HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/01/11 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 11, 2010
6:00 p.m. West End Interior Art Display Ribbon Cutting – Kerasotes ShowPlace ICON
Theatre Atrium (West 16th Street and Park Place Boulevard)
0. Ribbon Cutting – West End Interior Art Display
7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 7:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 19 and January 25, 2010
2. 7:05 p.m. 2010 Annual Legislative Update
3. 8:05 p.m. 2010 Utility Rate Study
4. 9:05 p.m. Proposed Agenda - 2010 City Council Workshop
5. 9:50 p.m. 2009 Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010
Work Plan
6. 9:55 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
7. Fire Stations Project Update
8. Southwest Transitway Resolution
10:00 p.m. Adjourn
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
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: January 11, 2010
Agenda Item #: 0
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:
Ribbon Cutting – West End Interior Art Display.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. This report is intended to update the Council on the ribbon cutting for the
interior art display located in the West End project to be held on January 11 at 6 p.m. in the atrium
of the cinema.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
This project is one of two art projects to be placed in the West End project. The first project, “The
Bee Way”, is a sculptural plaza located near Rainbow and designed by Foster Willey, Jr. that consists
of two pre-cast concrete column sculptures, an artistic bench, and design related paving. The ribbon
cutting for that piece was held in October.
The ribbon cutting on January 11 is for the second project. It is an interactive light display called
the “Aurora Organ” and was created by Camille Utterback. It is located in the atrium of the cinema
complex. Both art projects followed a similar process that has been used for all of our public art
projects. Jack Becker from Forecast Public Artworks assisted the City in selecting the appropriate
field of artists through a Request for Proposal process. A panel made up of neighborhood
representatives (Sharon Lyon and Kristi Rudelius –Palmer), City Commission members (Carl
Robertson and George Hagemann), City staff (Sean Walther, Kevin Locke, Rick Birno, and Cindy
Walsh) and four staff members from Duke Reality chose both artists.
Camille Utterback is an internationally acclaimed artist whose interactive installations and reactive
sculptures engage participants in a dynamic process of discovery and play. Utterback’s work explores
the aesthetic and experiential possibilities of linking computational systems to human movement.
Her exhibit history cites more than fifty shows on four continents. Awards include a MacArthur
Foundation Fellowship (2009), a Transmediale International Media Art Festival Award (2005), a
Rockefeller Foundation New Media Fellowship (2002), and a US Patent (2004). Her work is in
collections of the Whitney Museum, Hewlett Packard, and La Caixa Foundation, among others.
Recent public commissions include works for The Sacramento Airport, The City of San Jose,
California, and The City of Fontana, California. Other commissions include projects for The
American Museum of Natural History in New York, The Pittsburgh Children’s Museum, The
Manhattan Children’s Museum, Herman Miller, Shiseido Cosmetics, and other private
corporations.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 0) Page 2
“Aurora Organ” is a contemporary meditation on the possibilities of translating human presence into
light using digital technology. The piece combines custom software, full color LED’s, touch sensors, and
traditional sculptural materials to create an intriguing experience for theater-goers and passersby of all
ages, where small gestures of touch translate into animated architectural-scale patterns of light. The art
piece features six columns of light hanging at various elevations above the grand stairway entrance. On
the second-floor landing, six illuminated glass sensors are inset in the wooden hand railing and cycle
through a palette of colors, beckoning viewers to approach. Each time a person taps or touches a railing
sensor, a band of its current color is added to the corresponding column. The colors in each column
animate in various ways – moving faster or slower, up or down, depending on how people tap or touch
the railing. Holding the railing sensor creates a long streak of color, while tapping creates shorter bursts.
New colors overlay and blend with previous patterns, visually merging past and present activity at the
railings. If all six sensors are touched simultaneously, general properties of the system, like gravity, are
reversed, causing a major change in the behavior of all the colored elements.
The artist will be in attendance at the ribbon cutting. Council members should meet on site by 6
p.m. on January 11 for the ribbon cutting. Box lunches will be provided to the council members at
the study session following the ceremony.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The public art was paid for by Duke Realty Corporation. The total cost of the light display was
$101,000. The City of St. Louis Park staff coordinated the selection of the artists and the design
development of the art.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The development of public art is part of the St. Louis Park Strategic Directions - St. Louis Park is
committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City
initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 11, 2010
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 – January 19, 2009 and January 25, 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the special study session planned for Tuesday,
January 19, 2010 and the regularly scheduled study session for January 25, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the special study session on January 19, 2010 and the regularly scheduled study session on
January 25, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for January 19 and 25, 2010
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Special Study Session, Tuesday, January 19, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Overview of City of St. Louis Park Bargaining Units – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
As requested previously by the City Council, labor consultant Scott Lepak of Barna, Guzy &
Steffen, Ltd. will present an overview on collective bargaining.
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, January 25, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan –
Information Resources (20 minutes)
If requested by the City Council on January 11, the TAC Commissioners will be present to
discuss their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council as well as the direction for future
citywide technology initiatives.
3. MSC Soil Removal Options – Inspections and Parks & Recreation (40 minutes)
Staff will discuss possible sites for moving contaminated soil from the Municipal Service
Center (MSC). Options include exporting all or a portion of the soil to a landfill, with an
option for some of the excess soil to be used for fill in the southwest corner of Louisiana
Oaks Park.
4. Green Building Policy – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will present a draft policy that was developed which incorporates green technologies,
specifications and requirements for future building construction.
5. Wind Turbine Zoning Language– Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff, along with Consultant Brian Ross of CR Planning, will provide the City Council with
proposed language to the City’s Zoning Ordinance regarding wind turbines.
6. 2010 Utility Rate Study– Finance (45 minutes)
Staff will continue discussion with Council regarding the study on 2010 Utility Rates
7. Planning Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan– Community Development (10
minutes)
The City Council will be asked to review the Planning Commission’s 2010 work plan and
2009 annual report at the January 25 study session and determine if it would like to have a
follow-up conversation with the commission.
8. Communications – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
for the purposes of information sharing.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Reports:
December 2009 Financial Reports – Finance
Quarterly Investment Report – Finance
CDBG Proposed Allocation – Community Development
MSC Renovation Project Update – Inspections
Fiber Lease Agreement
End of Meeting: 9:35 p.m.
Meeting Date: January 11, 2010
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:
2010 Annual Legislative Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action requested. Staff has prepared a list of legislative issues and priorities for Council’s
annual review and discussion with Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman, Representative
Steve Simon, Representative Ryan Winkler, Senator Ron Latz, and Metropolitan Councilmember
Peggy Leppik.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff has attached a draft of 2010 legislative priorities for the Council’s consideration and discussion
with the city’s legislators.
• Does the Council agree with the legislative issues identified in the attachment regarding
priorities for 2010?
• Is there anything else the City Council would like staff and our legislative delegation to
pursue?
• Does the Council wish to continue retaining legislative consulting assistance for 2010 to help
promote the city’s state and federal legislative agenda?
BACKGROUND:
Staff has prepared the attached preliminary list of legislative issues for the discussion with our
legislators. As has been the case in previous years, as the 2010 legislative session progresses,
additional issues may come to light.
Securing funding and commitments for major transportation projects has been a major part of the
city’s legislative focus over the last several years. Last year, based on the exceptional work of our
county, state and federal legislators, St. Louis Park was successful in securing significant
transportation funding and extending the life of redevelopment tools. The following is a short
summary of state and federal legislative outcomes for 2009 specific to St. Louis Park’s legislative
activities:
2009 Accomplishments
Sunset provisions for Housing Improvement Areas and Special Service Districts were extended
until June 30, 2013.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 2)
The League of Minnesota Cities convened a stakeholder group made up of local, state and
county entities as well as care providers to discuss issues related to residential care facilities
(formerly known as group homes). The city’s lobbyist, Vic Moore, co-chaired this group and
was able to persuade the providers, the LMC and the other government agencies that cities
should be notified when residential housing facility operators (6 or fewer non-related adults)
open a new facility.
The term of the Elmwood Village TIF District was extended by 7 years to give the city
additional time to collect increment to undertake infrastructure improvements in the Elmwood
area (e.g. Hwy 7 and Wooddale)
TH7 & Wooddale Avenue received $3.465 million in American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) funding from the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. This funding has allowed the city to leverage the $5.8 million in Surface
Transportation Program Guarantee Program funds to start construction on the grade separated
crossing at TH 7 & Wooddale Ave.
Congressional support was provided for St. Louis Park’s transportation needs: Senator
Klobuchar and Congressman Ellison submitted a FY10 Trans-HUD request for $1.14 million
for Phase 3 & 4 work on TH7 & Louisiana to their respective appropriation committees.
Senator Klobuchar requested $1 million in FY10 funding for both the Glencoe Railroad
Mitigation Project and the TH394/TH100 Collector Distributor Roads and Park Place/Xenia
Boulevard. While these requests were not included in the House and Senate versions of the
FY10 Trans-HUD bill, there is still strong support to find funding for these projects.
There is still a possibility that the city could receive substantial funding for the TH7 & Louisiana
grade separated intersection through the reauthorization of the federal surface transportation bill,
SAFETEA-LU, which will likely be reauthorized in 2010 or through the TIGER grant
(Transportation Investment to Generate Economic Recovery), which was submitted in 2009.
Senator Klobuchar sent a letter of support to the U.S. Department of Transportation in support
of the TH 7 & Louisiana grant request and Congressman Ellison submitted a request for
$14.112 million in High Priority Project (HPP) funding (reauthorization of the six-year
transportation bill or SAFETEA-LU) to construct the grade separated interchange at TH7 &
Louisiana.
Other Funding
The city has been awarded ARRA funding (stimulus monies) for housing and energy programs,
public safety and transportation. For example, the Housing Authority received $274,471 from
the Public Housing Capitol fund and the city received $198,300 from the Energy & Efficiency
Community Block Grant formula funds. In addition, the Police Department received $107,777
in Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funding. Staff continues to keep a close eye
on ARRA funding notices and other grant opportunities as a way to enhance services and offset
costs for the city.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 2)
It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to help us with legislative and regulatory issues.
Administrative Services has been pleased with the legislative services of Doug Franzen and Vic
Moore, Franzen & Associates, and Dennis McGrann of Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen. Mr. Moore
and Ms. Gehrman will be a part of this discussion and available for questions. Their help, along
with strong working relations with our state and federal representatives, have helped the city find
funding for necessary transportation projects and led the city to a successful resolution with the EPA
over the soil vapor study and related mitigation.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funding for our lobbyists is included in the EDA budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Promoting regional transportation issues and securing transportation funding is aligned with the
Council’s Strategic Direction of being a Connected and Engaged Community.
Attachments: 2010 Legislative Issues and Priorities (Draft)
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 2)
City of St. Louis Park
2010 Legislative Issues and Priorities
1. Sales Tax Exemption for Construction of New Fire Stations
Background: While staff certainly understands the financial difficulties of the State, staff would
recommend that consideration be given to legislation which would provide for a sales tax exemption
for the construction of the City’s two fire stations. The savings that would be experienced by the
City to build these two essential structures would be significant. An exemption bill was introduced
in both the house and senate last session but did not pass through committee so it is still active for
this year. If the proposed language was broadened to exempt all new fire stations constructed in the
state in 2011, it might garner more support
2 . TH 100 Full Build Project
Purpose: To keep the TH 100 Full Build Project fully funded and on track for its proposed bid
2014 letting date.
Status: In the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, the TH100 full build
project has been identified as an expansion project. The TH100 project is among several other
identified “expansion” projects, identified in the 2004 TIP which is being rescoped.
If a rescoped project proceeds, it will be on a smaller scale than originally proposed by MnDOT.
MnDOT is still working on the revised configuration and staff estimates that the final design will
cost approximately $75 million, which is half of the original project cost.
In addition, the 2030 plan identifies the bridges that span TH100 at Hwy 7 and Hwy 5 as
structurally deficient. Each bridge is classified as Tier II, which means that the bridges need to be
replaced by 2018.
During the fall of 2009 the City Council met with MnDOT rep’s to discuss the concept of a
rescoped and scaled back project. The City Council expressed STRONG concerns about this
approach and indicated that this was an issue that needed to be elevated to a much higher level with
our state legislators.
Background:
The 2006 interim project added a third lane in each direction by decreasing lane widths from 12 feet
to 11 feet and eliminating or severely reducing shoulders along that stretch of highway. The third
lane is required for the full build project so that MnDOT can keep a minimum of two lanes open in
each direction during construction.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Improvements not included as a part of the interim project include construction of the noise walls,
which MnDOT agreed to construct no later than 2015, width expansion of lanes, construction of
on/off ramps, and bridge and storm water improvements. Bridges spanning TH 100 at Hwy. 7 and
Hwy 5, and storm sewers conveyance systems have no more than 10-15 years of useful life left and
are deteriorating. In addition, there are approximately 20 residents who live in uncertainty because
their homes are within the future right-of-way of the new project.
3. Grade Separated Crossing Project at Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue
Purpose: To secure $18.8 million to construct a $28 million grade separated intersection
(interchange) at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue.
Status:
The project is programmed to be constructed in 2011-2012, and would provide for a separated
grade interchange. This project will not only mitigate congestion and accidents at the intersection
itself, but will accommodate further growth and redevelopment in the immediate area, including
current expansion at Methodist Hospital, a future nearby light rail station, and other adjacent
redevelopment activity.
The City of St. Louis Park has received $7.2 million from the Metropolitan Council and
Transportation Advisory Board in accordance with the federal Surface Transportation Program
(STP) for the construction of this grade separated crossing.
