH) (3 LANES)
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 7
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Dental
Island
Rhode Creative Inc.
Schussler Church
Christian
Knollwood
Store
Station
Holiday
Group
Media
Mahoney
Printing
Presswrite
Design
By
Audio
Mfg. Inc.
Electric
Eclipse
Exteriors
Northeast
masters
Bike
School
Immersion
Park Spanish
Ciprico
Fabri-Top
Clinics
Kass
Club
Sam’s
Gallery
Furniture
Odds-n-Ends
Repair
Auto
Phoenix
Systems
Z
Drive-in
Wagner’s
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Dental
Island
Rhode Creative Inc.
Schussler Church
Christian
Knollwood
Store
Station
Holiday
Group
Media
Mahoney
Printing
Presswrite
Design
By
Audio
Mfg. Inc.
Electric
Eclipse
Exteriors
Northeast
masters
Bike
School
Immersion
Park Spanish
Ciprico
Fabri-Top
Clinics
Kass
Club
Sam’s
Gallery
Furniture
Odds-n-Ends
Repair
Auto
Phoenix
Systems
Z
Drive-in
Wagner’s
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Dental
Island
Rhode Creative Inc.
Schussler Church
Christian
Knollwood
Store
Station
Holiday
Group
Media
Mahoney
Printing
Presswrite
Design
By
Audio
Mfg. Inc.
Electric
Eclipse
Exteriors
Northeast
masters
Bike
School
Immersion
Park Spanish
Ciprico
Fabri-Top
Clinics
Kass
Club
Sam’s
Gallery
Furniture
Odds-n-Ends
Repair
Auto
Phoenix
Systems
Z
Drive-in
Wagner’s
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Dental
Island
Rhode Creative Inc.
Schussler Church
Christian
Knollwood
Store
Station
Holiday
Group
Media
Mahoney
Printing
Presswrite
Design
By
Audio
Mfg. Inc.
Electric
Eclipse
Exteriors
Northeast
masters
Bike
School
Immersion
Park Spanish
Ciprico
Fabri-Top
Clinics
Kass
Club
Sam’s
Gallery
Furniture
Odds-n-Ends
Repair
Auto
Phoenix
Systems
Z
Drive-in
Wagner’s
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Dental
Island
Rhode Creative Inc.
Schussler Church
Christian
Knollwood
Store
Station
Holiday
Group
Media
Mahoney
Printing
Presswrite
Design
By
Audio
Mfg. Inc.
Electric
Eclipse
Exteriors
Northeast
masters
Bike
School
Immersion
Park Spanish
Ciprico
Fabri-Top
Clinics
Kass
Club
Sam’s
Gallery
Furniture
Odds-n-Ends
Repair
Auto
Phoenix
Systems
Z
Drive-in
Wagner’s
M
CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC
CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC
NOT BOUND TO 1 MONTH TIME FRAME
TH 7 & LOUISIANA AV
COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC
COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC
COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC
W 37TH ST
WALKER
ST
LAKE ST
TH 7
TH
7
AVELOUI
SI
ANAWALKER ST
W 37TH ST
AVELOUI
SI
ANALAKE ST
TH
7
TH 7
WALKER
ST
W 37TH ST
AVELOUI
SI
ANALAKE ST
TH
7
TH 7 WALKER
S
TW 37TH ST
AVELOUI
SI
ANALAKE ST
TH
7
TH 7
WALKER ST
AVELOUI
SI
ANALAKE ST
TH
7
TH 7
W 37TH ST
TEMP BYPASS
TEMP BYPASS
TEMP BYPASS
NE RAMP
NW RAMP
NE RAMP
NW RAMP
NE RAMP
NW RAMP
SW RAMP
SE RAMP
NW RAMP
SW RAMP
NE RAMP
SE RAMP
TEMP SIGNAL
JULY/AUGUST 2012
AUG. 2012 - NOV. 2012
NOV. 2012 - APR. 2013
MAY 2013
JUNE 2013 - NOV. 2013
- CONSTRUCT TEMP SIGNAL
- RELOCATE CRITICAL UTILITIES
- CONSTRUCT TEMP BYPASS
PHASE 1:
AND BRIDGE AND NORTH RAMPS
- CONTINUE TH 7 EMBANKMENT
PHASE 3:
AND ENDS OF TH 7
- CONSTRUCT 1/2 OF LOUISIANA AVE
- CONSTRUCT SW AND SE RAMPS
ACCESS TO EAST/FROM WEST)
- ACCELERATED PHASE (NO RAMP
PHASE 4:
AND ENDS OF TH 7
- CONSTRUCT 2ND 1/2 OF LOUISIANA AVE
PHASE 5:
TH 7/LOUISIANA AVE INTERCHANGE - STAGING CONCEPT
BRIDGE
- CONSTRUCT NB LOUISIANA AVE UNDER
BRIDGE AND NORTH RAMPS
- CONSTRUCT TH 7 EMBANKMENT,
PHASE 2:
TO ALLOW BEAM SETTING
COMPLETE BY NOV. 2012
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 8
2:10:45 PM9/13/2011byeatsS:\PT\S\Stlou\116227\5-dsgn\51-cadd\General\116227_ROW_layout.dgnLAYOUTST. PAUL, MN 55110
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
PHONE: (651)490-2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
89
10
11
PROPERTY OWNERNO.
PARCEL
1
2
3
4
8
10
11
13
14
5
6
7
12
SQ FT
R/W AREA
RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS
9
Park
Louisiana Oaks
Walker St.
W. Lake St.
W. Lake St.
Walker St.Fr
o
nta
ge Rd.
T.H. 7
T.H. 7
Loui
si
a
na Ave.
Republic Ave.
Monitor StWalker Pond
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADV INC
ST LOUIS PARK ECON DEV AUTH
7201 LAKE LLC
SAM’S REAL EST BUSINESS TRUST
CLEAR CHANEL OUTDOOR INC
MSP SLP APARTMENTS LLC
R&N REAL ESTATE LLC
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
INTERCHANGE PROJECT
T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVENUE
3,812
26,234
12
13
ST LOUIS PARK ECON DEV AUTH
ST LOUIS PARK HOUSING PTNRS
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
Pond
Lake St.
2,668
33,602
1,497 2,722
1,019 6,375
42,295 854
6,115 4,942
3,069
39,692
2,315
6,7653,829
0
feetscale
50 150
1711721340073
AREA SQ FT
EASEMENT
TEMPORARY
IMPACTS
OTHER
1711721430074
1711721430072
1711721430073
1711721430065
1711721430064
1711721430077
1711721420094
1711721420092
1711721310017
1711721340087
1711721340086
1711721430076
1711721430075
14
15
15
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK2011721120043
BILLBOARD
BILLBOARD
2,7433,529
1,213
8,04232,134
APPROXIMATE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
POSSIBLE TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION
APPROXIMATE TEMPORARY EASEMENT
LEGEND
PID NO.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 9
Attachment 4
Estimated Right-of-Way Costs
September 21, 2011
Parcel Total Full Mkt R/W Area Temp Other Permanent Temp Other
No PID Property Owner Zoning Land SF Land/SF Sq. Ft.Easement Impacts R/W Take *Easement **Impacts ***Total
1 1711721340073 Naegele Outdoor Adv Inc C2 72,324 18.00 33,602 2X BB Face 604,836 0 200,000 804,836
2 1711721430074 SLP Econ Dev Auth C2 127,028 20.00 32,134 8,042 2,540,560 28,951 2,569,511
3 2011721120043 City of St. Louis Park POS 418,195 6.00 1,213 0 1,310 1,310
4 1711721430072 7201 Lake LLC IG 159,764 12.00 1,497 2,722 17,964 5,880 23,844
5 1711721430073 Sam's Real Est Business Trust C2 567,360 18.00 1,019 6,375 18,342 20,655 38,997
6 1711721430076 City of St. Louis Park C2 46,729 20.00 42,295 854 845,900 3,074 848,974
7 1711721430075 City of St. Louis Park C2 18,151 18.00 6,115 4,942 110,070 16,012 126,082
8 1711721430065 SLP Econ Dev Auth C2 20,344 15.00 3,069 46,035 0 46,035
9 1711721430064 Clear Channel Outdoor Inc C2 58,326 15.00 39,692 1X BB Face 595,380 0 100,000 695,380
10 1711721430077 City of St. Louis Park C2 26,234 14.00 26,234 367,276 0 367,276
11 1711721420094 City of St. Louis Park C2 3,803 14.00 3,812 53,368 0 53,368
12 1711721420092 R & N Real Estate LLC C2 68,863 13.00 3,529 2,743 45,877 6,419 52,296
13 1711721310017 City of St. Louis Park POS 327,516 13.00 2,668 0 6,243 6,243
14 1711721340087 MSP SLP Apartments LLC RC 289,677 20.00 3,829 6,765 76,580 24,354 100,934
15 1711721340086 St. Louis Park Housing Ptnrs R4 230,823 10.00 2,315 0 4,167 4,167
* Before/After valuations contemplated per typical "condemnation taking" methodology.Total 5,739,253
** Temporary taking calculated at standard 8% to 12% per year valuations (above uses 12% and 18 month project duration).
*** Valuation of billboards inherently dictated by the income stream… we do not have access to actual income streams.Private Property (Net)1,720,453
(Billboard valuations at localized standard "face" value.)Public Property (Net)4,018,800
Valuation Review for Right-of-Way Takings -- Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave Interchange
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 10
Meeting Date: September 26, 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:
Administrative Rules for Allowing Chickens.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction to staff for implementing an administrative approval process in response to
resident requests for keeping chickens.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support an administrative approval process as a method of issuing city
permission for the keeping of chickens in compliance with the current City Code Language?
BACKGROUND:
In 2009 a report was sent to the City Council providing information from other cities that allow
chickens. This was a report only and no action was required or directed.
During the past year there has been increased interest from residents inquiring if the city allows
the keeping of chickens for personal use. The Code currently allows chickens if written
permission is granted from the City as specified in Section 4-1:
Sec. 4-1. Regulating the keeping of domestic animals.
No person shall keep or harbor any fowl, horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine in the city, or permit
the same to be done upon premises the person owns, occupies or controls without written permission from
the city.
The city has not granted written permission in the past to allow the keeping of domestic animals.
A recent survey of other cities including Hopkins, Plymouth, Golden Valley, Edina, Woodbury,
and Farmington found that they do not allow chickens or other farm animals on residential lots.
Other cities do allow chickens with varying requirements as follows:
Minneapolis allows an owner to keep chickens through a permit process that requires the
signature of 80% property owners within 100 feet of the proponent’s property.
Minnetonka allows for five or fewer chickens to be kept on one-half acre lots for non-
commercial purposes.
Richfield is the least restrictive of the cities allowing a maximum of three chickens, no
permit or prior notification to the neighbors.
Bloomington only allows chickens in the large lot single family residential district and
owners must maintain a 100 foot setback from the coop to the property line.
Burnsville allows up to 4 chickens on a residential property and set back at least 50 feet
from any residential structure on any adjacent lots and 10 feet from the property line.
Maplewood (effective January 1, 2012) will allow up to 10 hens dependent on the size of
the single family lot.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Administrative Rules for Allowing Chickens
DISCUSSION:
To accommodate residents which have expressed an interest in keeping a few hens on their
property, generally for fresh eggs, staff is developing an administrative process to utilize the
existing City Code language.
Concerns to be addressed in issuing approval include limiting the number of chickens within a
designated area and property sanitation to avoid creating a health issue or nuisance.
The process would begin when a resident requesting permission must complete an application
form. In addition to general information, details would include providing the proposed number of
chickens (no roosters), dimensions of proposed coop and chicken run, and information on the
type of building materials or pre-assembled coop. A site plan showing the location and
dimensions of the proposed coop and fenced run in relationship to all other existing structures
and property lines would be required.
If a coop is being constructed as an accessory structure, Zoning requirements for exterior finish
and setback, and possible Building Code requirements, will apply.
Conditions staff will be considering as part of the permit process granting permission to keep
chickens include:
1) Chickens will only be allowed on a single-family, residential property.
2) Limit of 4 hens; no roosters.
3) Chickens must be maintained in a coop and/or fenced chicken run at all times.
4) The chicken coop and fenced chicken run must be located in the backyard area as far
from property lines as reasonably possible. In most cases, a minimum of 10 feet should
be considered by the owner and in no case less than the setback requirement for
accessory structures.
5) The coop and chicken run must be kept in a healthy and sanitary condition in such way
that no noxious odors are carried to the adjacent public or private property.