Background: The city owns most of the property or right of way in all four quadrants of the
intersection. The city has commenced the design process for this project. Assuming full funding
can be obtained (which is a very big question right now), it is expected this project could be under
construction as soon as 2011 or 2012.
This project will require a combination of local, state and federal dollars to finance the
reconstruction of the at-grade intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue in St. Louis Park to a
grade separated intersection. Staff is actively pursuing SAFETEA-LU funding for this project.
4. I-394/TH100 Collector-Distributor Roads
Purpose: To secure $1.8 million of a required $2.4 million to make improvements to the eastbound
and westbound lanes of the TH 100 Commuter-Distributor Road at I-394.
Status: The cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park, in partnership with MnDOT, have been
working to find a solution to the congestion and flow of traffic in the vicinity TH100 and I-394.
This project is supported by MnDOT but is not in their current list of project due to funding
constraints.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Background: The Trunk Highway 100 & Interstate 394/Xenia Avenue/Park Place Boulevard
Collector-Distributor Road Improvement Project will benefit residents in St. Louis Park and the
metropolitan region by improving the safety of the east and west bound traffic flow on I-394 and in
the vicinity of Park Place and Xenia Avenue, as well as on TH100.
The traffic analysis indicates that the TH 100 Collector-Distributor (C-D) Road currently operates
poorly in the eastbound and westbound directions during the morning and evening peak periods.
Further analysis for year 2027 conditions indicate operations will continue to worsen based on
normal growth of regional trips to a service level of E-F.
To mitigate for this, an additional eastbound and westbound lane on the TH100 C-D Road needs
to be constructed to bring this area into acceptable levels of service.
5. Other Legislative Issues
Proposed Bill allowing cities to adopt more restrictive property maintenance program codes.
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has been meeting with representatives from several
metropolitan area communities regarding the effects of last years Minnesota Supreme Court case
involving the City of Morris and their rental licensing program. In that case the city required
property owners to upgrade pre-existing electrical systems to current code requirements which the
Supreme Court determined was not permissible under the law. Given the fact that other cities have
similar requirements that Morris did (does note include SLP) they are concerned that they do not
now have the statutory authority to administer their existing ordinances for various types of
property maintenance, time of sale, and rental programs which require upgrading older structures.
Staff has been engaged with the LMC discussion and reviewed our currant ordinances with the city
attorney. The Supreme Court only affirmed what is statutorily permitted - a city may have property
maintenance programs provided they do not require bringing an existing building into compliance
with newer or current building codes. Our code and programs for maintenance are consistent with
that determination and not effected by the Court decision.
However, several cities have been requiring older buildings be installed with newer safety equipment
including guard railings or GFI electrical outlets. The Supreme Court decision does jeopardize these
types of improvements to existing houses being required and therefore they have requested the
League of Minnesota Cities take a lead in drafting a bill that would allow cities to have greater
latitude in adopting newer code requirements for existing buildings.
Staff expects that Representative Mahoney will introduce a bill this session to address concerns.
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, is working closely with the LMC workgroup on this topic
to ensure that it does not negatively affect the city’s existing property maintenance program. Our
concern is over the unintended consequences that could develop from the legislative process, possibly
limiting the effectiveness of our program.
Meeting Date: January 11, 2010
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:
2010 Utility Rate Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This study session discussion is the first of possibly several discussions regarding potential changes in
the City’s utility rate structure based on the rate study performed by city staff and the city’s financial
advisor Ehlers & Associates. Staff’s goal for the study session is to present information to first allow
for an understanding by the Council of the current state of our utility enterprises and funding needs
as it relates to our utility rates and related capital projects. Information from this discussion will be
then used by staff to prepare for additional discussions with Council and ultimately policy decisions
as we prepare to amend the 2010 utility rates and plan for 2011 and beyond.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
As the Council reviews the information presented in the utility rate study and at the upcoming and
future study sessions, the Council may wish to consider the following policy questions:
1) Is the Council comfortable with how our proposed utility rates and water rate tiers compare to
neighboring communities?
2) Are the proposed water rate tiers equitable and reasonable and accomplish their intended goal of
promoting conservation?
a) Residential
b) Commercial – implementing low volume and high volume commercial tiered rates
c) Irrigation
3) Capital schedule, and funding: To mitigate the proposed rate increases, would the Council also
desire to revisit the City’s investment in capital, look at modifying operations or issue more in
debt? Or would a combination of some or all three mentioned be more favorable?
BACKGROUND:
To insure the stability of the City’s utility enterprises, the City periodically undertakes a utility rate
study. The attached rate study has been prepared by City staff and Ehlers and Associates. As you
will note in the study, adjustments to our rates, particularly for the City’s Water Utility, need to be
implemented in 2010.
What follows is a brief summary of the status of the City’s four utility enterprises. Please review the
attached study for a full description of each utility enterprise and the recommendations made.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Water Fund Analysis
As noted in the attached study, this fund has some challenges due to a few factors that will require
rate increases in the foreseeable future to improve this fund’s overall financial position. First, the
water fund has an aggressive capital improvement plan and generally functions on a pay as you go
basis. Also, in the past rates were not increased on a consistent basis, or as aggressively as they
needed to be, in order to allow the fund to pay for capital without issuing debt. Therefore, this has
created a challenge for the fund now and into in the foreseeable future. We now want to address this
situation and plan for future financial stability.
One other item to note, this fund is used to cover significant expenses for mitigation that relate to
the Reilly Tar Super Fund site.
Sewer Fund Analysis
This fund was in a position of a slightly decreasing cash balance last year. However, due to a change
in MCES charge allocation by the Met Council, which increased the City’s costs, and the continuing
need for capital improvements to our aging infrastructure, more financial pressures are being placed
on this enterprise. This fund utilizes a combination of pay-as-you-go and bond financing for its
capital needs. The sewer fund is not subject to the mandate of imposing conservation rates.
Solid Waste Analysis
This fund has a fairly stable financial position and, without any significant increases in costs, the
fund will be sustainable in the foreseeable future. The solid waste service functions as a pay-as-you-
throw ranging from 30 gallon service to 540 gallon service. There are 30 gallon increments from 30
to 270 gallon service and above that, the increments are in 90 gallon increments to a maximum of
540 gallons. In 2009, new categories of service between 90 and 270 gallons were created.
Storm Sewer Analysis
This fund has a stable, but lower, cash balance. This is not unusual for storm sewer funds. Any
future ongoing capital improvements may require the use of debt. Revenues are based on a fixed
quarterly fee based on the type of property being served. The quarterly charge is established to pay
for the cost of operating and maintaining the system.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This discussion is intended to clarify how the City may need to adjust utility rates to ensure long-
range stability in repairing and maintaining our system without requiring dramatic rate changes in
any one year. The suggested rates are also intended to provide some equity in distributing the cost
of services among users.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 3
The suggested timeframe for discussing the matter is as follows:
• January 11 Study Session – rate study information presented to Council
• January 25 Study Session – continued discussion on rate study with Council
• February adopt new rates effective March 1, 2010
• February communication of new rates that will be in effect for March 1, 2010
• Budget process for 2011 – review and adopt new rates to be in place for January 1, 2011
Attachments: Utility Rate Report
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
January, 2010
Water, Sanitary, Storm Sewer and
Solid Waste Utility Rate Study
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Prepared By:
City Staff
And
Ehlers
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................1
GOALS OF A UTILITY RATE STUDY............................................................................2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS ...................................3
WATER SYSTEM ...........................................................................................................5
Description of the Water System................................................................................................5
Historic Trend of Cash Balances................................................................................................7
Current Rate Structure: Water Fees............................................................................................ 8
Pro-Forma Analysis Assumptions.............................................................................................. 8
Rate Option and Recommendations............................................................................................ 9
Proposed Water Rates:.............................................................................................................. 11
SEWER SYSTEM .........................................................................................................16
Sewer Rate Structure................................................................................................................. 16
Pro-Forma Analysis Assumptions............................................................................................ 16
Proposed Sewer Rates:.............................................................................................................. 17
STORM SEWER SYSTEM ...........................................................................................19
Proposed Storm Sewer Rates.................................................................................................... 19
SOLID WASTE FUND ..................................................................................................22
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................28
Comparisons to Other Cities’ Rates…………………………..……Appendix A
Water Utility Projections……………………………………………..Appendix B
Sanitary Sewer Utility Projections………...………………………..Appendix C
Storm Water Utility Projections……………………………………..Appendix D
Solid Waste Fund Projections………………….………….………..Appendix E
Capital Improvement Plan for Water……………………………,…Appendix F
Capital Improvement Plan for Sanitary Sewer……………….…...Appendix G
Capital Improvement Plan for Storm Sewer………………………Appendix H
Proposed Rate Tier Options…………………………….………….. Appendix I
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 1
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Executive Summary
The goal of a rate study is to ensure long-term financial health of the utility enterprise funds.
• As part of this analysis, the rate study takes into account historic trends, assumptions and
state mandates, as applicable.
• Historically, the water fund has had relatively stable cash balances up through the end of
2008. However, due to several factors in 2009, the fund experienced a precipitous
decline in cash. First, the water fund has an aggressive capital improvement plan, and
with the exception of issuing debt for the Municipal Service Center project, generally
functions on a pay as you go basis. Second, the water fund pays for the Reilly site which
requires significant dollars to maintain. Finally, in the past, rates were either not
increased at all or not as aggressively as they needed to be in order to allow the water
fund to pay for capital improvements without having to issue debt. Therefore, when
combined, the aforementioned factors have created a steep challenge for the fund now
and into the future
• The sanitary sewer system has had stable, but slowly declining cash balances over the
past several years. However the need for capital improvement projects may bring
financial pressures to the fund in future years. The fund currently uses a combination of
pay-as-you-go and bond financing for its capital needs.
• The storm sewer system has stable, but lower, cash balances. This is not unusual for
storm sewer utilities. Ongoing capital improvement projects may require the use of debt.
• The solid waste fund has stable and healthy cash balances.
Recommendations
• Recommendation One: Adopt the use of a commercial tiers structure as proposed.
• Recommendation Two: Consider the rate changes as proposed, after discussion.
• Recommendation Three: Adopt target cash balance goals as recommended.
• Recommendation Four: Update the utility study periodically to determine progress
with cash balance goals and an updated capital improvement plan.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 2
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Goals of a Utility Rate Study
The City of St Louis Park retained Ehlers to assist staff in updating the financial projections for
the water, sanitary, storm sewer system and solid waste fund utilities. The purpose of the rate
study is to ensure that:
1. Rates are sufficient to pay for the ongoing operations and capital improvements, and to
maintain adequate cash balances
2. Staff and Council revisit cash balance policies to ensure they are meeting their enterprise
system’s current and future needs
3. The rate structure distributes the costs of operating the system across utility users
consistent with the policy objectives of the Council
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 3
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Background Information on Enterprise
Systems
Enterprise Funds
Most City operations, such as public works, public safety, administration and parks, are
accounted for under governmental funds, primarily embedded in the General Fund. These
operations usually depend on a variety of revenues, including property taxes, intergovernmental
aid, and charges for services.
Municipal utility funds are considered “enterprise funds.” They are intended to be operated as a
private enterprise in which the fee revenue pays for all operations. The City has four utility
funds: water, sewer, solid waste, and storm sewer. In the City’s Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR), enterprise funds are segregated funds, recognizing the unique purpose
and revenue streams of these City functions.
In addition to the CAFR segregating the enterprise funds, the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) distinguishes between projects that will be funded by the enterprise funds, and those
funded by general governmental funds.
The Water Fund:
The City’s water is provided by twelve wells that sold 1,996,144,500 gallons in 2008 and served
residents in St Louis Park.
The State of Minnesota Mandate
In 2008, the State of Minnesota mandated conservation rate structures for all water systems in
the State. All cities in the metropolitan area serving more than 1,000 people are required to
comply with this mandate by January 1, 2010. The City of St Louis Park is required to meet this
deadline by this time. The rates that were implemented last year for residential and multi family
properties comply with DNR mandates.
The Sewer Fund: The Metropolitan Council Influence
The City of St Louis Park participates in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
(MCES) sewer system. This means that the City’s sanitary sewer system flows to the MCES
treatment plant and the City receives a bill from the MCES for the service. The City does not
maintain its own sanitary sewer treatment plant. Currently, the MCES charge for service is
$1,754 per million gallons for a total charge of $3,425,085, which is slightly lower than the
budget, and is estimated to increase to $3,644,200 in 2010 and then increase by 5.50% per year.
MCES is currently in a transition period concerning the allocation of system costs. MCES
allocates the cost of the metro area solid waste system to a user city based on the relative percent
of that city’s flow into the system. The allocation method may change as the MCES and a user
city task force work through this issue in the coming year. St Louis Park’s share of the cost may
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 4
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
change by more than 5.50%. At this point, our best estimate is that the MCES costs will increase
by approximately 5.50% per year. The MCES disposal fees comprise approximately 78% of the
sewer utility operating expenses.
The Storm Sewer Fund:
The storm sewer fund was created to manage storm water runoff quality in concert with the local
watershed. City projects often include repair and maintenance of drainage ditches, storm water
ponds, and other wetland outlets. Property owners are usually charged based on the amount of
impervious land, which doesn’t allow rainwater to be absorbed into the ground, but rather flows
through the drainage ditches and into local lakes and streams.
The Solid Waste Fund:
The solid waste fund was created to account for solid waste collection in the City. Recently, the
City underwent a change in provider, separating the garbage and recycling aspects of solid waste
collection. The City charges property owners for garbage collection on a quarterly basis
depending on the number and size of containers.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 5
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Water System
Description of the Water System
St Louis Park’s water supply is provided by groundwater. There are currently 12 wells.
The graph below shows the historic water usage from 2002 to 2008.
1,700,000,000
1,750,000,000
1,800,000,000
1,850,000,000
1,900,000,000
1,950,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,050,000,000
2,100,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Gallons Sold
Data from report to MN DNR-Annual Report of Water Use
Factors impacting the amount of water usage include: 1) change in the number of users /
accounts from new development or closures; 2) the level of activity by individual users and 3)
weather (dry summers translate into heavier water demand).
As of September 30, 2009, St Louis Park had 13,606, water accounts, which include all
residential, commercial, multi family and irrigation. The user accounts can be broken into the
following categories as of 9/30/2009.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 6
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Residences are Majority of Users
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Irrigation 141
Multi Family 500
Commercial 745
Residential 12,211
2009
Residential accounts, including multi family, comprised 93% of the total accounts and accounted
for 64% of total volume of water sold.
Gallons Percent
Residential 956,430,000 44.3%
Multi-Family 421,385,250 19.5%
Commercial 685,572,750 31.8%
Irrigation 94,128,000 4.4%
Total 2,157,516,000
Water usage from 10/2008 to 9/2009
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 7
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Historic Trend of Cash Balances
The following graph shows the historic trend in cash balances for the Water and Sewer Utility.
Historic Trend in Cash Balances
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
Water Fund $3,384,434 $1,884,699 $867,637 $2,109,647 $4,640,355 $437,427
Sewer Fund $3,284,161 $2,885,801 $2,832,423 $2,581,105 $2,083,067 $1,754,705
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 est
The following graph for the Water Utility shows the trend of operating revenues, operating
expenses, capital outlay with cash balances. While there have been some operating losses, up
until 2008, cash balance has been at somewhat healthy levels using pay as you go financing. The
cash balance has fallen greatly at the end of 2009 due to bonds being issued in 2007 and 2008 for
the Municipal Service Center and then being expensed in 2009. . This cash position will be
corrected somewhat in 2010 with a bond issue to reimburse capital expenses already made. The
purpose of this study is correct the cash balances in the Water Fund over time through
corrections in the rates.
Water Fund Historic Trends
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 est
Operating Revenues Operating Expenses
Capital Cash Balance
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 8
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Current Rate Structure: Water Fees
There are two primary components to the City’s water utility revenues:
• Fixed Charges
• Usage Fees
1) Fixed Charges are a fixed quarterly fee based on the property type. The fixed charge is
established to recover certain fixed expenses, such as the billing system, that the City must incur
for a customer regardless of the amount of water consumed. The fee is based on the size of the
meter and does not include any water usage. Residences are charged the fee quarterly and most
commercial properties are charged the fee on a monthly basis.
2) Usage Fees are based on the metered use of water and are measured in units of 100 cubic
fee. A unit of water is 750 gallons, therefore, 40 units equals 30,000 gallons and 80 units equals
60,000 gallons. Currently the billing structure is an increasing block rate for residential and
multi family accounts. The first 40 units are charged at a rate of $1.21 per unit, the next 40 units
at $1.51 per unit. Usage over 80 units is charged at a rate of $2.27 per unit. Residential and multi
family units are charged on a three tier basis. All irrigation use is charged at the lowest tier. All
commercial use is currently charged at the lowest tier.
Pro-Forma Analysis Assumptions
Following is a chart that summarizes the significant assumptions in the rate study.
Water Utility
Growth and Utility
Usage
No new residential connections. The estimated usage for existing residents
is anticipated to be at slightly below the 2008 usage levels in order to be
conservative.
Operating Expenses Increase 3% annually
Capital Expenses Costs of improvements are inflated 5% per year.
Future total capital improvements from 2010 to 2019 are estimated at an
inflated value of $6.4M. This does not include the amounts spent for the
MSC expansion.
Rate Structure Current billing structure is described above. Usage is charged an
increasing tier rate.
The proposed rate structures on Appendix I.
A summary of the CIP can be found in Appendix F.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 9
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Rate Option and Recommendations
Tiered Rate Structure
Beginning in 2010, we are recommending that the City increase water rates by 7.0%. We are not
recommending a change in the current tier structure for residential, multi family or irrigation use.
We are recommending that commercial properties have a three tier rate structure created for
them as discussed below.
With a multi tiered rate system, the typical resident will pay more per gallon for higher water
usage and for sprinkling than they will for water used in daily activities. The City bills water
usage in units of 100 cubic feet, or 750 gallons.
Water Usage Only per unit
40,000 gallon user charge
1st 30,000 gallons
(40 units) $1.21 48.40
Next 30,000 gallons
(40 units) $1.51 20.13
Usage over 60,000
gallons (80+ units) $2.27
Total 68.53
Overall cost per gallon .000171
Water Usage Only per unit
100,000 gallon user charge
1st 30,000 gallons
(40 units) $1.21 48.40
Next 30,000 gallons
(40 units) $1.51 60.40
Usage over 60,000
gallons (80+ units) $2.27 121.06
Total 229.86
Overall cost per gallon .002299
The two charts above illustrate how the cost per gallon, under the current rate structure, for water
use only, becomes greater with higher usage. The charges above do not include the fixed
quarterly fee.
Cities adopt a tiered rate system for the following reasons:
1. To promote conservation efforts.
2. To allocate costs appropriately to those who are generating them. Cities construct water
systems to meet the capacity of peak watering days in the heat of the summer. In St
Louis Park, the peak demand in the summer is approximately 2 times the winter demand.
A tiered rate system charges more per unit for peak use, thereby allocating the cost of
“oversizing” the system for peak days to the peak users.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 10
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Overall Seasonal Demand
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
Spring Summer Fall Winter
The above chart illustrates the increased demand during the summer months. The chart below
illustrates the user class that is driving the changes in seasonal demand.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
Spring Summer Fall Winter
Residential Commercial Multi Family Irrigation
In mid 2008, the Minnesota Legislature adopted an amendment which requires a conservation
rate structure to be in place by January 1, 2010, for all metropolitan area public water suppliers
who serve more than 1,000 people. A public water supplier must also have a conservation rate
structure in place before the State will grant approval for constructing an additional well or for a
request to increase the authorized volume of appropriation.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 11
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
The Department of Natural Resources has provided further guidance that an increasing block rate
means that there is a sufficient increase in the rate between the tiers to promote conservation.
Specifically, the DNR would be looking for a meaningful increase between the blocks to
encourage conservation. We believe that the recommended rate structure proposed complies with
DNR guidelines.
Proposed Water Rates:
The proposed rate structure was designed in order to provide sufficient resources for projected
operating expenses and capital costs and to maintain cash balances where necessary.
In 2008, the City spent approximately $2.8M in operating costs such as salaries, contractual,
insurance. The balance of the $3.2M was for depreciation.
Recommended Rate Option: Fixed Charge and 3-Tiered Usage Charge
Usage Charges Residential/Multi Family
Residential users are charged the following per unit under the proposed 2010 rates:
Tier One-Usage to 40 units, or 30,000 gallons per quarter charged at $1.29 per unit, up from
$1.21 in 2009, or 7%.
Tier Two-Usage over 40 to 80 units, or 30,000 to 60,000 gallons charged at $1.62 per unit, up
from $1.51, or 7%
Tier Three-Usage over 80 units, or over 60,000 gallons charged at $2.43 per unit, up from
$2.27, or 7%
These rate tier options would provide an incentive for water conservation and would likely
provide a buffer to the City for lower usages which would occur during wet weather summers
because it provides a constant revenue stream that’s available to pay fixed costs.
Multi family are charged on the same scale, except it is calculated on a per housing unit basis.
Most of the multi family use is charged in the first tier.
The following chart shows a comparison for a single family residential user, including usage and
fixed from the 2009 rates to the recommended rates.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 12
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Avg Quarterly Bill-Water-usage and fixed 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average User (28,500 gallons per qtr-38 units)53.13$ 56.85$ 60.83$ 65.08$ 69.64$ 74.51$ 78.24$ 80.59$
dollar change 3.72$ 3.98$ 4.26$ 4.56$ 4.87$ 3.73$ 2.35$
cost per gallon $0.00186 $0.00199 $0.00213 $0.00228 $0.00244 $0.00261 $0.00275 $0.00283
High User (60,000 gallons per qtr-80 units)115.96$ 124.06$ 132.74$ 142.04$ 151.98$ 162.62$ 170.75$ 175.87$
dollar change 8.10$ 8.68$ 9.29$ 9.94$ 10.64$ 8.13$ 5.12$
cost per gallon $0.00193 $0.00207 $0.00221 $0.00237 $0.00253 $0.00271 $0.00285 $0.00293
Irrigation Connection (135,000 galls per qtr-180 units)217.51$ 437.20$ 467.81$ 500.55$ 535.59$ 573.08$ 601.74$ 619.79$
dollar change 219.69$ 30.60$ 32.75$ 35.04$ 37.49$ 28.65$ 18.05$
cost per gallon $0.00161 $0.00324 $0.00347 $0.00371 $0.00397 $0.00425 $0.00446 $0.00459
Usage Charges Commercial/ Tiering
Tiering water rates can promote conservation by residential users. Most water usage above the
average amount consists of non-essential activities, such as over-watering lawns or maintaining
swimming pools. Currently, all commercial water usage is charged at the lowest tier.
Whereas conservation is the consideration for structuring rates for residential users, economic
development is potentially impacted by tiering for commercial users. An increasing block tiering
structure could make already efficient, but high volume commercial users, less competitive.
Taking these considerations into account, we have proposed that commercial properties have a
three tier rate structure, but also that the tiers are tailored for commercial usage. Most of the
City’s commercial users use more water than residential users. The City does have some very
high commercial water users who use the water in their operations. The commercial users who
fall into the third tier account for more than 508,847,000 gallons per year. We are proposing a
tiering structure designed specifically for these highest commercial users.
Of the City’s 745 commercial users, 568, or 76% fall into the first tier, 117 in the second tier,
and the remaining 60 fall into the third tier. The following graph shows the distribution of
commercial users.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 13
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Distribution of Commercial Users
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
- 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1,080 1,200 1,320 1,440 1,560 1,680 1,800 1,920 2,040 2,160 2,280 2,400 2,520 2,640 2,760 2,880 3,000 3,120
To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To
120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1,080 1,200 1,320 1,440 1,560 1,680 1,800 1,920 2,040 2,160 2,280 2,400 2,520 2,640 2,760 2,880 3,000 3,120 3,240
Units per Year
For average commercial users, the tiers could be as follows:
Tier One: All usage up to 40 units, or 30,000 gallons per month charged at $1.29 per unit
Tier Two: Usages usage over 40 units and up to 240 units, or 180,000 gallons per month
charged at $1.62 per unit
Tier Three: All usage over 240 units per month, charged at $2.43 per unit.
These rates are the same as the proposed residential rates for 2010.
The table below shows a sample monthly water bill, including usage, for an average commercial
user and a very high water commercial user.
Avg Monthly Bill-Water-usage and fixed 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average User (112,500 gallons per month-150 units)233.47$ 284.94$ 304.88$ 326.22$ 349.06$ 373.49$ 392.17$ 403.93$
dollar change 51.47$ 19.95$ 21.34$ 22.84$ 24.43$ 18.67$ 11.77$
cost per gallon $0.00208 $0.00253 $0.00271 $0.00290 $0.00310 $0.00332 $0.00349 $0.00359
Very High User (8,000,000 per month-10,666 units)13,071.56$ 25,876.51$ 27,687.86$ 29,626.01$ 31,699.83$ 33,918.82$ 35,614.76$ 36,683.21$
dollar change 12,804.95$ 1,811.36$ 1,938.15$ 2,073.82$ 2,218.99$ 1,695.94$ 1,068.44$
cost per gallon $0.00163 $0.00323 $0.00346 $0.00370 $0.00396 $0.00424 $0.00445 $0.00459
One option the Council could consider is that the very highest users be given a tier of their own,
which would mitigate the increase shown above for the very high commercial user. An option for
tiering the highest commercial users would be to both adjust the tier levels for usage and the rate
and is shown in the following table. These top users use a great deal of water in their operations
and the goal would be to mitigate their operational costs. However, the cost impact is significant
and merits further discussion by Council.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 14
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Tier One: All usage up to 1,300 units, or 975,000 gallons per month charged at $1.29 per unit
Tier Two: Usages over 1,300 units and up to 6,600 units, or 4,950,000 gallons per month
charged at $1.55 per unit
Tier Three: All usage over 6,600 units per month, charged at $1.86 per unit
The effect on the highest commercial user then is:
Avg Monthly Bill-Water-usage and fixed 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Alternate Tiering
Very High User (8,000,000 per month-10,666 units)13,071.56$ 17,632.44$ 18,866.71$ 20,187.38$ 21,600.49$ 23,112.53$ 24,268.15$ 24,996.20$
dollar change 4,560.88$ 1,234.27$ 1,320.67$ 1,413.12$ 1,512.03$ 1,155.63$ 728.04$
cost per gallon $0.00163 $0.00220 $0.00236 $0.00252 $0.00270 $0.00289 $0.00303 $0.00312
Usage Charges Irrigation
We are recommending that all irrigation use be charged at the highest tier. Currently, irrigation is
charged at the lowest rate of $1.21 per unit. Irrigation accounts for nearly 90 million gallons of
water per year. We are recommending that this non essential use of water should be charged the
premium rate of $2.43 per unit. As is shown on the table on page 12, irrigation use is currently
less expensive per gallon than water used by an average residential user. Adjusting the tier rate
for irrigation use then makes watering more expensive than water used in everyday activities,
such as washing and cooking.