6) Chicken(s) are for personal use only; no butchering or sale of eggs or chicken(s) allowed
on the property.
7) Owner will provide access to the property for a pre-inspection at the time of the request
and at any time requested by the city to verify compliance with the conditions or in
response to a complaint.
A permit to keep chickens will be for a maximum of two years, at which point an owner may
request an extension for another two years.
The permit may be revoked by the city at any time if the owner fails to comply with the
provisions under which the permit was issued. If the presence of chickens creates objectionable
odors, unsanitary conditions, nuisance situations, or other city code violations on the property,
they would be grounds for lifting the permit for keeping of chickens.
If a permission is withdrawn and the owner were to continue the keeping of chickens City
Attorney Tom Scott has stated that this would become a city code violation and normal code
enforcement process would be followed.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Administrative Rules for Allowing Chickens
Alternatives to proceeding with an administrative process would include changing section 4-1 of
the City Code. The clarity of intent could be improved by an ordinance either prohibiting the
keeping of domestic animals, or allowing them with specific performance requirements. A
license for keeping chickens could also be developed as a method to improve control of
potentially nuisance conditions.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No fee would be required for requesting permission since this is an administrative process that
does not have a fee established through ordinance or identified in Appendix A. With only a few
requests expected, the amount of staff cost would be minimal. If numerous requests are made
and the time demands become substantial, staff would evaluate alternatives and bring this issue
back to Council.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 26, 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: September 26, 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:
August 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 at about 67% of the annual budget through August.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 61.8% of the adopted budget and the Park
and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 70.1% 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).
It is important to note that there is a partial week of August payroll expense which has not been
recorded at the time this report was prepared. Due to the conversion to the two-week payroll
delay, time earned for the period of August 27th to August 31st will not be paid and recorded
until the September 23rd pay date.
Significant variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied
with a general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
Through August, 88% of the license and permit revenues have been received in the
General Fund. As in previous years, 100% of the 2011 liquor and business license
payments have already been recorded. The building permit for Wooddale Pointe was
issued in August for $121,000, bringing total permit revenues for the year to 81.9% of
budget, up from 64.6% in July.
In the Public Works Operations Division, Intergovernmental Revenue has exceeded
budget by 24% or $106,000 for the year. This is the portion of our DOT Municipal State
Aid allotment to be used for general maintenance expenditures. Typically, the State pays
90% of the maintenance allotment in the current year and withholds 10% until the
following year. However, the State had sent the full 2011 allotment in the amount of
$508,000 in advance of the anticipated State shutdown in June. In addition, we have also
received the 10% hold back of our 2010 allotment in the amount of $48,000.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report
Expenditures:
Services and Other Charges in the Accounting Department are temporarily exceeding
budget at 69.3%. The remaining payment for the 2010 audit and CAFR preparation was
paid in August.
The Facilities Maintenance Department is well below budget overall at 50.4%. This is
due to the retirement of the Facilities Superintendent and the subsequent staffing
reorganization.
Public Works Administration is exceeding budget under Personal Services at 71.4%. A
change will be made in September to 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:
The Organized Recreation Division expenditures are currently exceeding budget at
76.2%. Supplies are at 92% and Services & Other Charges are at 85%. Many of the
expenditures incurred in this division are seasonal, with larger expenses occurring for
recreational activities over the summer months. Also, consistent with prior years, the full
payment of the 2011 Community Education contribution to the School District in the
amount of $187,400 was made early in the year. A budget overage at end of year is not
anticipated. Program revenues in this division under Charges for Services are also
exceeding budget at 89.5% due to the seasonal nature of the activities
Expenditures in the Rec Center Division are running slightly over budget at 71.2% due to
larger expenses incurred during the summer pool season. Charges for Services revenue is
also ahead of budget at 85%, up from just 18.5% at the end of May as the pool opened.
Total expenses in the Vehicle Maintenance Division as a whole are at 74.2% through
August due to many unforeseen expenses. Motor fuel is at 82.3% of budget, mainly
because 6,000 gallons more fuel has been consumed during the first eight months of 2011
compared to the first eight months of 2010. This was in large part due to snow removal
in the first quarter. Repair and maintenance services are also higher than budget, as there
have been many unanticipated equipment repairs requiring external service and labor
work. Certain repairs related to accidents will be reimbursed through a transfer from the
Uninsured Loss Fund at the end of the year. Staff will continue to review 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 Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:02R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 15,426,072.00-7,967,634.97- 7,458,437.03- 51.65 |14,889,605.00-7,556,184.48- 50.75
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,345,910.00- 287,737.94- 2,071,976.00- 273,934.00- 88.32 |2,294,768.00-1,829,408.70- 79.72
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 328,200.00- 20,159.36- 172,933.77- 155,266.23- 52.69 |311,750.00-193,078.08- 61.93
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,136,187.00- 19,261.82- 639,336.78- 496,850.22- 56.27 |1,598,787.00-864,471.12- 54.07
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,152,643.00- 84,350.70- 427,979.05- 724,663.95- 37.13 |1,138,018.00-516,482.45- 45.38
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,150.00-8,484.74- 90,467.92-9,682.08- 90.33 |100,000.00-87,514.18- 87.51
4001 REVENUES 20,489,162.00-419,994.56-11,370,328.49-9,118,833.51-55.49 |20,332,928.00-11,047,139.01-54.33
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,397,016.00 1,393,238.92 11,783,828.80 6,613,187.20 64.05 |18,132,004.00 12,190,705.13 67.23
6210 SUPPLIES 768,410.00 97,766.91 429,333.81 339,076.19 55.87 |846,535.00 458,166.73 54.12
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 63,425.00 5,466.14 31,525.02 31,899.98 49.70 |67,775.00 48,740.42 71.92
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,851,437.00 292,413.02 2,016,996.29 1,834,440.71 52.37 |3,922,858.00 2,062,787.85 52.58
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |13,083.75
6001 EXPENDITURES 23,080,288.00 1,788,884.99 14,261,683.92 8,818,604.08 61.79 |22,969,172.00 14,773,483.88 64.32
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,589,876.00- 212,573.00- 1,700,584.00- 889,292.00- 65.66 |2,583,825.00-1,722,549.92- 66.67
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 4,000.00-1,895.00- 8,972.68-4,972.68 224.32 |1,500.00-18,010.68- 1,200.71
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-38,720.75 238,720.75- 19.36- |200,000.00-37,850.30- 18.93
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 600.00- 4,300.16-4,300.16 |2.00-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 750.00-75.00- 3,225.00-2,475.00 430.00 |3,253.00-
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 125.00- 3,192.49-3,192.49 |100.00-35.54- 35.54
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,794,626.00-215,268.00-1,681,553.58-1,113,072.42-60.17 |2,785,425.00-1,781,701.44-63.97
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 182,000.00 20.00-545.99 181,454.01 .30 |181,181.00 7.48-
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21,500.00 1,816.77 13,185.28 8,314.72 61.33 |19,000.00 14,634.85 77.03
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 203,500.00 1,796.77 13,731.27 189,768.73 6.75 |200,181.00 14,627.37 7.31
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,155,419.20 1,223,533.12 1,223,533.12-|51,000.00 1,959,270.80 3,841.71
01000 GENERAL FUND 1,155,419.20 1,223,533.12 1,223,533.12-|51,000.00 1,959,270.80 3,841.71
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:02R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 4,000,561.00-2,000,280.50- 2,000,280.50- 50.00 |4,014,872.00-2,007,436.00- 50.00
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,600.00-110.00-6,490.00-1.67 |6,275.00-622.00- 9.91
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 77,652.00- 12,910.48 64,998.38- 12,653.62- 83.70 |71,219.00-69,628.32- 97.77
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,095,250.00- 165,907.52- 876,154.34- 219,095.66- 80.00 |1,073,900.00-863,814.63- 80.44
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 937,400.00- 131,470.23- 598,128.38- 339,271.62- 63.81 |906,900.00-498,795.72- 55.00
4001 REVENUES 6,117,463.00-284,467.27-3,539,671.60-2,577,791.40-57.86 |6,073,166.00-3,440,296.67-56.65
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,524,740.00 339,364.45 2,413,740.57 1,110,999.43 68.48 |3,440,416.00 2,407,779.00 69.99
6210 SUPPLIES 854,846.00 109,260.00 660,120.83 194,725.17 77.22 |906,881.00 505,623.21 55.75
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 25.70 2,624.31 1,495.69 63.70 |4,120.00 4,681.57 113.63
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,729,657.00 135,799.72 1,210,244.61 519,412.39 69.97 |1,712,749.00 1,089,471.92 63.61
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,500.00 1,500.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,114,863.00 584,449.87 4,286,730.32 1,828,132.68 70.10 |6,071,166.00 4,007,555.70 66.01
8001 OTHER INCOME
8065 SALE OF SALVAGE |1,500.00-
8100 INTEREST |680.89-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-210.00- 1,310.00- 13,690.00-8.73 |13,000.00-5,857.69- 45.06
8200 MISC REVENUE 5,440.00-5,440.00 |5,440.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-210.00-6,750.00-8,250.00-45.00 |13,000.00-13,478.58-103.68
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 203.51 203.51-|39.00
8580 MISC EXPENSE 60.09 60.09-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17,600.00 2,415.50 15,971.86 1,628.14 90.75 |15,000.00 15,873.22 105.82
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17,600.00 2,415.50 16,235.46 1,364.54 92.25 |15,000.00 15,912.22 106.08
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 302,188.10 756,544.18 756,544.18-|569,692.67
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 302,188.10 756,544.18 756,544.18-|569,692.67
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 15,426,072.00-7,967,634.97- 7,458,437.03- 51.65 |14,889,605.00-7,556,184.48- 50.75
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 109,187.00-54,593.24- 54,593.76- 50.00 |45,205.00-76,972.31- 170.27
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 79.67-79.67 |225.39-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 59,015.91- 25,984.09- 69.43 |85,000.00-61,697.18- 72.58
4001 REVENUES 15,620,259.00-7,083.33-8,081,323.79-7,538,935.21-51.74 |15,019,810.00-7,695,079.36-51.23
6001 EXPENDITURES
6210 SUPPLIES 75.09 75.09-|3,581.36
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,705.98 3,705.98-|138.33
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 60,000.00 33.94 16,021.90 43,978.10 26.70 |40,316.16
6001 EXPENDITURES 60,000.00 33.94 19,802.97 40,197.03 33.00 |44,035.85
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,589,876.00- 212,573.00- 1,700,584.00- 889,292.00- 65.66 |2,583,825.00-1,722,549.92- 66.67
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-38,720.75 238,720.75- 19.36- |200,000.00-37,850.30- 18.93
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,789,876.00-212,573.00-1,661,863.25-1,128,012.75-59.57 |2,783,825.00-1,760,400.22-63.24
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,681.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |1,655.39
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,681.00 1,655.39 .92
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 18,170,135.00-219,622.39-9,723,384.07-8,446,750.93-53.51 |17,622,954.00-9,409,788.34-53.40
100 GENERAL 18,170,135.00-219,622.39-9,723,384.07-8,446,750.93-53.51 |17,622,954.00-9,409,788.34-53.40
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 5
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 221,590.00-5,675.00- 225,357.15-3,767.15 101.70 |183,360.00-200,610.78- 109.41
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-250.00-7,750.00-3.13 |8,000.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,092.91- 6,326.86-6,326.86 |587.76-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00-50.00 |
4001 REVENUES 229,590.00-6,767.91-231,984.01-2,394.01 101.04 |191,360.00-201,198.54-105.14
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 469,088.00 43,614.93 302,546.94 166,541.06 64.50 |444,400.00 357,768.88 80.51
6210 SUPPLIES 2,900.00 112.33 1,268.34 1,631.66 43.74 |3,100.00 2,007.96 64.77
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 417,810.00 20,185.60 215,807.95 202,002.05 51.65 |476,972.00 213,589.57 44.78
6001 EXPENDITURES 889,798.00 63,912.86 519,623.23 370,174.77 58.40 |924,472.00 573,366.41 62.02
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 100.00-100.00 |
8200 MISC REVENUE 125.00- 2,110.22-2,110.22 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 125.00-2,210.22-2,210.22 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 2.37 2.37-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2.37 2.37-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 660,208.00 57,019.95 285,431.37 374,776.63 43.23 |733,112.00 372,167.87 50.77