Fixed Charges All Users
We are recommending that all residential fixed charges are increased by 7%. We are
recommending that commercial fixed charges be increased by 12.5% to account for no increase
last year, plus a 7% increase for 2010. In the prior year, residential fixed charges were increased
by 6% but commercial was not. A complete schedule of usage and fixed charges can be found on
Appendix I.
Recommended Water Fund Cash Balances
Operating Reserve
We recommend the water fund carry a minimum cash balance for operations of an amount
equal to 6 months of operating expenses including depreciation plus the next year’s annual
debt service and a portion of accumulated depreciation. Cash balances are available to
accommodate fluctuations in revenue depending on weather and higher than anticipated
operating expenses and for unexpected expenses, such as main breaks.
Capital Reserve
The remaining cash balance should be held for long-term replacement of the system,
which will not be able to be funded with growth. The model maintains the ending cash
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 15
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
balance over time. The recommended measure of a goal for the capital portion of cash
reserves is the target working capital as outlined in the City’s annual financial report. The
graph below demonstrates the target capital reserve balance compared to actual capital
reserve balance of the water enterprise fund over time:
Water Fund Capital Cash Reserves
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000 2010201120122013201420152016201720182019Cash Balance Goal Cash Balance
As was stated earlier, the fund as had a precipitous decline in cash balances, which creates a very
strong pressure to increase rates now and in the future. Its important to note that the cash
balances shown in the projections include paying the recent interfund loan to the Sewer Fund
over a longer time period than originally anticipated.
The rate increases and tiering included in the recommendations builds cash balances over time.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 16
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Sewer System
The City of St Louis Park participates in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Service’s
sanitary sewer system. The City does not maintain its own sanitary sewer treatment facility, but
is responsible for certain capital improvements and operating costs.
Sewer Rate Structure
The current rate structure is $2.01 per quarter per unit for residential and commercial water usage
during the winter quarter. The quarterly fixed rate is $10.65. There is no current mandate to
impose a conservation rate structure to sewer use.
Pro-Forma Analysis Assumptions
Sanitary Sewer Utility
Growth and Utility Usage No new residential connections. The estimated usage for existing
residents is anticipated to be at slightly below the 2008 usage levels
in order to be conservative.
Operating Expenses City expenses increase 3% annually
Capital Expenses Costs of improvements are inflated 5% per year. Future total
capital improvements from 2010 to 2019 are estimated at an
inflated value of $3.1M.
Rate Structure Currently all sewer usage is billed year-round based on water
used during the winter quarter at $2.01 per unit for residential
and multi family accounts.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 17
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Proposed Sewer Rates:
Recommended Rates– Based on Existing Rate Structure
Sewer charges would continue to be based on water flows during the winter quarter for all users.
All users also pay a fixed fee of $10.65 per quarter, or $3.55 per month, if charged monthly. We
are recommending that the fixed quarterly fee is increased to $11.40 per quarter for residential
and multi family accounts. We are recommending that the monthly fee is increased to $3.80. We
are not recommending a rate structure change, but rather are recommending an increase in the
rate in order to provide for operations, capital and projected debt.
Avg Quarterly Bill-Sewer-usage and fixed 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average User (28,500 gallons per qtr-38 units)87.09$ 95.48$ 105.03$ 115.54$ 127.09$ 137.26$ 144.12$ 151.33$
dollar change 8.39$ 9.55$ 10.50$ 11.55$ 10.17$ 6.86$ 7.21$
High User (60,000 gallons per qtr-80 units)171.58$ 188.42$ 207.26$ 227.99$ 250.79$ 270.85$ 284.39$ 298.61$
dollar change 16.84$ 18.84$ 20.73$ 22.80$ 20.06$ 13.54$ 14.22$
The above represents a 7% and a 10% increase in the base quarterly and usage charges,
respectively.
Recommended Sewer Fund Cash Balances
Operating Reserve
We recommend the sewer fund carry a minimum cash balance for operations of an amount
equal to 6 months of operating expenses including depreciation plus annual debt service
and a portion of capital costs. Cash balances are available to accommodate fluctuations in
revenue depending on weather and higher than anticipated operating expenses and for
unexpected expenses, such as main breaks.
Capital Reserve
The remaining cash balance should be held for long-term replacement of the system,
which will not be able to be funded with growth. The recommended measure of a goal for
the capital portion of cash reserves is the accumulated depreciation of assets as outlined in
the City’s annual financial report. The following graph demonstrates the projected capital
cash balance related to the target working capital amount:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 18
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Sewer Fund Capital Reserves
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000 2010201120122013201420152016201720182019Cash Balance Goal Cash Balance
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 19
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Storm Sewer System
Storm Sewer revenues are based on a fixed quarterly fee based on the type of property being
served. The quarterly charge is established to pay for the cost of operating and maintaining the
system.
Below is a chart which demonstrates the breakdown of the types of users in the storm sewer
utility by Residential Equivalent Unit. Commercial properties represent a higher proportion of
users in comparison to water usage, because commercial properties have more impervious
surfaces, such as parking lots, that direct storm water through the storm water system and into
lakes, rivers and streams.
Breakdown of Acres for Storm Water Utility
Residential Commercial Recreation Institutional Vacant
Proposed Storm Sewer Rates
This proposed rate structure shows an increase of approximately 7.4% for all accounts based on
residential equivalent unit. This fee needs to increase for several years. The quarterly storm
sewer fee would increase by $1.00 to $14.50 per quarter. The full schedule of proposed rate
increases is shown below.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 20
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Proposed Storm Water Rates
$16.50$16.50$16.50$16.50$16.50$16.50$16.25
$15.50
$15.00
$14.50
$13.50
$14.00
$14.50
$15.00
$15.50
$16.00
$16.50
$17.00
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Cities across the state will be facing pressure to generate more revenue to fund storm water
systems. The Clean Water Legacy Act provided funding to test and develop plans for
Minnesota’s polluted waterways. These plans may result in new unfunded mandates for local
governments. Our experience with other cities indicates that most have not yet planned for
significant improvements to their storm water system, and their quarterly fees are established at a
level that will only pay for the annual operations and maintenance of the storm water system. As
more cities undertake planning for capital improvements to their storm water systems, we expect
to see higher storm water utility fees across the metro area.
Future Debt for Capital Improvements
The projections show a bond issue in 2010 to finance the capital expenditures which consist of
the Minnehaha Creek Flooding Project and the Lift Station #6-Taft Flooding Project. We are not
projecting any bonds to be issued for the currently proposed capital improvements of $3.6M
expected between 2010 to 2019. As a result, there is a great deal of pressure to increase the
quarterly rates in order to be able to pay for the projects with cash. As cash balances and project
costs are evaluated in the future, the amount of debt and the term of debt can be re-evaluated.
Cash Balances
The rates shown above, with the scheduled capital improvements, provide the following cash
balances.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 21
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Storm Water Ending Cash Balance
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 22
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Solid Waste Fund
User Fees
Residential users are billed once a quarter for garbage pick up. The rate is based on the cart size.
Residential Rates
The City signed new contracts with two service providers, one for garbage pickup and one for
recycling services. These contracts will decrease residential garbage and recycling collection and
disposal expenditures from $1,592,000 in 2008 to $1,500,000 in 2009. This decrease is offset by
an increase in residential yard waste collection and disposal. The model projects a very modest
4% increase in quarterly rates as shown below. The proposed increase for 2010 is 4%.
Proposed Quarterly User Charges-(excludes sales tax)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
30 Gal 41.20 42.85 44.56 46.34 48.20 50.13 52.13 54.22
60 Gal 52.40 54.50 56.68 58.94 61.30 63.75 66.30 68.95
90 Gal 63.60 66.14 68.79 71.54 74.40 77.38 80.47 83.69
120 Gal 74.80 77.79 80.90 84.14 87.51 91.01 94.65 98.43
150 Gal 86.00 89.44 93.02 96.74 100.61 104.63 108.82 113.17
180 Gal 97.20 101.09 105.13 109.34 113.71 118.26 122.99 127.91
210 Gal 108.40 112.74 117.25 121.94 126.81 131.89 137.16 142.65
240 Gal 119.60 124.38 129.36 134.53 139.92 145.51 151.33 157.39
270 Gal 130.80 136.03 141.47 147.13 153.02 159.14 165.50 172.12
360 Gal 164.40 170.98 177.82 184.93 192.32 200.02 208.02 216.34
450 Gal 198.00 205.92 214.16 222.72 231.63 240.90 250.53 260.55
540 Gal 231.60 240.86 250.50 260.52 270.94 281.78 293.05 304.77
Cash Balances
The low increases still provide for sufficient cash balances. The capital reserve goal for the Solid
Waste Fund is 30% of next year’s operating expenditures. The graph below illustrates the trend
over time.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 23
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Solid Waste Fund Capital Reserves
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2010201120122013201420152016201720182019Cash Balance Goal Cash Balance
Given the cash balance in this fund, the Council could consider no increase for the 2010 rates for
solid waste, in order to mitigate the total increases proposed in the other utility funds.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 24
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Utility User Impacts-All Utilities
Utility users view their quarterly utility bill in total. The analysis below is based on an average
residential user with a 60 gallon cart service.
Average Qtrly Bill-Water, Sewer, Storm, Refuse 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average User (28,500 gallons per qtr-38 units)206.12$ 221.33$ 237.53$ 255.06$ 274.28$ 292.02$ 305.16$ 317.37$
dollar change $15.21 $16.21 $17.53 $19.22 $17.74 $13.14 $12.21
High User (60,000 gallons per qtr-80 units)353.44$ 381.48$ 411.68$ 444.47$ 480.32$ 513.72$ 537.94$ 559.94$
dollar change $28.03 $30.21 $32.79 $35.85 $33.40 $24.22 $21.99
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 25
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Schedule of Future Anticipated Rates
Water Fixed Fees
Residential Fixed Fees
7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 5.00% 3.00%
Meter Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
5/8" 5.94 6.35 6.80 7.27 7.78 8.33 8.74 9.00
3/4" 7.21 7.71 8.25 8.83 9.45 10.11 10.62 10.93
1" 10.56 11.30 12.09 12.93 13.84 14.81 15.55 16.01
1.5" 17.83 19.08 20.41 21.84 23.37 25.01 26.26 27.04
2" 27.60 29.53 31.60 33.81 36.18 38.71 40.65 41.87
3" 51.97 55.61 59.50 63.67 68.12 72.89 76.54 78.83
4" 84.14 90.03 96.34 103.08 110.29 118.01 123.92 127.63
6" 164.89 176.44 188.79 202.00 216.14 231.27 242.84 250.12
2" compound 27.60 29.53 31.60 33.81 36.18 38.71 40.65 41.87
3" compound 51.97 55.61 59.50 63.67 68.12 72.89 76.54 78.83
Proposed Quarterly Rates For Districts 1-6 (Residential)
Commercial Fixed Fees
Proposed Monthly Rates For District 7 (Commercial)
12.50% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 5.00% 3.00%
Meter Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
5/8" 3.63 4.08 4.37 4.68 5.00 5.35 5.62 5.79
3/4"4.08 4.59 4.91 5.26 5.62 6.02 6.32 6.51
1" 5.27 5.93 6.34 6.79 7.26 7.77 8.16 8.40
1.5"7.77 8.74 9.35 10.01 10.71 11.46 12.03 12.39
2"11.27 12.68 13.57 14.52 15.53 16.62 17.45 17.97
3"19.82 22.30 23.86 25.53 27.32 29.23 30.69 31.61
4"33.42 37.60 40.23 43.05 46.06 49.28 51.75 53.30
6"64.58 72.65 77.74 83.18 89.00 95.23 99.99 102.99
2" compound 11.27 12.68 13.57 14.52 15.53 16.62 17.45 17.97
3" compound 19.82 22.30 23.86 25.53 27.32 29.23 30.69 31.61
4" compound 33.42 37.60 40.23 43.05 46.06 49.28 51.75 53.30
6" compound 64.58 72.65 77.74 83.18 89.00 95.23 99.99 102.99
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 26
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Water Usage Fees
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Res and Multi Family
Rate Increase 6.00%7.00% 7.00%7.00% 7.00% 7.00%5.00%3.00%
up to 40 units $1.21 $1.29 $1.38 $1.48 $1.58 $1.69 $1.78 $1.83
Rate Increase 6.00%7.00% 7.00%7.00% 7.00% 7.00%5.00%3.00%
40-80 units $1.51 $1.62 $1.73 $1.85 $1.98 $2.12 $2.22 $2.29
Rate Increase 6.00%7.00% 7.00%7.00% 7.00% 7.00%5.00%3.00%
over 80 units $2.27 $2.43 $2.60 $2.78 $2.98 $3.18 $3.34 $3.44
Commercial
Rate Increase 6.00%7.00% 7.00%7.00% 7.00% 7.00%5.00%3.00%
up to 40 units $1.21 $1.29 $1.38 $1.48 $1.58 $1.69 $1.78 $1.83
Rate Increase 6.00%7.00% 7.00%7.00% 7.00% 7.00%5.00%3.00%
40-240 units $1.21 $1.62 $1.73 $1.85 $1.98 $2.12 $2.22 $2.29
Rate Increase 6.00%7.00% 7.00%7.00% 7.00% 7.00%5.00%3.00%
over 240 units $1.21 $2.43 $2.60 $2.78 $2.98 $3.18 $3.34 $3.44
Commercial-very high usage
Rate Increase 6.00%7.00% 7.00%7.00% 7.00% 7.00%5.00%3.00%
up to 1,300 units $1.21 $1.29 $1.38 $1.48 $1.58 $1.69 $1.78 $1.83
Rate Increase 6.00%7.00% 7.00%7.00% 7.00% 7.00%5.00%3.00%
1,300-6,600 units $1.21 $1.55 $1.66 $1.77 $1.90 $2.03 $2.13 $2.20
Rate Increase 6.00%7.00% 7.00%7.00% 7.00% 7.00%5.00%3.00%
over 6,600 units $1.21 $1.86 $1.99 $2.13 $2.28 $2.44 $2.56 $2.64
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 27
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Sewer Fixed and Usage Fees
Fixed Charges
7.00% 7.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 8.00% 5.00% 5.00%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Residential $10.65 $11.40 $12.54 $13.79 $15.17 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07
Multi-Family $10.65 $11.40 $12.54 $13.79 $15.17 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07
Commercial $10.65 $11.40 $12.54 $13.79 $15.17 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07
Proposed Rates
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Residential-Commerical-Multi-Family
7.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 8.00% 5.00% 5.00%
Usage rate per unit $2.01 $2.21 $2.43 $2.68 $2.95 $3.18 $3.34 $3.51
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 28
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Recommendations
The need to upgrade, maintain and expand the water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and solid waste
utility funds over the next several years will introduce new financial pressures along with the
need to maintain adequate cash balances.