110 ADMINISTRATION 660,208.00 57,019.95 285,431.37 374,776.63 43.23 |733,112.00 372,167.87 50.77
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 6
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 48,318.00-4,026.51- 28,185.56- 20,132.44- 58.33 |48,318.00-32,602.88- 67.48
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-4,026.51-28,185.56-20,132.44-58.33 |48,318.00-32,602.88-67.48
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 452,004.00 37,318.32 309,000.96 143,003.04 68.36 |444,200.00 391,572.07 88.15
6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 109.55 1,603.36 1,396.64 53.45 |3,000.00 1,420.20 47.34
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 155,710.00 29,705.72 107,831.60 47,878.40 69.25 |140,650.00 101,735.61 72.33
6001 EXPENDITURES 610,714.00 67,133.59 418,435.92 192,278.08 68.52 |587,850.00 494,727.88 84.16
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 750.00-75.00- 3,225.00-2,475.00 430.00 |3,075.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 750.00-75.00-3,225.00-2,475.00 430.00 |3,075.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 2,000.00 2,000.00 |500.00 7.48- 1.50-
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 250.00 250.00 |500.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2,250.00 2,250.00 |1,000.00 7.48-.75-
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 563,896.00 63,032.08 387,025.36 176,870.64 68.63 |540,532.00 459,042.52 84.92
120 ACCOUNTING 563,896.00 63,032.08 387,025.36 176,870.64 68.63 |540,532.00 459,042.52 84.92
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 7
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 150.00-175.00-25.00 116.67 |150.00-
4001 REVENUES 150.00-175.00-25.00 116.67 |150.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 488,690.00 38,176.78 324,563.02 164,126.98 66.41 |476,600.00 316,436.52 66.39
6210 SUPPLIES 1,200.00 35.76 1,111.96 88.04 92.66 |1,225.00 479.15 39.11
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 10,251.00 380.64 4,660.05 5,590.95 45.46 |12,255.00 4,604.86 37.58
6001 EXPENDITURES 500,141.00 38,593.18 330,335.03 169,805.97 66.05 |490,080.00 321,520.53 65.61
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |.01-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |.01-
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 499,991.00 38,593.18 330,160.03 169,830.97 66.03 |490,080.00 321,370.52 65.58
121 ASSESSING 499,991.00 38,593.18 330,160.03 169,830.97 66.03 |490,080.00 321,370.52 65.58
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 8
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 11,000.00-5,171.00-5,829.00- 47.01 |9,000.00-9,026.00- 100.29
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15.00-15.00-15.00 |264.00-
4001 REVENUES 11,000.00-15.00-5,186.00-5,814.00-47.15 |9,000.00-9,290.00-103.22
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 497,170.00 39,612.32 334,565.78 162,604.22 67.29 |482,400.00 321,900.11 66.73
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 110.99 1,182.76 817.24 59.14 |2,000.00 840.28 42.01
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 153,600.00 4,660.49 73,784.99 79,815.01 48.04 |160,550.00 70,640.76 44.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 652,770.00 44,383.80 409,533.53 243,236.47 62.74 |644,950.00 393,381.15 60.99
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 3.52 3.52-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 3.52 3.52-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 641,770.00 44,368.80 404,351.05 237,418.95 63.01 |635,950.00 384,091.15 60.40
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 641,770.00 44,368.80 404,351.05 237,418.95 63.01 |635,950.00 384,091.15 60.40
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 9
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 9,000.00-1,475.00- 10,705.00-1,705.00 118.94 |9,000.00-8,920.00- 99.11
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,667.56-3,667.56 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 613,225.00- 73,298.03- 333,350.14- 279,874.86- 54.36 |594,000.00-394,316.09- 66.38
4001 REVENUES 622,225.00-74,773.03-347,722.70-274,502.30-55.88 |603,000.00-403,236.09-66.87
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,036,336.00 77,688.83 664,307.14 372,028.86 64.10 |1,001,700.00 929,340.63 92.78
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 226.63 1,473.37 13.33 |1,700.00 317.76 18.69
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,150.00 770.18 4,472.31 51,677.69 7.96 |47,750.00 1,220.31 2.56
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,094,186.00 78,459.01 669,006.08 425,179.92 61.14 |1,051,150.00 930,878.70 88.56
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 471,961.00 3,685.98 321,283.38 150,677.62 68.07 |448,150.00 527,642.61 117.74
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 471,961.00 3,685.98 321,283.38 150,677.62 68.07 |448,150.00 527,642.61 117.74
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 10
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 15,000.00-1,250.00- 12,711.29-2,288.71- 84.74 |15,000.00-11,443.67- 76.29
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,250.00-12,711.29-45,288.71-21.92 |58,000.00-28,693.67-49.47
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 543,009.00 24,284.66 255,405.56 287,603.44 47.04 |546,200.00 324,264.14 59.37
6210 SUPPLIES 79,650.00 10,409.62 43,674.20 35,975.80 54.83 |86,150.00 40,081.74 46.53
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 20,000.00 1,231.19 18,768.81 6.16 |26,000.00 6,516.02 25.06
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 471,892.00 26,996.02 260,971.18 210,920.82 55.30 |423,392.00 207,244.46 48.95
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |13,083.75
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,114,551.00 61,690.30 561,282.13 553,268.87 50.36 |1,081,742.00 591,190.11 54.65
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 996.09-996.09 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 996.09-996.09 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 8.42-8.42 |54.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8.42-8.42 |54.00
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,056,551.00 60,440.30 547,566.33 508,984.67 51.83 |1,023,742.00 562,550.44 54.95
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,056,551.00 60,440.30 547,566.33 508,984.67 51.83 |1,023,742.00 562,550.44 54.95
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 11
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 |50.00-
4001 REVENUES 342.29-342.29 |50.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 529,075.00 40,973.43 346,806.32 182,268.68 65.55 |516,850.00 374,855.35 72.53
6210 SUPPLIES 29,000.00 5,276.48 16,411.91 12,588.09 56.59 |23,500.00 17,234.73 73.34
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,400.00 7,811.60 5,411.60- 325.48 |23,556.10
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 833,751.00 52,411.15 485,157.02 348,593.98 58.19 |860,316.00 524,926.88 61.02
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,394,226.00 98,661.06 856,186.85 538,039.15 61.41 |1,400,666.00 940,573.06 67.15
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |35.54-
8001 OTHER INCOME |35.54-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 11.97-24.19-24.19 |17.35
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 11.97-24.19-24.19 |17.35
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,394,226.00 98,649.09 855,820.37 538,405.63 61.38 |1,400,666.00 940,504.87 67.15
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,394,226.00 98,649.09 855,820.37 538,405.63 61.38 |1,400,666.00 940,504.87 67.15
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 12
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 |3,000.00-500.00- 16.67
4001 REVENUES |3,000.00-500.00-16.67
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 196,370.00 14,109.89 119,535.66 76,834.34 60.87 |188,280.00 100,787.25 53.53
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 553.52 565.65 465.65- 565.65 |100.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 98,000.00 20,454.87 52,636.88 45,363.12 53.71 |93,525.00 57,623.10 61.61
6001 EXPENDITURES 294,470.00 35,118.28 172,738.19 121,731.81 58.66 |281,905.00 158,410.35 56.19
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 294,470.00 35,118.28 172,738.19 121,731.81 58.66 |278,905.00 157,910.35 56.62
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 294,470.00 35,118.28 172,738.19 121,731.81 58.66 |278,905.00 157,910.35 56.62
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 13
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 4,500.00-5,700.00-1,200.00 126.67 |1,350.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 320,000.00- 20,159.36- 172,243.77- 147,756.23- 53.83 |303,500.00-192,938.65- 63.57
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 383,000.00- 19,261.82- 20,618.49- 362,381.51-5.38 |800,582.00-294,307.61- 36.76
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 100,700.00-5,503.25- 49,195.04- 51,504.96- 48.85 |109,700.00-48,598.69- 44.30
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 136.41- 17,873.03- 17,873.03 |13,839.53-
4001 REVENUES 808,200.00-45,060.84-265,630.33-542,569.67-32.87 |1,213,782.00-551,034.48-45.40
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,599,679.00 488,971.60 4,219,011.57 2,380,667.43 63.93 |6,609,294.00 4,297,362.67 65.02
6210 SUPPLIES 96,600.00 6,481.05 64,111.99 32,488.01 66.37 |141,050.00 53,013.86 37.59
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,025.00 4,368.28 17,678.39 15,346.61 53.53 |33,775.00 15,929.97 47.16
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 418,958.00 35,898.93 232,295.75 186,662.25 55.45 |521,783.00 254,496.66 48.77
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,148,262.00 535,719.86 4,533,097.70 2,615,164.30 63.42 |7,305,902.00 4,620,803.16 63.25
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 4,000.00-1,895.00- 8,972.68-4,972.68 224.32 |1,500.00-18,010.68- 1,200.71
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 600.00- 2,150.00-2,150.00 |
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 86.18-86.18 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 4,000.00-2,495.00-11,208.86-7,208.86 280.22 |1,500.00-18,010.68-1,200.71
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 305.00 305.00-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 250.00 21.02 230.64 19.36 92.26 |500.00 158.88 31.78
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 250.00 21.02 535.64 285.64-214.26 |500.00 158.88 31.78
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,336,312.00 488,185.04 4,256,794.15 2,079,517.85 67.18 |6,091,120.00 4,051,916.88 66.52
160 POLICE 6,336,312.00 488,185.04 4,256,794.15 2,079,517.85 67.18 |6,091,120.00 4,051,916.88 66.52
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 14
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 6,146.06 52,255.82 26,704.18 66.18 |76,700.00 51,089.10 66.61
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 4,591.39 4,113.61 52.74 |8,705.00 4,564.98 52.44
6001 EXPENDITURES 88,515.00 6,146.06 56,847.21 31,667.79 64.22 |86,255.00 55,654.08 64.52
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 88,515.00 6,146.06 56,847.21 31,667.79 64.22 |86,255.00 55,654.08 64.52
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 88,515.00 6,146.06 56,847.21 31,667.79 64.22 |86,255.00 55,654.08 64.52
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 15
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 40,000.00-1,041.84- 19,683.68- 20,316.32- 49.21 |40,000.00-21,235.26- 53.09
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 194,000.00-4,323.89- 189,676.11-2.23 |300,000.00-13,381.20- 4.46
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-370.00- 5,358.75-1,358.75 133.97 |4,000.00-11,907.35- 297.68
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 60.00-60.00 |
4001 REVENUES 238,000.00-1,411.84-29,426.32-208,573.68-12.36 |344,000.00-46,523.81-13.52
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,877,201.00 213,015.78 1,809,470.83 1,067,730.17 62.89 |2,826,180.00 1,774,017.72 62.77
6210 SUPPLIES 69,560.00 3,849.72 19,882.90 49,677.10 28.58 |71,810.00 13,612.97 18.96
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 800.75 800.75 4,199.25 16.02 |5,000.00 2,600.00 52.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 212,583.00 12,047.17 106,786.89 105,796.11 50.23 |219,183.00 84,395.82 38.50
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,164,344.00 229,713.42 1,936,941.37 1,227,402.63 61.21 |3,122,173.00 1,874,626.51 60.04
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,050.16-2,050.16 |2.00-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES |178.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,050.16-2,050.16 |180.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,926,344.00 228,301.58 1,905,464.89 1,020,879.11 65.11 |2,778,173.00 1,827,922.70 65.80
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,926,344.00 228,301.58 1,905,464.89 1,020,879.11 65.11 |2,778,173.00 1,827,922.70 65.80
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 16
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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- 271,316.10- 1,761,350.17- 234,349.83- 88.26 |1,987,288.00-1,556,400.66- 78.32
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,400.00-10.00-262.03-2,137.97- 10.92 |318.29-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 37.69-37.69 |69.80-
4001 REVENUES 1,998,100.00-271,326.10-1,761,649.89-236,450.11-88.17 |1,987,288.00-1,556,788.75-78.34
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,763,169.00 138,849.92 1,140,978.60 622,190.40 64.71 |1,713,100.00 1,088,305.93 63.53
6210 SUPPLIES 17,000.00 586.52 3,926.78 13,073.22 23.10 |21,500.00 3,343.97 15.55
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 62,127.00 2,672.90 27,109.38 35,017.62 43.64 |63,627.00 37,799.52 59.41
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,842,296.00 142,109.34 1,172,014.76 670,281.24 63.62 |1,798,227.00 1,129,449.42 62.81
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS |100.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |100.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 20.00-20.00-20.00 |
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21,000.00 1,807.72 12,984.88 8,015.12 61.83 |18,000.00 12,749.24 70.83
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 21,000.00 1,787.72 12,964.88 8,035.12 61.74 |18,000.00 12,749.24 70.83