The rate study indicates that water rate increases are necessary in 2010 to maintain cash balances
and pay for capital improvements and debt. Steady rate increases will be needed for all three
funds beginning in 2010, to keep pace with operating costs and capital improvements.
While this analysis proposes the use of debt to allow for steady and predictable rate increases, it
is not a debt plan. The City should review whether it has sufficient cash to pay for capital
improvements prior to issuing debt. As with all other bonding decisions, the City’s decision to
issue debt for any given improvement will be based on many factors, including the City’s cash
balances, rating, and other financing needs.
Summary of Recommendations
• Adopt the use of a commercial tiers structure as proposed.
• Consider the rate changes as proposed, after discussion.
• Adopt target cash balance goals as recommended.
• Update the utility study periodically to determine progress with cash balance goals
and an updated capital improvement plan.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study Page 29
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendices to this report follow:
Appendix A Comparisons to Other Cities’ Rates
Appendix B Water Utility Projections
Appendix C Sanitary Sewer Utility Projections
Appendix D Storm Sewer Utility Projections
Appendix E Solid Waste Fund Projections
Appendix F Capital Improvement Plan for Water
Appendix G Capital Improvement Plan for Sanitary Sewer
Appendix H Capital Improvement Plan for Storm Sewer
Appendix I Proposed Rate Tier Options
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendix A
Comparison of Rates in Comparable Cities
Residential Comparison
Using proposed 2010 rates-Residential usage of 38 units per quarter
Residential quarterly usage of 28,500 gallons, or 38 units Minimum Volume Minimum Volume Total
Golden Valley $20.25 $95.18 $52.00 $167.43
Richfield n/a $66.69 $8.65 $81.23 $156.57
Edina $12.78 $40.92 n/a $101.46 $155.16
St Louis Park-proposed 2010 $7.71 $49.13 $11.40 $84.08 $152.33
Hopkins $0.00 $53.01 $88.35 $141.36
Minnetonka $0.00 $49.33 $41.85 $37.67 $128.84
Brooklyn Park $3.20 $45.60 $3.20 $68.40 $120.40
Water Sewer
Comparison of Water Billing
$0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.0
0
$120.0
0
$140.0
0
Golden Valley
Richfield
Edina
St Louis Park-proposed 2010
Hopkins
Minnetonka
Brooklyn Park
Water Minimum Water Volume
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Comparison of Sewer Billing
$0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00
Golden Valley
Richfield
Edina
St Louis Park-proposed 2010
Hopkins
Minnetonka
Brooklyn Park
Sewer Minimum Sewer Volume
Comparison of Total Water and Sewer
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
Golden
Valley
Edina Richfield St Louis
Park-
proposed
2010
Hopkins Minnetonka Brooklyn
Park
Water Minimum Water Volume Sewer Minimum Sewer Volume
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Commercial Comparison
The chart below shows the effect of the proposed water and sewer increases on commercial
entities with a comparison of sample cities.
Commerical Average Use 112,500, or 150 units Minimum Volume Minimum Volume Total
Golden Valley $24.30 $455.63 $19.50 $359.13 $858.55
Edina $12.78 $196.60 $42.72 $357.78 $609.88
Richfield $263.25 $8.65 $320.63 $592.53
St Louis Park-proposed 2010 $55.61 $229.33 $11.40 $331.91 $628.25
Hopkins $0.00 $209.25 $348.75 $558.00
Minnetonka $0.00 $191.25 $41.85 $313.88 $546.98
Brooklyn Park $3.20 $241.63 $3.20 $270.00 $518.03
Water Sewer
Note: below using the alternate tiering for very high commercial users as described on page 14.
Alternate Tiering
Commercial High Use 8,000,000, or 10,666 units Minimum Volume Minimum Volume Total
Golden Valley $24.30 $32,400.00 $19.50 $25,350.00 $57,793.80
Edina $12.78 $14,813.84 $42.72 $28,435.50 $43,304.84
Richfield $18,720.00 $8.65 $22,800.00 $41,528.65
St Louis Park-proposed 2010 $176.44 $17,456.00 $11.40 $23,601.30 $41,245.13
Hopkins $0.00 $14,880.00 $24,800.00 $39,680.00
Brooklyn Park $3.20 $19,566.00 $3.20 $19,200.00 $38,772.40
Minnetonka $0.00 $13,600.00 $41.85 $22,320.00 $35,961.85
Water Sewer
Note: below shows the impact on a very high commercial using the proposed tiering for average commercial. See
page 13.
Commercial High Use 8,000,000, or 10,666 units Minimum Volume Minimum Volume Total
Golden Valley $24.30 $32,400.00 $19.50 $25,350.00 $57,793.80
St Louis Park-proposed 2010 $176.44 $25,700.07 $11.40 $23,601.30 $49,489.20
Edina $12.78 $14,813.84 $42.72 $28,435.50 $43,304.84
Richfield $18,720.00 $8.65 $22,800.00 $41,528.65
Hopkins $0.00 $14,880.00 $24,800.00 $39,680.00
Brooklyn Park $3.20 $19,566.00 $3.20 $19,200.00 $38,772.40
Minnetonka $0.00 $13,600.00 $41.85 $22,320.00 $35,961.85
Water Sewer
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendix B
Water Utility Projections
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsWater Fund Other revenue increase3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Expenditure increase3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%BudgetBudget200420052006200720082009201020112012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Revenues Charges for services2,312,808 2,289,394 2,786,912 3,232,916 3,261,164 3,260,000 4,536,702 4,989,331 5,338,585 5,712,285 6,112,145 6,417,753 6,610,285 6,808,594 7,012,852 7,223,237 Connection charges Other48,984 2,625 2,788 14,428 47,4310000000000 Rent151,081 25,030 123,992 132,576 210,562 130,000130,000 133,900 137,917 142,055 146,316 150,706 155,227 159,884 164,680 169,621 Total operating revenues2,512,873 2,317,049 2,913,692 3,379,920 3,519,157 3,390,000 4,666,702 5,123,231 5,476,502 5,854,340 6,258,462 6,568,458 6,765,512 6,968,477 7,177,532 7,392,858Expenses Personnel530,628 643,529 637,832 803,972 806,580 935,400967,400 996,422 1,026,315 1,057,104 1,088,817 1,121,482 1,155,126 1,189,780 1,225,473 1,262,238 Supplies241,782 256,620 331,221 374,192 548,507 431,800652,000 671,560 691,707 712,458 733,832 755,847 778,522 801,878 825,934 850,712 Other services and charges Professional services428,974 376,978 455,046 379,519 214,057 374,675434,750 447,793 461,226 475,063 489,315 503,994 519,114 534,688 550,728 567,250 Repairs and maintenance 491,793 331,546 348,578 446,011 336,107 145,000 145,000 149,350 153,831 158,445 163,199 168,095 173,138 178,332 183,682 189,192 Utilities 361,610 406,117 465,967 422,637 463,039 438,700 489,500 504,185 519,311 534,890 550,937 567,465 584,489 602,023 620,084 638,686 Disposal charges 86,271 60,166 62,038 54,983 2,880 110,000 115,000 118,450 122,004 125,664 129,434 133,317 137,316 141,435 145,679 150,049 Other 182,888 210,016 213,495 385,123 472,400 507,040 524,440 540,173 556,378 573,070 590,262 607,970 626,209 644,995 664,345 684,275 Depreciation 345,193 322,151 331,437 362,438 439,627 450,000 475,000 489,250 503,928 519,045 534,617 550,655 567,175 584,190 601,716 619,767 Total operating expense 2,669,139 2,607,123 2,845,614 3,228,875 3,283,197 3,392,615 3,803,090 3,917,183 4,034,698 4,155,739 4,280,411 4,408,824 4,541,088 4,677,321 4,817,641 4,962,170Operating income (loss)(156,266) (290,074)68,078 151,045 235,960(2,615)863,612 1,206,049 1,441,803 1,698,601 1,978,050 2,159,635 2,224,424 2,291,156 2,359,891 2,430,688Non operating rev (exp) Investment income53,045 39,463 28,056 100,771 63,779 80,00065,0002,7795,590 6,881 14,440 13,170 32,892 54,093 77,245 98,744 Gain (loss) on disposal of asset(1,048)2,139 Miscellaneous57,098 1,449 10,702 2,302(704) Interest expense-2007 Bonds**(56,232) (108,041) (94,000)(89,400) (84,600) (79,600) (74,400) (69,000) (63,200) (57,400) (51,000) (44,600) (38,000) Interest expense-2008 Bonds**(76,737) (120,110) (120,110) (111,509) (102,521) (93,150) (82,643) (71,723) (59,575) (45,987) Special assessments46,660 55,234 80,621 83,1970 Intergovernmental304,671 Total non-operating Revenue109,095 394,382 93,992 127,462 38,231 #(14,000) (101,137) (201,931) (194,120) (179,028) (157,081) (143,180) (107,152) (68,629) (26,931)14,757Net income (loss)(47,171)104,308 162,070 278,507 274,191(16,615)762,475 1,004,118 1,247,684 1,519,573 1,820,969 2,016,454 2,117,272 2,222,527 2,332,960 2,445,445Operating transfer in21,315 73,350Operating transfer out(807,007) (912,771) (506,965) (538,882) (533,656) (610,652) (610,652) (628,969.5) (647,839) (667,275) (687,298) (707,919) (729,158) (751,035) (773,561) (796,767)Net change to retained earnings(832,863) (735,113) (344,895) (260,375) (259,465) (627,267)151,823 375,148 599,844 852,298 1,133,670 1,308,535 1,388,114 1,471,492 1,559,399 1,648,678Beginning net assets14,106,985 13,274,122 12,539,009 12,194,114 11,933,739 11,674,274 11,047,007 11,198,830 11,573,979 12,173,823 13,026,121 14,159,791 15,468,327 16,856,441 18,327,934 19,887,333Ending net assets13,274,122 12,539,009 12,194,114 11,933,739 11,674,274 11,047,007 11,198,830 11,573,979 12,173,823 13,026,121 14,159,791 15,468,327 16,856,441 18,327,934 19,887,333 21,536,011ProjectedPer Financial Statements
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsWater Fund Other revenue increase3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Expenditure increase3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%BudgetBudget200420052006200720082009201020112012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019ProjectedPer Financial StatementsCash flow Operating income (loss)(290,074)68,078 151,045 235,960(2,615)762,475 1,206,049 1,441,803 1,698,601 1,978,050 2,159,635 2,224,424 2,291,156 2,359,891 2,430,688 Depreciation322,151 331,437 362,438 439,627 450,000475,000 489,250 503,928 519,045 534,617 550,655 567,175 584,190 601,716 619,767 Other changes(32,580)34,550 42,811(151,421) Gain (loss) on disposal of assets0 56,553 88,4540000000000 Intergovernmental342,098(4,630) (30,727) (1,732)00 000 0 0 000 Bond payments-2007 Bonds**(24,018) (27,291) (1,791) (90,000) (115,000) (120,000) (125,000) (130,000) (135,000) (145,000) (145,000) (160,000) (160,000) (165,000) (175,000) Bond payments-2008 Bonds**00(264,650) (276,500) (288,350) (300,200) (312,050) (323,900) (339,700) (355,500) Interest expense(112,652) (94,000) (166,137) (204,710) (199,710) (185,909) (171,521) (156,350) (140,043) (122,723) (104,175) (83,987) Bond proceeds2,429,861 4,056,8951,317,800 306,5002,676,200 Miscellanous1,449 10,702 2,302(704)00 000 0 0 000 Assessments received46,660(29,211) (33,197)0 Interfund loan2,000,000(750,000) (500,000) (500,000) (500,000) Investment income39,463 34,594 88,945 65,145 80,00065,0002,7795,590 6,881 14,440 13,170 32,892 54,093 77,245 98,744 Transfers(839,421) (506,965) (538,882) (533,656) (610,652) (610,652) (628,970) (647,839) (667,275) (687,298) (707,919) (729,158) (751,035) (773,561) (796,767) Capital(472,138) (1,065,463) (928,326) (1,287,348) (1,465,208) (5,892,661) (1,317,750) (306,495)0(2,676,180) (861,618) (201,014) (211,065) (221,618) (372,319) (244,334)Bonds: 2010 Bonds-(5% over 15 years, P&I)(126,960) (126,960) (126,960) (126,960) (126,960) (126,960) (126,960) (126,960) (126,960) 2011 Bonds-(5% over 15 years, P&I)000 0 0 000 2012 Bonds-(5.5% over 15 years, P&I)(30,535) (30,535) (30,535) (30,535) (30,535) (30,535) (30,535) (30,535) 2013 Bonds-(5.5% over 15 years, P&I)00 0 0 000 2014 Bonds-(5.5% over 15 years, P&I)(266,618) (266,618) (266,618) (266,618) (266,618) (266,618) 2015 Bonds-(5.5% over 15 years, P&I)0 0 000 2016 Bonds-(5.5% over 15 years, P&I)0 000 2017 Bonds-(5.5% over 15 years, P&I)000 2018 Bonds-(5.5% over 15 years, P&I)00Net Cashflow(472,138) (1,499,735) (1,017,062)1,242,010 2,530,708(4,184,928) (344,263)112,443 51,627 302,368(50,794)788,863 848,061 926,051 859,983 1,069,498Beginning cash3,384,434 1,884,699 867,637 2,109,647 4,640,355455,427 111,164 223,607 275,234 577,602 526,808 1,315,671 2,163,733 3,089,784 3,949,767Ending cash3,384,434 1,884,699 867,637 2,109,647 4,640,355 455,427111,164 223,607 275,234 577,602 526,808 1,315,671 2,163,733 3,089,784 3,949,767 5,019,265**-Water portion
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendix C
Sanitary Sewer Utility Projections
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsSewer Fund Other revenue increase3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Expenditure increase3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%MCES expenditure increase5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50%Budget Budget2004 2005 2006 2007 20082009 20102011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019RevenuesCharges for services4,263,430 4,366,910 4,584,167 4,764,952 4,482,087 4,790,000 4,779,216 5,257,137 5,782,851 6,361,136 6,870,027 7,213,529 7,574,205 7,952,915 8,350,561 8,768,089Other39580 0 0 00000 0 Total operating revenues4,263,433 4,367,868 4,584,167 4,764,952 4,482,087 4,790,000 4,779,216 5,257,137 5,782,851 6,361,136 6,870,027 7,213,529 7,574,205 7,952,915 8,350,561 8,768,089Expenses Personnel514,736 459,009 436,403 261,392 313,496 259,700 274,200 282,426 290,899 299,626 308,615 317,873 327,409 337,231 347,348 357,769 Supplies32,522 30,491 29,859 17,581 67,716 38,700 38,650 39,810 41,004 42,234 43,501 44,806 46,150 47,535 48,961 50,429 Other services and charges0 0 0 00000 0 Professional services18,994 27,273 136,478 45,436 45,485 49,675 50,500 52,015 53,575 55,183 56,838 58,543 60,300 62,109 63,972 65,891 Repairs and maintenance85,730 73,015 39,479 76,245 44,611 143,500 133,500 137,505 141,630 145,879 150,255 154,763 159,406 164,188 169,114 174,187 Utilities49,594 37,183 42,874 44,605 47,508 43,500 43,500 44,805 46,149 47,534 48,960 50,428 51,941 53,500 55,104 56,758 Disposal charges2,923,192 2,919,838 3,211,984 3,424,856 3,522,413 3,425,085 3,644,199 3,844,630 4,056,085 4,279,169 4,514,524 4,762,822 5,024,778 5,301,140 5,592,703 5,900,302 Other114,203 111,027 126,461 142,001 294,547 159,031 102,850 105,936 109,114 112,387 115,759 119,231 122,808 126,493 130,287 134,196 Depreciation247,356 246,707 231,862 187,543 149,610 175,000 175,000 180,250 185,658 191,227 196,964 202,873 208,959 215,228 221,685 228,335 Total operating expense3,986,327 3,904,543 4,255,400 4,199,659 4,485,386 4,294,191 4,462,399 4,687,376 4,924,113 5,173,238 5,435,415 5,711,340 6,001,751 6,307,423 6,629,174 6,967,867Non operating rev (exp) Investment income48,802 78,828 118,849 166,201 77,352 120,000 70,000 28,969 24,000 26,805 28,911 38,604 49,725 61,872 75,827 98,515 Interest expense-2008 Bonds**(20,398) (31,928) (31,928) (29,642) (27,253) (24,762) (21,969) (19,065) (15,837) (12,225) Loss on disposal of asset(593)(13,552) Special assessments6350 Intergovernmental55,730 23,055 Other50 1,197 Total non operating48,209 78,828 105,932 221,981 101,604 120,000 49,602(2,959) (7,928) (2,836)1,659 13,842 27,757 42,807 59,990 86,290Net income (loss)325,315 542,153 434,699 787,274 98,305 615,809 366,419 566,802 850,810 1,185,062 1,436,271 1,516,030 1,600,210 1,688,299 1,781,377 1,886,512Operating transfers(593,237) (720,367) (746,060) (790,849) (741,334) (790,876) (790,876) (814,602) (839,040) (864,212) (890,138) (916,842) (944,347) (972,678) (1,001,858) (1,031,914)Beginning net assets7,864,872 7,596,950 7,418,736 7,107,375 7,103,800 6,460,771 6,285,704 5,861,247 5,613,446 5,625,216 5,946,066 6,492,199 7,091,388 7,747,251 8,462,872 9,242,391Ending net assets7,596,950 7,418,736 7,107,375 7,103,800 6,460,771 6,285,704 5,861,247 5,613,446 5,625,216 5,946,066 6,492,199 7,091,388 7,747,251 8,462,872 9,242,391 10,096,989ProjectedPer Financial Statements
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsSewer Fund Other revenue increase3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Expenditure increase3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%MCES expenditure increase5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50%Budget Budget2004 2005 2006 2007 20082009 20102011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019ProjectedPer Financial StatementsCash flow Operating income (loss)277,106 463,325 328,767 565,293(3,299)495,809 316,817 569,762 850,810 1,185,062 1,436,271 1,516,030 1,600,210 1,688,299 1,781,377 1,886,512 Depreciation247,356 246,707 231,862 187,543 149,610 175,000 175,000 180,250 185,658 191,227 196,964 202,873 208,959 215,228 221,685 228,335 Other changes(86,377) (355,718)51,675 315,697 116,870 Interest received47,598 75,434 118,849 160,766 91,769 120,000 70,000 28,969 24,000 26,805 28,911 38,604 49,725 61,872 75,827 98,515 Interst expense0(20,398) (31,928) (31,928) (29,642) (27,253) (24,762) (21,969) (19,065) (15,837) (12,225) Bond proceeds636,700403,400 342,100 Bond principal-2008 Bonds**00(70,350) (73,500) (76,650) (79,800) (82,950) (86,100) (90,300) (94,500) Bond payment-2012-15 yrs 5.5%(63,432) (63,432) (63,432) (63,432) (63,432) (63,432) (63,432) Bond payment-2018-15 yrs 5.5%(40,189) Transfers(593,237) (720,367) (746,060) (790,849) (741,334) (790,876) (790,876) (814,602) (839,040) (864,212) (890,138) (916,842) (944,347) (972,678) (1,001,858) (1,031,914) Other (593)570 56,375 24,878 Capital(107,741) (39,041) (746,143) (136,532) (328,295) (346,500) (131,198) (643,640) (288,075) (216,968) (227,816) (260,314) (265,942) (403,345) (342,068)Beginning cash3,392,308 3,284,161 2,885,801 2,832,423 2,581,105 2,083,067 1,754,705 1,158,748 960,000 1,072,210 1,156,444 1,544,150 1,989,006 2,474,890 3,033,072 3,940,589Ending cash3,284,161 2,885,801 2,832,423 2,581,105 2,083,067 1,754,705 1,158,748 960,000 1,072,210 1,156,444 1,544,150 1,989,006 2,474,890 3,033,072 3,940,589 4,911,725
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendix D
Storm Sewer Utility Projections
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsStorm Sewer Fund7% 3% 3% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Storm Sewer Rate$13.50 $14.50 $15.00 $15.50 $16.25 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50Other revenue increase3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Expenditure increase3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Budget Budget2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Revenues Charges for services 805,679 914,052 1,169,915 1,470,529 1,529,180 1,550,000 1,912,741 1,978,698 2,044,655 2,143,590 2,176,568 2,176,568 2,176,568 2,176,568 2,176,568 2,176,568 Other 1,025 64900 0000 000 Total operating revenues 806,704 914,701 1,169,915 1,470,529 1,529,180 1,550,000 1,912,741 1,978,698 2,044,655 2,143,590 2,176,568 2,176,568 2,176,568 2,176,568 2,176,568 2,176,568Expenses Personnel 115,275 120,227 143,671 188,983 253,378 222,500 240,675 247,895 255,332 262,992 270,882 279,008 287,379 296,000 304,880 314,026 Supplies 11,115 27,866 9,488 4,249 6,589 34,700 33,950 34,969 36,018 37,098 38,211 39,357 40,538 41,754 43,007 44,297 Other Professional services 130,364 36,325 151,952 129,719 201,793 90,350 90,350 93,061 95,852 98,728 101,690 104,740 107,883 111,119 114,453 117,886 Repairs and maintenance 20,060 46,415 27,179 103,791 12,083 401,000 401,000 413,030 425,421 438,184 451,329 464,869 478,815 493,179 507,975 523,214 Utilities 18,175 16,285 19,525 18,624 17,307 18,500 18,500 19,055 19,627 20,215 20,822 21,447 22,090 22,753 23,435 24,138 Other 37,677 38,313 180,973 64,655 80,169 43,593 41,350 42,591 43,868 45,184 46,540 47,936 49,374 50,855 52,381 53,952 Depreciation 365,710 371,574 372,128 432,725 445,774 450,000 455,000 468,650 482,710 497,191 512,107 527,470 543,294 559,593 576,380 593,672 Total operating expense 698,376 657,005 904,916 942,746 1,017,093 1,260,643 1,280,825 1,319,250 1,358,827 1,399,592 1,441,580 1,484,827 1,529,372 1,575,253 1,622,511 1,671,186Operating income (loss)108,328 257,696 264,999 527,783 512,087 289,357 631,916 659,448 685,828 743,998 734,988 691,741 647,196 601,315 554,057 505,382Non operating rev (exp) Interest income 31,961 13,438 18,554 73,983 22,989 40,000 20,000 11,075 9,396 8,133 7,968 7,379 6,305 3,956 11,211 16,020 Intergovernmental 932,069 353,942 117,256 864,752 Bond disc/prem amortization(145,271) (154,799) Gain (loss) on disposal of asset(12,369) Interest expense-2001 bonds(144,222) (136,972) (127,494) (87,037) (77,790) (67,715) (56,905) (45,448) (33,335) (20,491) (6,911) Interest expense - 2007 bonds**(47,000) (44,600) (42,200) (39,600) (37,000) (34,200) (31,400) (28,400) (25,400) (22,200) (18,800) Other revenue3,064(307) (18,000) (14,000) Total non operating(124,630)808,535 245,002 49,032 732,635(112,037) (116,390) (98,840) (87,109) (74,315) (59,567) (44,512) (29,006) (21,444) (10,989) (2,780)Net income (loss)(16,302)1,066,231 510,001 576,815 1,244,722 177,320 515,526 560,608 598,719 669,683 675,422 647,229 618,190 579,870 543,068 502,602Operating transfers in13,305 75,000Operating transfers out(287,778) (265,241) (335,118) (317,694) (328,438) (395,123) (395,123) (406,977) (419,186) (431,762) (444,714) (458,056) (471,798) (485,951) (500,530) (515,546)Beginning retained earnings11,978,004 11,687,229 12,563,219 12,738,102 12,997,223 13,913,507 13,695,704 13,816,107 13,969,738 14,149,271 14,387,193 14,617,900 14,807,073 14,953,465 15,047,384 15,089,922Ending retained earnings11,687,229 12,563,219 12,738,102 12,997,223 13,913,507 13,695,704 13,816,107 13,969,738 14,149,271 14,387,193 14,617,900 14,807,073 14,953,465 15,047,384 15,089,922 15,076,977ProjectedPer Financial Statements
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsStorm Sewer Fund7% 3% 3% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Storm Sewer Rate$13.50 $14.50 $15.00 $15.50 $16.25 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50Other revenue increase3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Expenditure increase3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Budget Budget2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019ProjectedPer Financial StatementsCash flow Operating income (loss)108,328 257,696 264,999 527,783 512,087 289,357 631,916 659,448 685,828 743,998 734,988 691,741 647,196 601,315 554,057 505,382 Depreciation365,710 371,574 372,128 432,725 445,774 450,000 455,000 468,650 482,710 497,191 512,107 527,470 543,294 559,593 576,380 593,672 Other changes181,823 240,853(287,159)109,654(318,762) Intergovernmental521,567 717,647 165,798 763,0780000000000 0 Interest income23,715 18,900 18,554 66,634 25,387 40,000 20,000 11,075 9,396 8,133 7,968 7,379 6,305 3,956 11,211 16,020 Interest expense(147,138) (139,972) (130,578) (120,531) (166,787) (134,037) (122,390) (109,915) (96,505) (82,448) (67,535) (51,891) (35,311) (25,400) (22,200) (18,800) Transfers(274,473) (190,241) (335,118) (317,694) (328,438) (395,123) (395,123) (406,977) (419,186) (431,762) (444,714) (458,056) (471,798) (485,951) (500,530) (515,546) Miscellaneous03,217000000000 0 Bond proceeds/PIR Loans1,220,0061,330,4000 Debt payments-Existing PIR Loan(54,906) (61,840) (63,937) (66,101) (68,340) Debt payments-2001 bonds(175,000) (180,000) (185,000) (195,000) (250,000) (210,000) (220,000) (230,000) (240,000) (250,000) (260,000) (275,000) (285,000) Debt (Prin) - 2007 bonds**(60,000) (60,000) (65,000) (65,000) (70,000) (70,000) (75,000) (75,000) (80,000) (85,000) (85,000) Debt (P&I) - 2009 Bonds00000000 Bond payment-2010-15 yrs 5.5%(128,174) (128,174) (128,174) (128,174) (128,174) (128,174) (128,174) (128,174) (128,174) Bond payment-2015-15 yrs 5.5%0000 Capital(255,031) (1,816,630) (348,388) (1,511,263) (1,009,846) (350,000) (1,356,075) (266,254) (279,566) (293,545) (308,222) (281,420) (295,491) (155,133) (213,385) (171,034)Cash flow(226,972) (978,093)23,148 315,228(395,847) (369,803)283,728(67,146) (50,498) (6,606) (23,582) (42,951) (93,979)290,205 192,359 196,520Beginning cash 1,791,595 1,564,623 586,530 609,678 924,906 529,059 159,256 442,984 375,838 325,340 318,734 295,152 252,200 158,221 448,426 640,786Ending cash1,564,623 586,530 609,678 924,906 529,059 159,256 442,984 375,838 325,340 318,734 295,152 252,200 158,221 448,426 640,786 837,305
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendix E
Solid Waste Fund Projections