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 134,804.00-127,429.04-576,670.25-441,866.25 427.78 |171,161.00-414,590.09-242.22
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 134,804.00-127,429.04-576,670.25-441,866.25 427.78 |171,161.00-414,590.09-242.22
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 17
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 66,957.63 567,685.44 227,862.56 71.36 |825,800.00 567,578.36 68.73
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 312.81 3,742.01 257.99 93.55 |4,000.00 1,833.76 45.84
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 297.11 297.11 702.89 29.71 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 29,150.00 199.73 4,316.23 24,833.77 14.81 |24,100.00 20,629.84 85.60
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,698.00 67,767.28 576,040.79 253,657.21 69.43 |854,900.00 590,041.96 69.02
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 829,698.00 67,767.28 576,040.79 253,657.21 69.43 |854,900.00 590,041.96 69.02
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 829,698.00 67,767.28 576,040.79 253,657.21 69.43 |854,900.00 590,041.96 69.02
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 18
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 75,000.00-8,230.00- 48,970.00- 26,030.00- 65.29 |75,000.00-40,622.00- 54.16
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-50.00-50.00- 329,950.00-.02 |330,000.00-1,650.00- .50
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 69.71-69.71 |
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-8,280.00-49,089.71-355,910.29-12.12 |405,000.00-42,272.00-10.44
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 772,432.00 65,548.86 499,060.93 273,371.07 64.61 |750,000.00 486,070.62 64.81
6210 SUPPLIES 6,850.00 80.11 2,332.70 4,517.30 34.05 |7,050.00 4,175.43 59.23
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 64,750.00 1,373.14 25,550.03 39,199.97 39.46 |70,750.00 18,153.53 25.66
6001 EXPENDITURES 846,032.00 67,002.11 526,943.66 319,088.34 62.28 |829,800.00 508,399.58 61.27
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 58,722.11 478,111.42 37,079.42-108.41 |424,800.00 466,127.58 109.73
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 441,032.00 58,722.11 478,111.42 37,079.42-108.41 |424,800.00 466,127.58 109.73
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 19
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 |120.00-270.00- 225.00
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 200.00-440.00-240.00 220.00 |250.00-139.43- 55.77
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-556,133.60- 106,133.60 123.59 |450,000.00-479,310.00- 106.51
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 118.00-118.00 |
4001 REVENUES 450,320.00-556,901.60-106,581.60 123.67 |450,370.00-479,719.43-106.52
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,298,285.00 97,969.91 838,634.23 459,650.77 64.60 |1,230,300.00 809,355.78 65.79
6210 SUPPLIES 454,000.00 69,848.45 269,217.53 184,782.47 59.30 |479,500.00 316,223.56 65.95
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 798,000.00 84,622.54 395,002.74 402,997.26 49.50 |799,300.00 420,845.79 52.65
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,550,285.00 252,440.90 1,502,854.50 1,047,430.50 58.93 |2,509,100.00 1,546,425.13 61.63
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,099,965.00 252,440.90 945,952.90 1,154,012.10 45.05 |2,058,730.00 1,066,705.70 51.81
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,099,965.00 252,440.90 945,952.90 1,154,012.10 45.05 |2,058,730.00 1,066,705.70 51.81
01000 GENERAL FUND 1,155,419.20 1,223,533.12 1,223,533.12-|51,000.00 1,959,270.80 3,841.71
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 20
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 4,000,561.00-2,000,280.50- 2,000,280.50- 50.00 |4,014,872.00-2,007,436.00- 50.00
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-44,702.00-|44,702.00-22,351.00- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 263,000.00- 41,586.59- 235,375.01- 27,624.99- 89.50 |261,000.00-218,635.88- 83.77
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-5,409.00- 23,182.86-8,217.14- 73.83 |31,400.00-19,116.00- 60.88
4001 REVENUES 4,339,663.00-46,995.59-2,258,838.37-2,080,824.63-52.05 |4,351,974.00-2,267,538.88-52.10
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 724,457.00 62,150.11 503,810.62 220,646.38 69.54 |715,280.00 470,251.11 65.74
6210 SUPPLIES 51,541.00 4,958.75 47,491.95 4,049.05 92.14 |59,451.00 28,321.53 47.64
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 855.00 855.00-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 446,232.00 22,709.15 379,653.04 66,578.96 85.08 |455,677.00 353,812.31 77.65
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,222,230.00 89,818.01 931,810.61 290,419.39 76.24 |1,230,408.00 852,384.95 69.28
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |680.89-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-200.00-950.00- 14,050.00-6.33 |15,000.00-4,651.13- 31.01
8200 MISC REVENUE 5,440.00-5,440.00 |5,440.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-200.00-6,390.00-8,610.00-42.60 |15,000.00-10,772.02-71.81
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |39.00
8580 MISC EXPENSE 55.00 55.00-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17,000.00 2,109.65 14,746.88 2,253.12 86.75 |15,000.00 15,429.03 102.86
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17,000.00 2,109.65 14,801.88 2,198.12 87.07 |15,000.00 15,468.03 103.12
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,115,433.00-44,732.07 1,318,615.88-1,796,817.12-42.33 |3,121,566.00-1,410,457.92-45.18
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,115,433.00-44,732.07 1,318,615.88-1,796,817.12-42.33 |3,121,566.00-1,410,457.92-45.18
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 21
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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- 105,866.40- 542,487.26- 95,512.74- 85.03 |630,000.00-526,620.13- 83.59
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 771,000.00- 112,478.01- 486,469.49- 284,530.51- 63.10 |744,500.00-384,694.63- 51.67
4001 REVENUES 1,409,000.00-218,344.41-1,028,956.75-380,043.25-73.03 |1,374,500.00-911,314.76-66.30
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 786,207.00 114,004.39 572,023.31 214,183.69 72.76 |785,638.00 554,130.63 70.53
6210 SUPPLIES 170,750.00 31,653.81 135,002.12 35,747.88 79.06 |170,350.00 137,290.72 80.59
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 485,490.00 40,600.49 319,527.96 165,962.04 65.82 |480,870.00 290,531.27 60.42
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,442,447.00 186,258.69 1,026,553.39 415,893.61 71.17 |1,436,858.00 981,952.62 68.34
8001 OTHER INCOME
8065 SALE OF SALVAGE |1,500.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |1,500.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 203.51 203.51-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 241.86 662.61 662.61-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 241.86 866.12 866.12-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 33,447.00 31,843.86-1,537.24-34,984.24 4.60-|62,358.00 69,137.86 110.87
201 RECREATION CENTER 33,447.00 31,843.86-1,537.24-34,984.24 4.60-|62,358.00 69,137.86 110.87
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 22
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 |6,275.00-622.00- 9.91
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-26.82- 1,126.40-9,373.60- 10.73 |10,500.00-15.00- .14
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-4,714.00- 18,020.68- 15,979.32- 53.00 |30,000.00-23,277.36- 77.59
4001 REVENUES 51,100.00-4,740.82-19,257.08-31,842.92-37.69 |46,775.00-23,914.36-51.13
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 970,504.00 79,376.28 651,332.38 319,171.62 67.11 |926,500.00 680,286.51 73.43
6210 SUPPLIES 102,555.00 22,911.25 76,390.38 26,164.62 74.49 |97,755.00 65,876.02 67.39
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 25.70 1,769.31 2,350.69 42.94 |4,120.00 4,353.75 105.67
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 358,195.00 26,386.65 234,803.78 123,391.22 65.55 |361,340.00 211,646.07 58.57
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,435,374.00 128,699.88 964,295.85 471,078.15 67.18 |1,396,715.00 962,162.35 68.89
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,384,274.00 123,959.06 945,038.77 439,235.23 68.27 |1,349,940.00 938,247.99 69.50
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,384,274.00 123,959.06 945,038.77 439,235.23 68.27 |1,349,940.00 938,247.99 69.50
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 23
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 95,000.00-3,940.90- 71,915.15- 23,084.85- 75.70 |86,400.00-74,109.29- 85.77
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 10.00- 1,032.00-1,032.00 |2,347.25-
4001 REVENUES 95,000.00-3,950.90-72,947.15-22,052.85-76.79 |86,400.00-76,456.54-88.49
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 431,151.00 35,609.89 282,345.73 148,805.27 65.49 |421,200.00 282,183.04 67.00
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 506.62 9,533.66 17,466.34 35.31 |27,000.00 8,307.49 30.77
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |327.82
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 43,615.00 6,396.10 21,130.24 22,484.76 48.45 |45,250.00 18,339.23 40.53
6001 EXPENDITURES 501,766.00 42,512.61 313,009.63 188,756.37 62.38 |493,450.00 309,157.58 62.65
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 10.00-360.00-360.00 |1,860.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 10.00-360.00-360.00 |1,860.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 5.09 5.09-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 600.00 63.99 562.37 37.63 93.73 |444.19
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 600.00 63.99 567.46 32.54 94.58 |444.19
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,366.00 38,615.70 240,269.94 167,096.06 58.98 |407,050.00 231,285.23 56.82
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,366.00 38,615.70 240,269.94 167,096.06 58.98 |407,050.00 231,285.23 56.82
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 24
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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- 17,480.84 42,480.84- 34,980.84 566.41 |28,700.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 88,750.00- 14,486.81- 25,250.52- 63,499.48- 28.45 |86,000.00-43,897.57- 51.04
4001 REVENUES 96,250.00-2,994.03 67,731.36-28,518.64-70.37 |86,000.00-72,597.57-84.42
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 112,204.00 10,873.03 72,602.27 39,601.73 64.71 |108,648.00 98,878.12 91.01
6210 SUPPLIES 17,100.00 81.10 6,785.79 10,314.21 39.68 |19,425.00 8,620.61 44.38
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 240,520.00 18,310.71 124,694.16 115,825.84 51.84 |223,470.00 135,264.50 60.53
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,500.00 1,500.00 |
6001 EXPENDITURES 371,324.00 29,264.84 204,082.22 167,241.78 54.96 |351,543.00 242,763.23 69.06
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 32,258.87 136,350.86 138,723.14 49.57 |267,543.00 170,819.10 63.85
204 ENVIRONMENT 275,074.00 32,258.87 136,350.86 138,723.14 49.57 |267,543.00 170,819.10 63.85
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 25
9/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:53:16R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
22Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20118/31/2011 <==========================================>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 25,450.00-4,570.36- 22,517.54-2,932.46- 88.48 |26,517.00-18,577.32- 70.06
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |536.76-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,859.22- 69,423.35- 31,576.65- 68.74 |101,000.00-69,360.48- 68.67
4001 REVENUES 126,450.00-13,429.58-91,940.89-34,509.11-72.71 |127,517.00-88,474.56-69.38
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 500,217.00 37,350.75 331,626.26 168,590.74 66.30 |483,150.00 322,049.59 66.66
6210 SUPPLIES 485,900.00 49,148.47 384,916.93 100,983.07 79.22 |532,900.00 257,206.84 48.27
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 155,605.00 21,396.62 130,435.43 25,169.57 83.82 |146,142.00 79,878.54 54.66
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,141,722.00 107,895.84 846,978.62 294,743.38 74.18 |1,162,192.00 659,134.97 56.71
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,015,272.00 94,466.26 755,037.73 260,234.27 74.37 |1,034,675.00 570,660.41 55.15
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,015,272.00 94,466.26 755,037.73 260,234.27 74.37 |1,034,675.00 570,660.41 55.15
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 302,188.10 756,544.18 756,544.18-|569,692.67
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: August 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 26
Meeting Date: September 26, 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:
Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a background and general
history of these trail crossings in preparation for a study session discussion later this year.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions you may have.
BACKGROUND:
History
Since the Cedar Lake (SW LRT) Trail was constructed by Three Rivers Park District over ten
years ago, safety concerns have been expressed at the Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard
street crossings. The City Council has reviewed and discussed the crossings several times over
the past five years or so at various study sessions and regular meetings. Dates include June 19,
2006, November 27, 2006, February 26, 2007, March 19, 2007, and September 24, 2007. A
written report was also provided on October 26, 2009. In addition, the Wooddale Avenue
crossing specifically was reviewed extensively from 2007 through 2009 as part of the public
process for the Highway 7/Wooddale Ave. Interchange project design.
On June 19, 2006, the City Council reviewed a memo from Mike Rardin (May 26, 2006) and
discussed options for the regional trail crossings at Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue
(attached). The memo provided a general background and history of the crossings, including the
following recommendations approved by the Council:
1. Remove the white crosswalk pavement markings.
2. Narrow the traffic lanes and add a median (safe haven) with appropriate warning signs
and markings.
3. Study the feasibility of converting the trail crossing to a pedestrian crossing.
4. Support the Three Rivers Park District trail/street grade separation project funded for
2010.
At the November 27, 2006 Study Session, the City Council reviewed a report from staff and a
memo from SRF (attached) that provided relevant background information and possible changes
which could be considered for the two crossings. Council discussed possible street crossing
options, safety, long term improvements, and provided input to staff. Council also requested
further information on the following:
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History
1. Beltline Boulevard
Obtain information regarding the feasibility, cost, and schedule to relocate the
existing railroad crossing warning signals associated with a median / refuge
installation and widening of the roadway.
Request additional information regarding the Three Rivers Park District
trail/street grade separation project funded for 2010.
2. Wooddale Avenue
Obtain information regarding the feasibility, cost, and schedule to relocate the
existing railroad crossing warning signals associated with a median / refuge
installation and widening of the roadway.
Check into the possibility of prohibiting right turns on red from eastbound Hwy 7
to southbound Wooddale Ave.
Request additional information regarding Park District plans for a trail/street
grade separation project.
After staff followed through further with Mn/DOT, CP Railroad, and Three Rivers Park District,
the following additional information was presented to the City Council on February 26, 2007:
1. Beltline Boulevard
The railroad indicated that the existing railroad crossing warning signals could be
relocated in the spring (given adequate notice) at an approximate cost of $100,000
(a detailed estimate was being developed at the time by the railroad).
There was no additional information available regarding the Park District
trail/street grade separation project at the time.
2. Wooddale Avenue
It was determined that it was not necessary to relocate the existing railroad
crossing warning signals to install a median / refuge with roadway widening.
A right turn on red prohibition from eastbound Hwy 7 to southbound Wooddale
Ave. would require a request by the City. It was not known if Mn/Dot would
approve such a request, as Mn/Dot typically does not like these prohibitions as
motorists generally do not obey them.
There was no additional information regarding a Park District trail/street grade
separation project at the time. The district reiterated its desire to participate in the
Hwy 7 / Wooddale interchange project development process so trail crossing
needs could be included in that project.
A grade-separated crossing was presented as the best permanent solution. At the time, Three
Rivers Park District had secured funding to provide for such a crossing at Beltline in 2010. The
cost of a separated grade crossing was estimated to be approximately $1.0 -$1.5 M. A more
immediate, or “interim” solution proposed the construction of a median with a refuge area. A
temporary or “non-raised” median had been installed the previous summer and had received
positive feedback. However, an improved and more permanent type of raised median was also
discussed. Another interim measure proposed for consideration was a signalized crossing at
Beltline. These interim measures were summarized to Council on February 26, 2007 as follows:
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History
Beltline Blvd
Available Interim Improvement Options
Estimated
Cost
Earliest Possible
Completion Date
1 - Install a pedestrian actuated traffic signal (signal-
ized crosswalk)
$100,000 Summer 2008
2 - Widen road and install a raised 12’ wide median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
- RR signal relocation and crossing surface
Extension
$105,000
$125,000
$230,000
Summer 2007
Summer 2007
3 - Install a 6’ wide raised median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
$20,000
Spring 2007
Wooddale Ave
Available Interim Improvement Options
Estimated
Cost
Earliest Possible
Completion Date
1 - Realign the trail and crossing north to the south
side of Hwy 7
$45,000 Summer 2007
2 - Install a raised 12’ wide median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
- RR crossing surface extension
$35,000
$25,000
$60,000
Summer 2007
Summer 2007
3 - Install a raised 6’ wide median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
$20,000
Spring 2007
4 - Install a signed and marked 6’ wide median:
(same as Beltline Blvd currently exists)
$10,000 Spring 2007
In addition to the various interim improvement options and estimated costs, Council also
considered the following funding and policy implications:
Beltline Blvd
1. Should staff continue to maintain the Beltline Blvd crossing as it currently exists or
would Council like to see one of the three improvements identified above pursued?
2. If an improvement is desired at Beltline Blvd, should that be completed in 2007 at city
cost or should outside funds be pursued for a future project?
Wooddale Ave
1. Staff is prepared to request Council approval for the installation of a signed and marked
6’ wide median on Wooddale Ave this spring; does Council desire staff to pursue one of
the other crossing improvement options at Wooddale Ave?
2. If a crossing improvement other than the one proposed by staff is desired at Wooddale
Ave, should that be completed in 2007 at city cost or should outside funds be pursued for
a future project?
3. Does Council desire staff to request a right turn on red prohibition for eastbound Hwy 7
traffic at Wooddale Ave?
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History
For Beltline Boulevard, the Council identified option #1, the pedestrian actuated traffic signal, as
the preferred option. As a result, staff brought forward a motion to adopt a resolution accepting
a project report and establishing and ordering Project No. 2007-2700 for crossing improvements
at both Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue trail crossings at the March 19, 2007 City
Council meeting. Because changes at Wooddale Avenue were anticipated as a result of the
Highway 7/Wooddale interchange project design process, a minor 12 foot wide median
installation project was authorized at the Wooddale crossing. At the same time the installation of
a traffic signal at Beltline Boulevard specifically was identified for further pursuit. In addition to
establishing a project, Council directed staff to pursue options for outside funding. As a result,
staff contacted surrounding communities and the Three Rivers Park District to request
participation in the cost of these projects, and also applied for funding through a new federal
program, the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program.
In the mean-time, the median (signs and markings) installed on Beltline Blvd in 2006 had
received satisfactory comments to date and based on feedback, staff proposed maintaining
Beltline Blvd in its current condition while funding for a traffic signal could be pursued. A
similar median was installed on Wooddale Ave. in the spring of 2007, funded by the Public
Works Operations Budget ($10,000).
At the September 24, 2007 Study Session staff provided an update on the traffic signal project.
A preliminary plan and cost estimate were completed, bringing the estimated cost of the project
to $250,000. Staff also notified Council that the grant application for the Non-Motorized
Transportation Pilot Program was not successful. As a result, staff offered the following options
for the Beltline Boulevard crossing:
1. Identify and secure a local (City) funding source and proceed with a traffic signal
installation in the spring of 2008. The installation would be considered “temporary” until
Three Rivers Park District constructed their long term improvement (separated grade
crossing). All signal fixtures would be salvageable for use elsewhere when removed
(salvage value estimated at $75,000, or less).
2. Discontinue consideration of a temporary signal and defer to the long term permanent
improvement being pursued by Three Rivers Park District, scheduled at that time for
2010. In the meantime, minor improvements (temporary bituminous median and
striping) could be installed at the Beltline Crossing at a minimal cost (estimated at
$10,000, or less), similar to the improvements recently installed at the Wooddale Ave
crossing.
3. Leave the crossing as is until a long term permanent improvement being pursued by
Three Rivers Park District is completed.
The Council directed staff to pursue the raised median curb option (#2 above) and to terminate
efforts to install a signal (#1 above).
After the September 24, 2007 Study Session, the raised median and lane striping at the Beltline
Boulevard crossing were installed. Staff also learned that the Three Rivers Park District project
to provide a grade-separated trail crossing had been put on hold, pending final decisions about
light rail through St. Louis Park, specifically with regards to the proposed station at Beltline
Boulevard.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 5
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History
Wooddale Crossing Layout
The current crossing layout at Wooddale Avenue was the result of an extensive public process
conducted as part of the Highway 7/Wooddale interchange design. This process also considered
future changes to the current railroad track configuration in anticipation of future light rail
construction. However, much of the design specifics of light rail are still unknown, which added
to the difficulty of finding a more permanent solution for the trail crossing. This was all
discussed during the public process which also included representatives of Hennepin County
(owners of the railroad right of way), Mn/Dot, Three Rivers Park District (owners of the regional
trail), the project consultant (SRF), the Police Department, trail users, adjacent neighborhoods,
and others.
Throughout the process, it was generally acknowledged that a separated grade crossing (i.e., the
trail going over or under Wooddale) was likely the most desirable safe and long term “fix”.
However, with the unknown design of the pending LRT, such a project was not immediately
possible. In addition, no improvements were allowed within the railroad right of way which
extends nearly 100 feet from the existing tracks. This is similar to the constraints faced at
Beltline Boulevard where Three Rivers Park District was not able to move forward on their
grade separation project.
Complicating the design for the Highway 7/Wooddale interchange (including the trail crossing)
is that several traffic movements are packed into a very short stretch of roadway. Minimizing
right of way takings on the north side of the roadway, combined with the railroad restrictions on
the south resulted in a tight diamond configuration, which essentially placed a short bridge, two
ramps, two frontage roads, a regional trail crossing, and a railroad crossing all within only 700
feet or less. In addition, much of that available space is taken by railroad right of way where no
construction or improvements were allowed. As a result, the frontage road and trail crossing
were squeezed much closer to the ramps than preferred.
Another option discussed during the course of design was to route the regional trail users down
to 36th and cross Wooddale at that location (where there is a traffic signal). However, this was
not viewed favorably for several reasons (crossing the tracks twice, eliminating straight through
movement for trail users, heavy traffic at 36th, etc.). All that said, there was a general consensus
from stakeholders during the process that a marked and legally enforceable crosswalk at the
current location (at the revised frontage road location) would be best given the design constraints
and limitations imposed at this location.
Since the interchange and the trail crossing opened to traffic, staff has reviewed the crossing
further with Three Rivers Park District, Mn/Dot, the Police Department, the project’s
engineering consultant (SRF), and trail users. Additional signage and pavement markings have
been added to increase visibility, and other options (such as revising Wooddale traffic striping)
are being reviewed further. A follow-up traffic study will also consider current and projected
traffic levels with regards to the light rail station, future rehab work to 36th Street and Wooddale,
the possibility of traffic signals at the ramps, and future growth projections in general. How
other issues are addressed during LRT design, including resolution of the freight rail issue will
also impact not only the trail crossing, but the entire surrounding area. Public Safety staff from
both Three Rivers Park District and the City continue to monitor the crossing and observe
operations and user compliance (both motorists and trail users).
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 6
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History
Three Rivers Park District
Three Rivers Park District owns and oversees several miles of trails, including many roadway
crossings of varying properties. The Park District has been engaged in a system-wide review of
trail crossings throughout the metro region, including types of crossings and a review of overall
consistency. The Park District will be hosting a workshop on October 14 which will include
representatives of Hennepin County and many of the communities served by the trail system
(including St. Louis Park). Further information regarding crossings on a comprehensive and
system-wide basis, including comparisons with other communities will be further attained from
the workshop.
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:
Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting
St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: May 26, 2006 Memorandum
November 10, 2006 Memorandum (SRF)
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Arth CITYOF
ST. LOUIS
PARK
Public Works Department
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(952) 924-2555
Fax: (952) 924-2663
Tom Harmening, City Manager
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
May 26,2006
SW Regional Trail-Crossing Improvements (final)
W ooddale Ave and Beltline Blvd
INTRODUCTION: This memo provides background information and proposed
changes to the SW Regional Trail crossings on Wooddale Ave and Beltline Blvd. These
changes are being proposed as a result of safety concerns at these two trail crossings.
There is a very high volume of both trail users and vehicle traffic at both of these
crossings. In addition, there appears to be confusion. with both trail users and vehicle
operators over right of way requirements at these crossings.
These crossings were installed as part of a multi-year regional trail project by the Three
Rivers Park District about 2000. It appears these crossings were installed as a part of the
project to provide for convenient midblock trail crossings. It also appears the original
intent at these crossings was for trail users to stop and yield to vehicles on the roadway.
BACKGROUND: Since the SW Regional Trail was constructed, trail usage along with
vehicle traffic at these two crossings has increased to the point where safety of trail users
at these crossings is a concern. Late last year additional trail signs and trail pavement
markings were installed in an attempt to increase crossing safety by enhancing
educational and enforcement efforts -aimed primarily at trail users. It does not appear
those efforts have had any significant impact on safety at these two crossings. The main
problems appear to be high volumes of trail users and vehicle traffic, wide midbl9ck
street crossings, and confusion over right of way. To clarify current state statute and
regulations: vehicles are required to stop and yield to pedestrians at crosswalks;
trail users are required to stop and yield to vehicles at trail crossings. These
crossings were intended to be and are signed as trail crossings, but they also have
crosswalk pavement markings which legally establish them as crosswalks. It appears that
bicyclists are required to yield to vehicles on the roadway while vehicles on the roadway
are required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks. This is confusing to trail users and
vehicle operators.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 7
EVALUATION: The situation at both crossings appears unacceptable and should be
changed. In general, remedies to this would be to eliminate the crossings; relocate them
to a safer location; or, revise them to provide for positive stop and right of way controls.