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsSolid Waste FundOther revenue increaseExpenditure increaseRevenues Charges for services Other Total operating revenuesExpenses Personnel Supplies Other Professional services Disposal charges Collection charges County fee-(9% of sales) Other Fuel surcharge Total operating expenseOperating income (loss)Non operating rev (exp) Interest income Intergovernmental Other revenue Total non operatingNet income (loss)Operating transfers inOperating transfers outBeginning retained earningsEnding retained earnings3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Budget Budget2004 2005 2006 2007 20082009 20102011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20192,021,725 1,857,808 2,124,203 2,395,469 2,347,995 2,418,080 2,641,971 2,747,650 2,857,556 2,971,858 3,090,732 3,214,362 3,342,936 3,476,654 3,615,720 3,760,34900 0000 0002,021,725 1,857,808 2,124,203 2,395,469 2,347,995 2,418,080 2,641,971 2,747,650 2,857,556 2,971,858 3,090,732 3,214,362 3,342,936 3,476,654 3,615,720 3,760,34931,354 37,472 34,382 34,281 42,171 128,225 128,400 132,252 136,220 140,306 144,515 148,851 153,316 157,916 162,653 167,53327,957 20,678 49,529 23,132 57,180 48,500 58,500 60,255 62,063 63,925 65,842 67,818 69,852 71,948 74,106 76,32935,860 10,751 1,824 7,604 10,468 5,250 9,000 9,270 9,548 9,835 10,130 10,433 10,746 11,069 11,401 11,7431,854,824 1,912,537 1,896,104 1,912,515 1,982,594 2,233,000 2,240,000 2,307,200 2,376,416 2,447,708 2,521,140 2,596,774 2,674,677 2,754,917 2,837,565 2,922,69246,620 37,766 47,463 42,063 43,264 51,800 50,900 52,427 54,000 55,620 57,288 59,007 60,777 62,601 64,479 66,41300 0000 0001,996,615 2,019,204 2,029,302 2,019,595 2,135,677 2,466,775 2,486,800 2,561,404 2,638,246 2,717,394 2,798,915 2,882,883 2,969,369 3,058,450 3,150,204 3,244,71025,110(161,396)94,901 375,874 212,318(48,695)155,171 186,246 219,310 254,465 291,817 331,479 373,567 418,203 465,516 515,63934,032 53,221 89,507 125,968 79,604 90,000 75,000 26,785 10,131 9,895 10,281 11,352 13,177 15,825 19,374 23,904119,165 91,516 90,016 101,301 90,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,0002,500 3,00014134,032 174,886 184,023 215,984 181,046 180,000 170,000 121,785 105,131 104,895 105,281 106,352 108,177 110,825 114,374 118,90459,142 13,490 278,924 591,858 393,364 131,305 325,171 308,031 324,441 359,359 397,098 437,831 481,744 529,029 579,890 634,542(313,071) (345,492) (335,617) (348,866) (353,299) (314,732) (1,314,732) (324,174) (333,899) (343,916) (354,234) (364,861) (375,807) (387,081) (398,693) (410,654)2,953,651 2,699,722 2,367,720 2,311,027 2,554,019 2,594,084 2,410,657 1,421,096 1,404,953 1,395,495 1,410,938 1,453,802 1,526,773 1,632,710 1,774,658 1,955,8552,699,722 2,367,720 2,311,027 2,554,019 2,594,084 2,410,657 1,421,096 1,404,953 1,395,495 1,410,938 1,453,802 1,526,773 1,632,710 1,774,658 1,955,855 2,179,743ProjectedPer Financial Statements
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsSolid Waste FundOther revenue increaseExpenditure increaseCash flow Operating income (loss) Depreciation Other changes Intergovernmental Interest income Interest expense Transfers Miscellaneous Bond proceeds/PIR Loans Debt payments-Existing PIR Loan CapitalCash flowBeginning cashEnding cash3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Budget Budget2004 2005 2006 2007 20082009 20102011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019ProjectedPer Financial Statements25,110(161,396)94,901 375,874 212,318(48,695)155,171 186,246 219,310 254,465 291,817 331,479 373,567 418,203 465,516 515,63900000 00000000000(121,280)100,212(20,360) (66,506)2,532119,165 88,553 90,866 104,729 90,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,00037,477 52,211 89,507 121,332 86,548 90,000 75,000 26,785 10,131 9,895 10,281 11,352 13,177 15,825 19,374 23,9040000 00 0 0 000(313,071) (345,492) (335,617) (348,866) (353,299) (314,732) (1,314,732) (324,174) (333,899) (343,916) (354,234) (364,861) (375,807) (387,081) (398,693) (410,654)2,500 3,000141000000000 00(650,000)(371,764) (232,800) (80,016)172,700 52,969(183,427) (989,561) (666,143) (9,458)15,443 42,864 72,971 105,937 141,948 181,197 223,8892,703,292 2,331,528 2,098,728 2,018,712 2,191,412 2,244,381 2,060,954 1,071,393 405,250 395,792 411,235 454,099 527,070 633,007 774,955 956,1522,331,528 2,098,728 2,018,712 2,191,412 2,244,381 2,060,954 1,071,393 405,250 395,792 411,235 454,099 527,070 633,007 774,955 956,152 1,180,040
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendix F
Capital Improvement Plan-Water Utility
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsWater Capital Improvement Plan2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Main Rehabilitation/Replacement:PROJ. # Street Project - HWY 100 Noise Wall (West) - (relocate Vernon Ave) 20050100 Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1) - (replace Nevada Ave) 20041000 Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Excelsior Blvd Lou Blvd to Dak A20040420 360,000$ Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Parkwoods Road)20061900 Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Kilmer NH north of W16th St) 20071400 Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 4 of Pavement Mgt Pgm) 20081500 Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 5 of Pavement Mgt Pgm) 20091300 Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 6 of Pavement Mgt Pgm) 20101400 Water Project - Replace watermain20111400278,000$ Water Project - Replace watermain-Area 1 pavement mgmt20131400260,000$ Water Project - Replace watermain-Area 2 pavement mgmt20141400275,100$ SCADA Replacement: Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement (2006 / 2007)20061800 Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement (2018)2018180090,000$ NAEmergency Power Generators (Install or replace): Water Project - Back Up Power (Install @ WTP's #1 & #4)20051500 Water Project - Back Up Power (Replace @ WTP #16)NAWater Meter Replacements / Upgrades: Water Project - Replace/Upgrade Commercial Meters20071200 Water Project - Residential Automated Meter Reading (AMR)TEMP-0003Water Treatment Plant Rehab: Water Project - WTP #10 Filter Rehabilitation (Zarthan Ave @ CLR) 20041300 Water Project - WTP #4 Filter Rehabilitation (Susan Lindgren)20041301 Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation (16th & Lancaster) 20062000 Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation (Bronx Park)20081400 895,000$ Water Project - WTP #16 Filter Rehabilitation (20th & Flag)20091200 Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation (42nd & Zarthan) 20101300581,700$ Recoat Elevated Water Towers: Tower #2 - Park Glen RdNA400,000$ Tower #3 - 34th & Wyoming201215001,110,000$ Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower (Tower #4)20071500Rehab / Restore Water Storage Reservoirs: Water Project - Reservoir #1 Minor Rehabilitation20062300250,000$ Water Project - Reservoir #2 Rehabilitation20101500-$ Miscellaneous Projects: Water Project - WTP #6SLP13 VFD upgrade20131201Reilly: Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413)TEMP-0001 Water Project-WTP #6 GAC Treatment Upgrade (42nd & Zarthan)Future150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ TOTAL1,255,000$ 278,000$ -$ 2,201,700$ 675,100$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 240,000$ 150,000$ Inflated Costs5.00% 1,317,750$ 306,495$ -$ 2,676,180$ 861,618$ 201,014$ 211,065$ 221,618$ 372,319$ 244,334$
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendix G
Capital Improvement Plan-Sanitary Sewer
Utility
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsSewer Capital Improvement Plan2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Main Rehabilitation/Replacement: PROJ. # Sewer Project - Mainline rehab (PMP area #5) 20092200 Sewer Project - Mainline rehab (PMP area #6) 20102200 180,000$ Sewer Project - Mainline rehab (PMP area #7) 20112200 119,000$ Sewer Project - Mainline rehab (PMP area #8) 20122200 81,000$ Sewer Project - Mainline rehab (PMP area #1) 20132200 66,000$ Sewer Project - Mainline rehab (PMP area #2) 20142200 110,000$ Lift stations Sewer Project - LS #17 and FM Rehab 20092300 Sewer Project - LS #19 Generator and controls 20102300 150,000$ Sewer Project - LS #3 and FM Rehab 20122300 475,000$ Sewer Project - LS #10 and FM Rehab 20132300 171,000$ Sewer Project - LS #10 and FM Rehab-3351 Webst 2014230060,000$ Sewer Project - LS #10 and FM Rehab 3018 Raleigh2015230060,000$ Sewer Project - LS #10 and FM Rehab 4602 Hwy 7 2016230075,000$ Sewer Project - LS #10 and FM Rehab 2454 Gettsy2017230070,000$ Sewer Project - LS #10 and FM Rehab 2839 Nevad 2018230060,000$ SCADA Replacement Water/Sewer Project-SCADA Replacement 2018180090,000$ Future110,000$ 110,000$ 110,000$ 110,000$ 210,000$ TOTAL330,000$ 119,000$ 556,000$ 237,000$ 170,000$ 170,000$ 185,000$ 180,000$ 260,000$ 210,000$ Inflated Costs5.00% 346,500$ 131,198$ 643,640$ 288,075$ 216,968$ 227,816$ 260,314$ 265,942$ 403,345$ 342,068$
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendix H
Capital Improvement Plan-Storm Sewer Utility
City of St. Louis ParkUtility FundsStorm Sewer Fund Capital Improvements Financed by City2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Main Rehabilitation/Replacement:PROJ # Water Project - Main Replacement Excelsior Blvd20040402 Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20072300 Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20081600 Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20091400 Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20101600 200,000$ Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20111200200,000$ Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20121200200,000$ Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20131200200,000$ Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20141200200,000$ Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20151200200,000$ Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement (Area TBD) 20161200200,000$ Storm Water Project - Annual CD Repairs20090006SCADA Replacement: Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement (2006)20061800 Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement (2018)2018180031,000$ NAPond Construction / Rehabilitation: Storm Water Project - Flood Area #4 (Lamplighter)20001800 Storm Water Project - Westwood Lake20061300Lift Station Rehabilitation: Storm Water Project - Flood Area #4 (Lamplighter)20001800 Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)20072400 500,000$ Flood Improvement Projects: Storm Water Project - Flood Area #2520031200 Storm Water Project - Flood Area #1020031210 Storm Water Project - Flood Area #2620031300 Storm Water Project - Flood Area #2420031600 Storm Water Project - Flood Area #3220031400 Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding20091500 500,000$ Storm Water Project - floodproof grantsNA Storm Water Project - City Hall Parking Lot20072500Catch Basin Project Annual Repairs30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ FUTURE ESTIMATED100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ TOTAL1,230,000$ 230,000$ 230,000$ 230,000$ 230,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 131,000$ 100,000$ Inflated Costs5.00% 1,356,075$ 266,254$ 279,566$ 293,545$ 308,222$ 281,420$ 295,491$ 155,133$ 213,385$ 171,034$
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Appendix I
Proposed 2010 Rates and Tiers
Quarterly Rates Usage Range
Rates
Water Usage
Residential Tier One 0-40 units $1.29
Tier Two Over 40 units to 80 units $1.62
Tier Three Over 80 units $2.43
Multi Family-per unit
basis
Tier One 0-40 units $1.29
Tier Two Over 40 units to 80 units $1.62
Tier Three Over 80 units $2.43
Commercial-average Tier One 0-40 units $1.29
Tier Two Over 40 units to 240 units $1.62
Tier Three Over 240 units $2.43
Commercial-high user Tier One 0-1,300 units $1.29
Tier Two Over 1,300 units to 6,600 units $1.55
Tier Three Over 6,600 units $1.86
Water Fixed
Residential-Qtrly 5/8” $6.35
¾” $7.71
1” $11.30
1 ½” $19.08
2” $29.53
3” $55.61
4” $90.03
6” $176.44
2” compound $29.53
3” compound $55.61
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Utility Rate Study
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota January, 2010
Commercial-Monthly 5/8” $4.08
¾” $4.59
1” $5.93
1 ½” $8.74
2” $12.68
3” $22.30
4” $37.60
6” $72.65
2” compound $12.68
3” compound $22.30
4” compound $37.60
6” compound $72.65
Sewer Fixed
Residential-Multifamily Quarterly $11.40
Commercial Monthly $11.40
Sewer Usage
All Users Based on units of water used during the
winter quarter
$2.21
Storm Sewer
All Users Based on residential equivalent units $14.50
Meeting Date: January 11, 2010
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 Agenda - 2010 City Council Workshop.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council feedback and direction as to the attached draft agenda which has been
prepared based on responses received from the survey completed by Councilmembers. It is
important that consensus is reached by Council on the agenda and related topics.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is Council in agreement with the direction staff has outlined on the draft agenda?