Specifically, the following options have been identified for consideration:
BEL TLINE BLVD.
1. close the existing crossing for use
2. provide for a grade separated facility (currently funded for 201 0)
3. relocation of the existing crossing:
a. north to County Road 25, or
b. south to Park Glen Road
4. convert the existing crossing to a trail crossing by removing the crosswalk
markings which would then provide vehicles with clear right of way over all
trail users
5. convert the existing crossing to a pedestrian crossing which would then
provide pedestrians with clear right of way over vehicle traffic
a. install a signed and marked crosswalk; or,
b. install a pedestrian activated traffic signal
WOOD DALE AVE.
1. close the existing crossing for use
2. provide for a grade separated facility (requested but not funded)
3. relocation of the existing crossing:
a. north to Hwy 7, or
b. south to W36th Street
4. convert the existing crossing to a trail crossing by removing the crosswalk
markings which would then provide vehicles with clear right of way over all
trail users
The city is the legal authority for these street crossings and has the power to decide and
act in the manner it deems in the best interests of the public with regard to the situation
described and options provided above. In doing so, the City has the discretion to consider
such environmental, social, economic and/ or financial impacts it deems warranted under
the circumstances.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 8
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the immediate actions (in terms of days)
described below be taken at the earliest opportunity and the short term (in terms of
months) and long term (in terms of years) actions be considered for approval by the City
Council.
BEL TLINE BLVD.
Immediate (days) -convert the ex1st1ng crossing to a trail crossing (as originally
intended) which would then provide vehicle traffic with clear right of way over all trail
users crossing the street. To do so would entail:
1. removal of the white crosswalk pavement markings
2. replacement of the 18"x 18" trail "stop" signs with 24"x24" stop signs
3. installation of a "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" plaque (R1-X2) beneath the
24" trail stop sign
4. replacement of the black on white trail educational signs with larger black on
white educational signs stating "ALL TRAIL USERS MUST STOP AND
YIELD"
Short Term (months)-consider:
1. the possibility of improving the street crossing as follows
• narrow the traffic lanes to 11 feet wide
• installation of a 6 foot wide median through the area with a 14 foot gap
at the trail location
• installation of a white stop "bar" and a "stop" pavement marking for trail
users in the median area
• installation of advance "street narrows" warning signs
• installation of reflectorized warning posts on the median along with
painting the median yellow
2. studying the feasibility of converting the existing crossing to a pedestrian
crossing which would then provide pedestrians with clear right of way over
vehicle traffic. This could possibly be accomplished with the installation of a
signed and marked crosswalk or a pedestrian activated traffic signal.
Long Term (years)-support the Three Rivers Park District proposal/project intended to
grade separate the Regional Trail from Beltline Blvd.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 9
WOODDALE AVE.
Immediate (days) -convert the existing crossing to a trail crossing (as originally
intended) which would then provide vehicle traffic with clear right of way over all trail
users crossing the street. To do so would entail:
1. removal of the white crosswalk pavement markings
2. replacement of the 18"x 18" trail "stop" signs with 24"x24" stop signs
3. installation of a "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" plaque (R1-X2) beneath the
24" trail stop sign
4. replacement of the small black on white trail educational signs with larger
signs stating "ALL TRAIL USERS MUST STOP AND YIELD"
Short Term (months)-close the existing crossing and relocate it north to the signalized
pedestrian crossing at Hwy 7 and construct an 8 foot wide bituminous surfaced trail on
the east side ofWooddale Ave from Hwy 7 to W36th Street.
Long Term (years)-support efforts to develop and fund a project to grade separate the
Regional Trail from W ooddale Ave.
SUMMARY: Based on the safety concerns at these two trail crossings, staff is proposing
the "immediate" actions described above be taken at both crossings at the earliest
opportunity. A staff report will be prepared for Council to consider the proposed short
and long term actions during June.
In addition to the actions proposed above, staff is determining ways to partner with Three
Rivers Park District to improve enforcement at these (and all other) trail crossings along
with increased educational efforts directed not only at trail users, but also at our city
residents.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 10
~CONSULTING GROUP, INc.
Transportation • Civil • Structural • Environmental • Planning • Traffic • Landscape Architecture • Parking • Right of Way
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer
City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Patrick Corkle, PE, PTOE, Senior Associate
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
DATE: November 10, 2006
SRF No. 0065791
SUBJECT: SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRAIL CROSSING ALTERNATIVES-
W OODDALE A VENUE AND BEL TLINE BOULEY ARD
INTRODUCTION
We have completed a study to assess trail crossing alternatives for the Southwest Regional
Trail crossings at W oodale A venue and Beltline Boulevard in the City of St. Louis Park. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate options to improve the operation and safety for both
roadway and trail users at the crossing of W ooddale A venue and Beltline Boulevard. Both
crossings experience a high volume of pedestrian/bicycle traffic and moderate vehicular
traffic. Previously, there were marked crosswalks for the Southwest Regional Trail as it
crossed W oodale A venue and Beltline A venue. With the marked crosswalks, there was
confusion with the crosswalk law by motorists and trail users, which requires motorists to
stop for pedestrians, not bicyclists, in the crosswalk. Due to the confusion and safety
concerns associated with the marked crosswalks, they were recently removed. The e~isting
trail stops signs were replaced with larger signs and supplemented with an "All Trail Users
Must Stop" sign. This situation requires all trail users to stop for traffic on
W ooddale A venue and Beltline Boulevard.
Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard are currently four-lane roadways with a posted
speed limit of 30 mph at the trail crossings. Daily vehicular volumes range from 10,000 to
15,000 on both roadways. The combination of high trail use, crossing four lanes of traffic,
moderate roadway volumes, an adjacent railroad and a crosswalk law not understood by all
users, creates an unsafe condition for all modes of travel.
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 1 50
Minneapolis, Minnesota 5 544 7-4443
Tel: 763-475-0010 • Fax: 763-475-2429
srfconsulting.com
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Case Plaza, One North Second Street
Fargo, North Dakota 581 02-4807
Tel: 701-237-0010 • Fax: 701-237-0017
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 11
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
SUMMARY
November 10, 2006
Page 2
Crossing options were developed and evaluated at Wooddale A venue and Beltline Boulevard.
These alternatives can be summarized into two groups. One group is based on the type of
crossing (crosswalk, traffic control devise, installation of medians, relocation or separation of
crossing) and the other is based on the type of roadway cross-section (four-lane undivided,
four-lane divided and two-lane divided). To organize the crossing options, we listed the
following trail-crossing options based on the roadway cross-section.
At Beltline Boulevard, all three types of roadway cross-sections could be considered,
although only certain crossing options should be used for each cross-section.
Four-lane undivided roadway
A traffic control device should be used with this roadway cross-section. The device could
either be warning flashers, traffic signal or "hawk" pedestrian flasher/signal. The striped
crosswalk would be re-installed with these devices (Options 4 and 5). The traffic signal
device would require coordination with the railroad.
The other option would be to remove the at-grade crossing by relocating it or to provide a
grade separation. Re-alignment of the trail would require the crossing of a free-right island at
CSAH 25, which is not desirable. The grade separation has received federal funding and
should be constructed in 2010. (Options 2 and 3)
Four-lane divided roadway
A median would be constructed in the roadway at the trail crossing. An important detail
would be the width of the median, to provide refuge for trail users (pedestrians, bicyclists and
bicyclists with buggies). The crosswalk could be re-installed, since it will significantly reduce
the complications of a trail user crossing the roadway if a refuge area is provided. (Options 9
and 10).
Two-lane divided roadway
A wide median would be constructed in the roadway at the trail crossing. Roadway traffic
would not be requested to stop, therefore a crosswalk should not be striped. The shorter
crossing distance would make the crossing easier for trail users. The roadway transition from
two lanes to one lane south of the CSAH 25 intersection could be difficult. Additionally, a
traffic signal at Beltline Boulevard/Park Glen Road may be needed for the cross-street traffic
(Options 11 and 12).
The other three devices (Options 6, 7 and 8) are vanatlons of re-installing the striped
crosswalk without enough enhancements to provide additional safety.
Our review of the feasible trail crossing alternatives at Beltline Boulevard is summarized in
the following table:
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 12
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
Table 1
November 10, 2006
Page 3
Summary of Trail Crossing Alternatives-Beltline Boulevard
Traffic Flow Safety
Construction
No. Crossing Option Roadway Trail Roadway Trail Cost
1 No Crosswalk Good Poor Fair Fair to $0
(current condition) Poor
2 Grade-Separated Good Good Good Good $1,000,000
Crossing
3 Relocation of Crossing Good Poor Good to Fair $25,000
Fair
4 Traffic Signal with Fair Fair Fair Good to $100,000
Crosswalk Fair
5 Pedestrian Warning Poor Good to Fair to Fair $50,000
Devices with Crosswalk Fair Poor
6 Striped Crosswalk ------ ---------
7 Speed Advisory with ---------------Crosswalk
8 Relocation of Stop Bars ---------------with Crosswalk
9 Center Median without Good to Poor Fair Fair to $25,000
Refuge (no widening) Fair Poor
10 Center Median with Good Fair to Good to Fair $50,000-
Refuge (widen road) Poor Fair $150,000 (1)
11 Center Median with Fair Fair Fair Fair $50,000
Refuge (lose a lane)
12 Center Median with Fair to Fair Fair to Fair $30,000
Bump-outs (lose a lane) Poor Poor
Note (1): Cost varies greatly depending on the impacts to the railroad crossing and equipment.
At W ooddale A venue, the feasible options are limited. The traffic congestion and traffic
signal spacing between 36th Street and TH 7 does not allow for a traffic control device,
striped crosswalk, or reduction in the number of lanes (Options 4-8, 11 and 12).
Four-lane undivided roadway
The only options which would improve the crossing condition are a re-alignment of the trail
to the TH 7 or 36th Street traffic signal, or a grade separation. Since re-alignment to
36th Street requires crossing the railroad tracks, TH 7 may be the better choice. In addition,
the re-alignment of the trail to TH 7 would occur on city property (Options 2 and 3).
Four-lane divided roadway
A median would be constructed in the roadway at the trail crossing. An important detail
would be the width of the median, to provide a refuge for trail users (pedestrians, bicyclists
and bicyclists with buggies). The crosswalk should not be re-installed (Options 9 and 10).
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 13
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
Two-lane divided roadway
November 10, 2006
Page4
This roadway configuration is not feasible at this location. The negative impact on roadway
and adjacent intersections operations could be significant.
Our review of the feasible trail crossing alternatives at Wooddale Avenue is summarized in
the following table:
Table 2
Summary of Trail Crossing Alternatives -Wooddale Avenue
Traffic Flow Safety Construction
No. Crossin~ Option Roadway Trail Roadway Trail Cost
1 No Crosswalk Good Poor Good to Fair to $0
(current condition) Fair Poor
2 Grade-Separated Good Good Good Good $1,000,000
Crossing
3 Relocation of Crossing Good Fair to Poor Good to Good to $40,000
Realignment of Trail Fair Fair
4 Traffic Signal ---------------
5 Pedestrian Warning ---------------Devices with Crosswalk
6 Striped Crosswalk --------- ------
7 Speed Advisory with ---------------Crosswalk
8 Relocation of Stop Bars --------- ------with Crosswalk
9 Center Median without Good to Poor Fair Fair to $25,000
Refuge (no widening) Fair Poor
10 Center Median with Good Fair to Poor Good to Fair $75,000-
Refuge (widen road) Fair $150,000 (l)
11 Center Median with ---------------Refuge (lose a lane)
12 Center Median with ---------------Bump-outs (lose a lane)
Note (1): Cost varies greatly depending on the impacts to the railroad crossing and equipment.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 14
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
RECOMMENDATIONS
November 10,2006
Page 5
We do not recommend re-installing a striped crosswalk without other improvements. An
additional treatment is needed to enhance the crossing (median, warning flasher, etc.), or a
different strategy is needed altogether (traffic signal, crossing relocation, etc.).
Based on our review and analysis of the trail crossing alternatives, we recommend grade-
separated crossings at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. As an interim solution, a
median with a refuge area (as feasible) should be installed at the Beltline Boulevard and
Wooddale Avenue crossings. Within the past few weeks, a temporary six-foot marked
median was installed on Beltline Boulevard at the trail crossing. It is our understanding that
the feedback has been positive and the temporary measure is operating safely. Therefore, if
the temporary median at the Beltline Boulevard crossing continues to receive positive
feedback and is observed to be operating safely, a "permanent" raised curb median should be
installed and no other devices would be required for the interim condition.
Another interim solution for the Beltline Boulevard crossing is a fully-actuated traffic signal
(or "Hawk" pedestrian flasher/signal). Another interim solution for the Wooddale A venue
crossing is re-alignment of the trail to the TH 7 intersection.
Further discussion of each alternative is summarized below:
1. No Crosswalk (Current Condition)
The current crossing control requires all trail users yield to the roadway users. The trail
users must wait for a gap in traffic to cross. Peak hour roadway traffic will reduce the
number of crossing opportunities and increase waiting times. Many studies show that
unmarked crossings are safer (particular for roadways with ADT over 10,000, similar to
Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale A venue); we attribute this result to pedestrians
assuming vehicles will stop for them just because they are in a crosswalk.
2. Grade-Separated Crossing
The grade-separated crossing would be the only trail/roadway crossing alternative that
would provide a high level of flow and be safe for both drivers and trail users.. An
underpass is recommended at these locations to capture the highest number of bicycle
and pedestrians to use the trail crossing. Many times overpass crossings are not used by
pedestrians/bicyclists due to the stairs/ramps that are required on each side.
The main benefit of a grade-separated crossing is the elimination of conflicts between
trail and roadway users. This option also eliminates the confusion of the crosswalk law.
In addition, a grade-separated crossing provides the highest level of safety where trail
users can enjoy the experience of the trail and drivers can use the roadway without
impedance from crossing trail users.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 15
Scott Brink, PE , City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
November 10,2006
Page 6
The downside to a grade-separated crossing is its high cost ranging from $800,000 to
$1,200,000.
For Beltline Boulevard, federal funding has been designated for a grade-separated
crossing in the year 2010. Since future funding is identified for a grade-separated
crossing at this location, all other options should be considered temporary. Further
evaluation of funding alternatives should also be considered to determine whether a joint
effort to advance the construction of a grade-separation is possible.
Federal funding or other financing mechanisms should be evaluated for a grade-
separated crossing at W ooddale A venue. All other options should be consider an
interim solution, with the ultimate goal of providing a grade-separation.
3. Relocation of Trail Crossing
Under this alternative, trail users would be routed to a safer crossing location than the
existing mid-block crossing. To cross Beltline Boulevard, trails users would be directed
to the CSAH 25 traffic signal. The additional travel distance would be 1,100 feet.
A new trail segment would need to be constructed on the westside of Beltline Boulevard
from CSAH 25 to the existing trail. To cross Wooddale Avenue, the trail could be re-
aligned to either the TH 7 or 36th Street signalized intersection. The re-alignment
would occur on city owned property.
At the Beltline Boulevard crossing, many trail users would likely continue to cross at the
existing location because of the additional distance. They would also have to cross the
free right-tum movement from TH 7.
At the W ooddale A venue crossing, the trail re-alignment to the TH 7 intersection would
be relatively easy.
The cost of providing addition trail is a medium-cost option estimated at $10,000 to
$40,000.
4. Traffic Signal with Crosswalk
Another option is the installation of a traffic signal. Although many different types of
traffic signals could be used, a fully-actuated signal with push buttons for trail use~s and
loop detectors for vehicles, at a minimum, should be considered. The device would
operate with vehicles seeing a green indication and trail users seeing a steady "don't
walk" symbol. The trail user presses the pushbutton to identify the need to service the
trail. The signal for the vehicles would change from green to yellow to red, and the trail
user would receive a walk indication. The flashing don't walk (we would recommend
the use of a pedestrian countdown timers) would follow and then the return to the
vehicles receiving a green indication. This operation would be the same as the traffic
signal at Northwest Boulevard (CSAH 61) at the Bass Lake Playfields. In addition, the
signal would need to be interconnected with the railroad crossing equipment.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 16
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
November 10, 2006
Page 7
Alternatively a "Hawk" pedestrian flasher/signal could be installed. The operation of
the device is described in the following by the City of Tucson, Arizona. The unit is
normally off until activated by a pedestrian. When a pedestrian wishes to cross the
street, they press a button and the signal begins with a FLASHING YELLOW indication
to warn the approaching drivers, just like a school bus signal. The FLASHING
YELLOW is then followed by a SOLID YELLOW indication, advising the drivers to
prepare to stop. The signal is then changed to a SOLID RED indication at which time
the pedestrian is shown a WALK indication. The beacon signal then converts to an
ALTERNATING FLASHING RED, allowing the drivers to proceed when safe, after
stopping at the crosswalk. This operation and signal sequence does not follow the
current MUTCD (although should be included in the 2008 version), therefore an
exemption would be needed. The cost of this device would be around $100,000 per
system. Additional investigation should be completed to determine if the "Hawk"
system has railroad pre-emption capabilities. We do not want a device stopping vehicles
on the railroad tracks when a train is approaching.
The installation of a traffic signal would dramatically improve overall safety for a trail
user at these crossings by providing a controlled location, that would require all vehicles
to stop when a trail user activates the pedestrian push button at the crossing. Comparing
the traffic signal to the existing condition, a traffic signal would cause more disruption
to the traffic flow and additional delays to motorists by requiring drivers to stop for
crossing trail users. A traffic signal requires vehicles to stop, increasing the
opportunities for rear-crashes. However, changing the traffic signal indication is more
predictable to a motorist than a trail user using a striped crosswalk. Trail users would be
more satisfied with this option than no crossing or having to wait for a gap in traffic.
A traffic signal at either location would require coordination with the railroad. The
traffic and railroad signals would need to be interconnected. Some type of vehicle
detection would be required to prevent vehicles from being trapped in the dilemma zone
and stopping on the railroad tracks. The detection will require an underground crossing
of the railroad tracks.
The installation of a new traffic signal on W ooddale A venue between the current signals
at 36th Street and TH 7 would create three very close spaced signalized intersections.
Based on past studies, congestion and delay on Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street is
significant during the peak periods. Current peak hour conditions include heavy queues
from TH 7 already extending into the trail crossing area. Based on these factors, we
would not recommend the installation of a traffic signal at the W ooddale A venue trail
crossing. A traffic signal installed at the Beltline Boulevard crossing should have no
impact on adjacent intersections.
A traffic signal is a moderate-cost option ranging from $80,000 to $120,000 per system.
At this cost, consideration should be given to preserving these funds to construct a
grade-separated crossing. This option should not be combined with the center median
options (discussed in the following sections).
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 17
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
5. Pedestrian Warning Devices with Crosswalk
November 10, 2006
Page 8
Traffic control devices such as pedestrian warning flashers and/or in-pavement warning
lights could be installed at the trail crossings. If warning flashers are installed, they
would be activated by the trail user pushing a button. The lights would immediately
start flashing and remain active for a pre-set amount of time. If warning lights are
considered, they should not continuously flash. It is recommended that the device be
pedestrian-actuated with a push button, instead of being actuated by another type of
sensor.
Pedestrian-actuated flashing lights would alert drivers when a pedestrian/bicyclist is
entering the crossing, since the use of the trail occurs at varying times throughout the
day and not all trail users wish to cross at this location. An overhead flashing beacon
would be recommended based on the number of lanes and roadway and trail user
volumes. The crosswalk striping would also be reinstalled. This option does not
control the trail crossing, since roadway users would yield to trail users. Many of these
devices were installed five to eight years ago. A cursory review of these systems show a
positive response from city staff; however, not as the only solution. Median options
maybe a better option, or they could be used in conjunction with warning flashers.
Median options allow trail users to cross the roadway in simpler stages (observation of
traffic in one direction, shorter crossing distance and more adequate gaps to cross),
while not providing a false sense of safety when using a striped crosswalk or significant
impact to vehicles.
The cost of pedestrian warning devices is estimated at $40,000 to $50,000.
6. Striped Crosswalk
A striped crosswalk was originally installed with construction of the trail. Re-installing
the crosswalk and advanced warning signs could be an option, but not recommended.
The crosswalks were removed because of trail user and vehicle confusion. Pedestrians
have a false sense of safety when using a striped crosswalk, as they may assume
vehicles will stop for them. The law requires vehicles to stop for pedestrians in the
crosswalk. The roadway is four-lanes wide at the crossing. The four-lanes create a
"multiple threat" situation. A vehicle in one lane stops for the pedestrian to cross and
another vehicle traveling in the same direction (in the other lane) fail to see the
pedestrian, or just fail to stop, and strikes the pedestrian
The cost of a re-installing the crosswalk and signing is a low-cost option at $2,000. We
do not recommend just re-installing the striped crosswalk and warning signs. An
additional treatment is needed to enhance the crossing (median, warning flasher, etc.), or
a different strategy is needed altogether (traffic signal, crossing relocation, etc.).
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 18
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
7. Speed Advisory Warning Sign with Crosswalk
November 10, 2006
Page 9
This alternative would install a speed advisory sign to warn drivers of approaching trail.
The sign would be located in advance of the trail crossing and could be attached to the
pedestrian crossing ahead sign posts, if the crosswalk striping were re-installed. The
sign could also be a stand alone sign stating "High Use Trail Ahead" with a
supplemental speed plaque "25 mph". The advisory speed would not be enforceable,
but would at least warn drivers of the approaching trail.
If the crosswalk striping were not re-installed, this option may lead to driver confusion
on whether they are required to yield for trail users. Therefore, a striped crosswalk
would be installed with this option. Previously, warning signs were installed warning of
the trail crossing. Changing the warning sign type would not have a significant
improvement on safety, therefore we would not recommend this option by itself.
The cost to install a new sign is a low-cost option of $1,000 to 2,000.
8. Relocation of Stop Bars with Crosswalk
Since W ooddale A venue and Beltline Boulevard are currently four lanes, there is the
potential that motorists in the outside lane do not have sufficient sight distance to see a
bicyclist/pedestrian due to a car in the adjacent lane blocking their line of sight. The
crosswalk would be re-installed, stop/yield lines would be painted in advance of the
crossing (approximate! y 1 00 feet) to open the line of sight for drivers in all lanes of
traffic to be able to see the pedestrian/bicyclist entering the crossing.
The relocation of the stop bars would improve the sight and stopping distance at the trail
crossings at a minimal cost. One challenge with this type of treatment at these locations
is the close proximity to the railroad crossings. Drivers would need advance warning
·prior to the railroad crossing to stop prior to the tracks. Other challenges include driver
compliance, re-installation of the crosswalk striping, and the driver's ability to view trail
users at the crossing.
This option is not recommended for these crossings due to the proximity of the railroad
tracks and adjacent intersections. However, it could be an option at other crossing
locations.
The cost to relocate the stop bars is a low-cost option of $1,000 to $2,000.
9. Center Median without Refuge Area
A center median without a refuge area includes the construction of a narrow center
median (temporary or permanent) in the roadway. The median would be approximately
four feet in width and would not be intended for trail user storage. This still creates a
situation with drivers and trail users to make decisions at the crossing. Installation of
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 19
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
November 10, 2006
Page 10
median delineator markers (temporary) would provide minimal safety benefits for
pedestrians, due to the lack of a physical barrier (curb) between the pedestrian and
moving vehicles.
The review of this option does not include a striped crosswalk, although it could be
included at Beltline Boulevard but not at the Wooddale A venue crossing. Installing the
center median without widening the roadway requires narrowing the roadway travel
lanes and likely cause a reduction in vehicle speed. The median would identify the
crossing location by providing a raised element in the roadway. If the driving lanes are
narrowed, the potential of vehicle/vehicle sideswipe crashes may increase.
Consideration should be given to providing a solid white line, instead of broken,
between lanes in the area of the median to reduce lane changing maneuvers.
Trail users will receive improvements in safety due to the reduction in vehicle speed and
identification of the crossing. The trail users still will need to yield to vehicular traffic.
The cost of a permanent center median without widening the roadway is a low-cost
option ranging from $15,000 to $25,000.
10. Center Median with Refuge (widen roadway)
A center median with a large enough area to provide a pedestrian refuge would require
widening of the roadway. The widening will require modification of the roadway at the
train tracks, which could i,nclude the need to relocate the gate arms. For these reasons,
this alternative would also require coordination with the railroad.
The review of this option does not include a striped crosswalk, although it could be
included. This option provides operational and safety benefits for both roadway and
trail users. Roadway users would not need to stop for trail users, the number of lanes
would be maintained and lane width could be slightly narrowed. The roadway would
probably need to be widened at the railroad crossing. If roadway widening is needed,
consideration should be given to upgrading the crossing and median to meet Whistle
Quiet Zone requirements.
Trail users would see a benefit in operation and safety over the existing condition. A
refuge area allows trail users to make the crossing maneuver in a two step process. A
trail user only needs to watch for gaps in traffic for one direction and the crossing
distance is cut in half.
The cost of a permanent center median with widening the roadway is a medium-cost
option ranging from $50,000 to $150,000.
11. Center Median with Refuge Area (remove a roadway lane)
A center median with a refuge area created by the removal of a roadway lane is feasible
for the Beltline Boulevard crossing, but not at W ooddale A venue. W ooddale A venue
between TH 7 and 36th Street has capacity and operational issues, so reducing the
number of lanes should not be an option.
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 20
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
November 10, 2006
Page 11
This option should not include a striped crosswalk. The center median with a large
enough area to provide a pedestrian refuge would require the removal of a roadway lane
in each direction at the crossing to maintain the existing roadway width. The lane
removal could be done near the crossing, requiring traffic to merge into one lane or
develop a three-lane section between CSAH 25 and 36th Street.
The roadway operation and safety would be negatively impacted due to the merging of
the through lanes. Although, merging traffic would have minimal impact to adjacent
intersections. The exception would be Beltline Boulevard/Park Glen Road intersection,
a traffic signal may be needed to allow vehicles onto Beltline Boulevard during peak
periods of traffic.
On Beltline Boulevard, the roadway could be modified to two-lane section with left-tum
lanes between CSAH 25 and 36th Street. The roadway safety and operation of a two-
lane section with left-tum lanes at the intersections would be better than merging traffic
to a single lane near the crossing. The only difficulty would be the transition south of
the TH 7 intersection, currently a lane adds southbound from the eastbound TH 7 free
right.
Trail users would see a benefit in operation and safety over the existing condition. A
refuge area allows trail users to make the crossing maneuver in a two step process. A
trail user only need to watch for gaps in one direction and the crossing distance is cut by
one-fourth. The number of gaps will be reduced because the roadway traffic is
concentrated into one lane. Although, the benefit of the shorter crossing distance and
refuge area are more beneficial.
The cost of a permanent center median with removing a through lane in each direction is
a medium-cost option ranging from $50,000 to $75,000.
12. Center Median with Bump-outs
On Beltline Boulevard, the installation of curb extensions or bump-outs could be
considered by reducing the number of traffic lanes from four to two at the trail crossing
location. This would reduce the distance of the roadway that pedestrians are required to
cross. With the reduction of traffic lanes, a center median area could be installed wide
enough to provide a pedestrian/bike refuge area. This is not an option at the W ooddale
A venue crossing.
A striped crosswalk should not be included with this option. This option would increase
the visibility for pedestrians waiting to cross. In addition, the pedestrian crossing signs
could be placed near the nose of the bump-out to be more visible to motorists on
Beltline Boulevard. One disadvantage of curb extensions is the potential for drivers to
run into them during darkness or poor weather conditions. If the installation is of a
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 21
Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer.
City of St. Louis Park
November 10, 2006
Page 12
temporary nature (i.e. delineator markers), the buffer provides no physical protection
from vehicles. Also, the reduction in the number of lanes would require vehicles to
merge prior to the crossing, creating a conflict point and potential for an increase in
vehicle crashes.
The cost of this improvement is low, ranging from $20,000 to $30,000.
H:\ Traffic\5791\Fina/Memo11 0806 slp.doc
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings (Wooddale and Beltline): Background and History Page 22
Meeting Date: September 26, 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:
Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background Information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time - the purpose of this report is to provide Council with background information
and the general history of the project in preparation for a study session discussion later this fall.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions you may have.
BACKGROUND:
Design of the Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange began as early as 2005 when an application for
federal funding was submitted and concept layouts (including a bridge) were submitted as part of
the application. These concepts featured alternatives that included roundabouts and various
combinations of access ramps and frontage roads combined with a bridge. After funding was
attained and a project established, detailed traffic forecasting and a traffic operations analysis
was conducted to further refine the concepts. In addition, a public process was conducted to
gather further comment and input. Eventually, a tight diamond style interchange was proposed
and selected.
A significant factor in deciding upon the tight diamond configuration and design was there was
limited available property for this project which severely restricted the project limits. These
limits included not only the railroad tracks on the south, but also a school/community center,
business, and residential properties on the north side where very limited right of way takings
were possible. Essentially, a bridge, two frontage roads, two ramps, a trail crossing and railroad
tracks were designed for construction within a distance of 700 feet or less. Thus the expression
“tight diamond” truly lived up to its label. This was reflected by the very short length of the
bridge, the placement of the connecting ramps immediately adjacent to the highway and bridge,
and the significant amount of retaining wall work required. In addition to the horizontal
constrains of the site, the bridge itself was also constrained vertically. The elevation of the
bridge essentially required balance with the existing topography. If the bridge had been placed
higher, sightlines and safe visibility would have been compromised (including additional
condemnation of property for right of way). Lowering the bridge further would have required
additional lowering of Highway 7, which would have resulted in significant drainage issues,
extensive additional excavation (including contaminated soils), and extension of the project
limits. The alignment of Wooddale Avenue with Highway 7 is also skewed (not at right angles)
which contributed to design challenges.
As a result, an awareness of sightlines and adequate visibilities was present throughout the
design of the bridge. The bridge design (including intersection sight distance requirements)
utilized American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
guidelines in accordance with State and Federal requirements. Intersection sight distance
requirements are determined by a combination of vehicle speeds, the time (gap) available for
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background Information
turning movements, roadway grades, and other factors. To simplify further, intersection sight
distances are often expressed and illustrated by terminology referred to as clear site triangles.
Clear sight triangles were developed from technical calculations by our consultant (SRF) for
both left turn and right turn movements at each ramp. These sight triangles were utilized
significantly during design. For example, when requests were made during the public process to
install barriers or railings on the bridge between the roadway and sidewalk, it was determined
they could not be installed for this very reason – sightlines would have been unacceptable.
Sight triangle calculations typically assume a specific eye height and horizontal distance of the
eye from the edge of the traveled roadway, also referred to as the “decision point”. The length of
a vehicle, number of lanes of traffic, and the type of traffic control all play factors in the
calculations. The results of the consultant’s calculations can be more easily summarized and
illustrated by the attached exhibits showing the intersection sight distances (clear sight triangles)
at each of the entering access points to Wooddale. As shown per the exhibits, the vertical
curvature of the bridge was also factored into the sight distance design.
In the case of a tight diamond, such as the Wooddale bridge where the ramps are immediately
adjacent to the bridge, the decision point is usually located between the edge of the bridge
(parapet and railing) and the crossing roadway. Because the parapet and top rails must also meet
accepted design and safety requirements, it may also mean that vehicles must encroach into
crosswalk space areas to achieve adequate sight triangle visibility. This is not unusual for similar
bridges in urban areas. However, when intersections of this nature are constructed with traffic
signals, this is less noticeable due to the additional control imposed by the signal. That said, the
Wooddale bridge was also designed with the understanding that traffic signals would likely be
needed in the future once forecasted volumes are reached.
In summary, the bridge was designed properly in accordance with federal and state requirements
and guidelines within the limited area available for this project. It also means drivers are
expected to encroach into crosswalk areas to better see before safely proceeding. As noted
earlier, this topic will be discussed at a study session later this fall and staff will identify options
the Council could consider to help remedy sight line concerns at the bridge location.
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:
Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting
St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: Intersection Sight Distance Exhibits
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background Information Page 3
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background Information Page 4
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background Information Page 5
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background Information Page 6
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background Information Page 7
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background Information Page 8
Meeting Date: September 26, 2011
Agenda Item #: 11
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:
St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. This report is a follow-up to a recent Council discussion on this
topic. Assuming the Council has no questions or concerns, the program guidelines will be on a
future Council meeting agenda for approval.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to create an Outstanding Citizen Award Program consistent with the
recommendations in this staff report?
BACKGROUND:
On August 8, 2011, Council discussed the concept of an Outstanding Citizen Award program.
At this meeting, staff was directed to prepare a draft program for Council review. Attached to
this document is a draft of the program with the major components as follows:
The individual may be nominated by anyone.
Nominations may be made anytime throughout the year.
Council selects a Task Force of three current board or commission members to review
nominations and make recommendations to Council.
Nomination information will be on our website.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This program provides an opportunity for recognition of the contributions and accomplishments
of our citizens which supports our commitment of creating a connected and engaged community.
Attachment: Outstanding Citizen Award Program Draft
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award Program
DRAFT
Outstanding Citizen Award Program The City of St. Louis Park has established an Outstanding Citizen Award Program that is intended to provide the community with an opportunity to publicly acknowledge the contributions made by certain individuals who have worked and dedicated their time for the betterment of our community. The City believes it is important to recognize St. Louis Park community members for extraordinary accomplishments, contributions to the community, heroic and courageous efforts, and/or perseverance despite incredible odds. To honor these outstanding efforts, the City has developed a community recognition program to recognize and honor our Outstanding Citizens. Nominations are based on the following criteria:
The individual may be nominated by anyone. There are no restrictions on who can nominate the individual.
A nomination form is provided by the City to serve as a cover and guideline for the submission of nominations. The nomination must include a statement by the nominator, either on the form or attached to it, specifically explaining why the nominated individual is worthy of receiving the award. The nomination must also include adequate supporting documents to substantiate the efforts and conditions under which they occurred. These may include official reports, stories, news articles, and information on any other awards or recognition for the individual.
The total nomination submission may not exceed six pages (8.5” x 11”) of material in 12 pt. font.
All nominations should be typewritten. Nominations may be made any time. There is no deadline for submittals. If, in the judgment of the City, the nomination is incomplete, not adequately substantiated or illegible, it will be returned to the nominator for further information and resubmission. To receive additional consideration, it must be resubmitted within 30 days. Nominations are to be submitted to: City of St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award Attn: City Manager’s Office 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 11) Page 3
Subject: St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award Program
Outstanding Citizen Award
Nomination Form
SELECTION CRITERIA This award is conferred to members of the general public who have made a significant contribution to the community and/or individuals who have worked and dedicated their time for the betterment of our city.
NOMINATIONS 1. The individual may be nominated by anyone. There are no restrictions on who can nominate the individual. 2. A nomination form is provided by the City to serve as a cover and guideline for the submission of nominations. The nomination must include a narrative statement by the nominator, either on the form or attached to it, specifically explaining why the nominated individual is worthy of receiving the award. The nomination must also include adequate supporting documents to substantiate the efforts and conditions under which they occurred. These may include official reports, narratives, news articles and information on any other awards or recognition. 3. The total nomination submission may not exceed six pages (8.5” x 11”) of material in 12 pt. font. 4. All nominations should be typewritten. 5. Nominations may be made at anytime. There is no deadline for submittals. 6. If, in the judgment of the City, the nomination is incomplete, not adequately substantiated or illegible, it will be returned to the nominator for further information and resubmission. To receive additional consideration, it must be resubmitted within 30 days. 7. Nominations must be submitted to: City of St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award Attn: City Manager’s Office 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 11) Page 4
Subject: St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award Program
Outstanding Citizen Award
Nomination Form
Name of Nominee Address Telephone Email Please provide details to support your nomination of this individual for the City of St. Louis Park’s Outstanding Citizen Award. Please provide examples of their contributions, extraordinary accomplishments and dedication to the St. Louis Park community. Include names of other people that may support this nomination. You may attach additional information if necessary (maximum of six pages in 12 pt. font). Submitted by Name Address Telephone Email
Study Session Meeting of September 26, 2011 (Item No. 11) Page 5
Subject: St. Louis Park Outstanding Citizen Award Program
Internal Process: Outstanding Citizen Awards 1. Nominations are received in Administrative Services office. 2. Staff notifies Council that a nomination(s) has been received. 3. Council selects a Task Force of three current St. Louis Park board or commission members to review the nomination(s) and make a recommendation to Council. This Task Force can be ongoing as needed or for a term set by Council either expiring based on their term on their respective commission or three year maximum, whichever is reached first. 4. Administrative Services prepares information and sends it to the Task Force for their review. 5. The Task Force meets on their own at a time designated by them to review nominations and recommendation(s) for Council. The Task Force sends this information back to Administrative Services. 6. Administrative Services staff prepares the information, contacts others and prepares the presentation for Council.