BACKGROUND:
For the past several years the City Council has met in a day and one half workshop to enhance
relationships and discuss policy related matters. Last year the focus of the workshop was on the
recommitment to the four Strategic Directions, gaining a clear understanding of the community’s
perceptions of the City as a result of the Decision Resources Survey with next steps identified, having
a better understanding of the City’s Long Range Financial Management Plan, obtaining a general
understanding of the services the City provides, and an approach for attaining a deeper
understanding of the City’s finances and the services it delivers.
This year’s workshop is scheduled for the late afternoon and evening of Friday, February 19 and
during the day on Saturday, February 20. All Department Directors will be available on Saturday to
participate in the workshop. The location of the workshop will be at the Melrose Institute.
To assist with developing the agenda for the workshop all Council members completed a simple
survey to help flesh out ideas. Attached is a copy of the survey results.
The overall theme that seems to have emerged from the survey results was “Looking In/Looking
Out”:
o Looking In -- Understanding that looking inward in terms of the Councils future working
relationship has an impact on everything else and is a great starting point. Quality
conversations need to take place between Council members with minimal staff presence.
o Looking Out – Department Directors will be included in these discussions which will start
with Vision as the foundation and how projects are integrated into the process. This portion
of the workshop will focus on the current and future big picture outlook for the City (to be
determined by Council).
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Underlying themes identified from the survey included learning or reinforcing learning about the
City’s approach to governance utilizing the Carver Governance Model, relationship development
utilizing the Mobius Model, and understanding roles of the Council and staff.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The practice of the City Council has been to use an off-site facility for the workshop and keep costs
to a minimum. This same approach is proposed for this coming workshop and is budgeted for
accordingly.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachment: Council Workshop Survey Results
Draft Agenda
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Introduction
To insure the annual workshop is as productive as possible it is important that
consensus is reached by the City Council on the agenda and related topics for the
workshop. This survey is intended to collect ideas from you that can then used by the
entire Council to develop the workshop agenda.
Premise
Staff would suggest there are several underlying themes for this council workshop that
are important to incorporate somehow into the agenda. These include developing
relationships, understanding roles, and learning (or reinforcing learning) about the
City’s approach to governance.
Instructions
In order to prepare for a Study Session discussion on January 11, we ask that you fill
out the following survey and return it to Bridget Gothberg by January 4, 2009.
The survey is being provided in both WORD and PDF typeable formats. The results
of the survey will be presented to the Council in aggregate and not attributed to any
specific Council member. Please return completed surveys to Bridget Gothberg via
Email (bgothberg@stlouispark.org), facsimile ((952) 924.2170) or mail (5005
Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416).
SURVEY - Jacobs, Sanger, Omodt, Finkelstein, Santa, Mavity, Ross
1. What do you need/want to make this a successful workshop?
• Since there are new people on the council I do think we need to go back a few
steps and go through the Mobius circle and discuss council relationships for at
least the first part of this. We need to get the new folks up to speed on that and
discover their “type.” The next part should focus on the grandest sorts of
demographic and societal changes that are coming, i.e. aging baby boomers,
LRT and what that will mean for the next 30 to 50 years. We have a rare
chance to focus on the forest fires now rather than the brush fires.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 4
• Understanding other council members’ passions and priorities; understanding
how they prefer to interact and have conversations and, conversely, what pushes
their buttons in the wrong ways.
• Good chairs to sit in.
• Specific goals.
• A personality test like Myers Briggs to understand communication styles that will
allow us to work more effectively as a group. This could be a guided exercise as most
of us may know our styles already.
• We need a thorough understanding of the budget – not every line item, but an
understanding of where we are today, what challenges are on the horizon, and
what the city staff’s and council’s approach to this has been (historically) and
will be/could be (future).
• Time to explore subjects and discussions with out a tight schedule.
• For those more structured topics, a herder to keep us on task.
• Stepping back to look at the long view of our city’s future. Incorporate a
framework from Vision SLP and look at how we fit into the Metro area, how
our schools and city’s success is dependent on each other, and thinking about
(understanding) how our decisions today impact how our city looks and feels in
20 years (and beyond). Short-term demands vs. long-term investments.
2. Using the following as examples, please identify the top three things you
would like covered in the workshop?
a. Carver Governance Model (how we work as a board) 5
b. Understanding each other 3
c. Learning more about group process
d. Roles and responsibilities of Council and Staff 1
e. Big picture project(s) on the horizon
(such as Highway 7 & Louisiana, Southwest Light Rail, Freight Rail etc.) 5
Please note (as I wrote earlier), I think the topics for the “Big picture projects” should be more
focused on long-term frameworks and trends, and less on specific project details.
f. 2011 Budget 4
g. Vision SLP and Strategic Directions 4
h. Dispatch
i. Other (please write in)
Review of Housing Programs
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 5
3. What else do you want to tell us that would make this workshop valuable for
you?
• At the end of the day I would like to understand my colleagues, especially the
new ones, and have a sense that they understand me, how we think and how we
make decisions, and communicate and process information. Also, see above, I
really think that we have a rare chance to think about truly visionary things
since we won’t be focused so much on short term things. True, we will have to
think about dispatch and various CIP projects but those are “normal” bumps in
the road and we deal with stuff like that all the time. We will need to look at
changes in transit, transportation routes, development around LRT nodes,
aging population and how SLP will deal with the coming urbanization of the
entire town. Changes, they are a comin.’
• As I am new to the council and will have many questions, it would be helpful
to check back in 6 months to see where we may be as a group as well as seeing
what individual needs might be.
• Where will it be?
• Keep private things private. Don’t air our dirty laundry in public. Let it be.
Please return completed surveys to Bridget Gothberg by January 4, 2010 via Email
(bgothberg@stlouispark.org), facsimile ((952) 924.2170) or mail (5005 Minnetonka
Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416).
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 6
FIRST DRAFT
City Council Workshop
Agenda
Site: Melrose Institute
City Council with Tom Harmening and Nancy Gohman
Bridget Gothberg, Facilitator
Looking In/Looking Out
Outcomes
Looking In:
• To build on our foundation so we can continue to be a high performing team
• To better understand the Carver Governance Model
Looking Out:
• To review Vision and the Four Strategic Directions
• To look at BIG PICTURE projects now and in the future for the city.
Friday, February 19th
4:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Looking In---
(City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Council, and OD Coordinator for
Facilitation/Herding)
• Mobius Model
• Understanding our types
• Looking at approaches
• Norms
• Carver
Saturday, February 20
8:30 a.m. –4:00 p.m.
Looking Out---
(Department Heads present and participatory)
• Look at big picture vision—recommit to strategic directions/add/integrate
• Current Big Picture Look – to be identified
• Future Big Picture Look – to be identified
Meeting Date: January 11, 2010
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:
2009 Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Each year the City Council receives from each of its boards and commissions an annual report for
the past year and their work plan for the coming year.
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the 2009 annual report and 2010
work plan for the Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Are the actions of the TAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
• Does the City Council wish to meet with the TAC to discuss the annual report and work
plan?
BACKGROUND:
The TAC advises Council regarding the existing and future cable TV franchises and related services
in St. Louis Park. It receives citizen comments or complaints about cable service, recommends
improvements to the system, and studies other technologies as directed by the Council. The TAC
consists of seven regular members, one voting youth member, and one ex-officio member, a
representative from Comcast Cable. (Currently, the TAC does not have a youth member). The
TAC meets 4 or more times per year and on an as needed basis. The meetings are held in the
Council Chambers so they can be carried live and replayed on Park TV’s Civic channel 17.
The Telecommunications Commission officially met five times in 2009 and Commissioners
remained involved in other ways including:
• Commissioners Browning, Dworsky and Keeler attended the March 23 Council Study
Session to discuss the Telecommunications Commission annual report and work plan for
2009.
• Commissioners Dworsky, Hartman and Keeler attended the MACTA annual conference in
October.
• Chair Keeler contacted staff as needed to prepare or follow up on Commission activities. He
also attended the Council Study Session on October 26, 2009 to testify about LocaLoop
pertaining to fiber optic policy, and kept in touch with CIO Clint Pires about ongoing
negotiations.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
• Commissioner Dworsky and Commission liaison John McHugh attended a National
Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) conference in New
Orleans and reported back to the Commission.
Other activities of the TAC include:
School District #283 Funding/Operations Agreement
On May 7 the Commission recommended $35,000 for operating expenses, $14,000 for equipment
requested by School District staff, and $4,000 to support the Junior High Video Club.
Subsequently, City and School District staff began negotiating an operating agreement that would
discontinue the annual grants to assure the Cable TV budget would remain healthy until the end of
the franchise in 2021, with the City assuming additional School District television production and
technical operations. The Commission was apprised of the negotiations at their August 13 meeting,
and voted 5-0 to support the initiative. The City Council was subsequently briefed on this and staff
is currently working out the details of an agreement with the District.
WiFi Hotspots Subcommittee
The first three Hotspots were established in 2009 at the Rec Center, City Hall, and Westwood Hills
Nature Center, to be followed by Lenox Community Center in 2010. The School District will need
to be involved to set up a hot spot at Lenox. John McHugh facilitated the WiFi Hotspots
subcommittee and collected input about advertising and signage. Members of the subcommittee
included Bruce Browning, David Dyer, Rick Dworsky, and Clint Pires.
Fiber Optic opportunity and long term plan
At the joint meeting with the Council and Commission, the Council’s consensus was to not spend a
previously designated $50,000 for a fiber optic study. Chief Information Officer Clint Pires said
there is a potential to make further use of the fiber that the City received from the legal settlement
with ARINC. City Manager Tom Harmening said he’d like the City to consider how it can use the
fiber that is in place in a way that benefits the community, pays the City’s costs, and promotes
redevelopment and business development.
Later LocaLoop approached the City about using a small portion of the fiber as the backbone for a
4G WiMax infrastructure, along with City water towers as antenna sites. Clint Pires provided
background for the Commission on October 8, describing fairness and accessibility for other
providers as key issues for the short and the long term.
Carl Torarp of Local Loop, a local St. Louis Park company, presented their business proposal
including fixed services to homes in St. Louis Park and a complimentary service that is mobile,
competitively priced, and five to six times the speed of cellular 3G. Benefits to the City could
include private affordable broadband, utilizing revenue-generating City assets and fiber, extension of
City fiber at LocaLoop cost, and a city-wide service potentially usable for public safety and other
applications.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3
The Commission voted 4-0 to recommend the City move forward with the project as proposed, and
to develop a long-term fiber optic policy. On October 26 the City Council met with Local Loop
representatives and discussed this matter with staff. From that discussion the City Council asked
staff to negotiate an agreement with Local Loop for Council consideration. Staff and Local Loop are
working on the details of an agreement.
Digital Television Transition (DTV)
Commissioner Browning and John McHugh collaborated on an informational video about the
digital TV transition for “Inside the Park!” and information was posted on the City’s website. The
transition was postponed from February to June to allow more people to prepare by obtaining digital
converters. Staff received some calls from residents who had difficulty tuning the digital channels
and assisted as many as possible.
State Legislative Issues
Chair Keeler attended a MACTA Legislative luncheon and summarized that for the Commission. A
new bill for statewide franchising for Cable TV was introduced on the last day of the Legislative
session. Similar laws have been passed in other states and the results haven’t been as good as
predicted.
On August 13, 2009 the Commission voted 5-0 to direct staff to contact local elected officials and
Representatives Sheldon Johnson and Joe Atkins to express their opposition to the proposed bill.
The Council was updated in a written report for the November 9 Study Session.
Comcast Complaints
Staff categorized complaints logged by city staff as directed by the Commission, and presented the
results at the December 10 meeting (attached). The number of complaint calls dropped slightly in
2009 but total cable service complaints dropped almost 25 percent, which means callers usually had
one complaint rather than several. Billing complaints are about 1/3 of the total complaints, and
Comcast has introduced a new customer statement layout to address this area. The Commission
reviews complaints at each meeting, and Comcast’s Public Affairs Administrator answers questions,
explains company policies and follows up on Commission suggestions.
At the October 8, 2009 meeting, Comcast’s Public Affairs Coordinator Arlen Mattern introduced
the Comcast customer service guaranty, which includes these main points:
• Friendly, reliable and superior customer service
• “Make it Right” cards – include a phone number to call, for Comcast employees to
distribute to customers as needed.
• Expanded hours including Sunday
• “Working to Earn a 10 from you,” aiming for an approval rating of 9 or 10
• Comcast.com is available for further help and support
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 4
• Guarantees include: 30-day money back guarantee; treat you and your home with courtesy
and respect; answer questions at your convenience; offer easy to understand packages and
provide a clear bill; continually offer the best and most video choices; quickly address any
problem you experience; schedule appointments at your convenience and be mindful of your
time
Comcast Audit
The auditor report was sent to Comcast on October 2, 2009. For the Time Warner period of
7/1/05-9/30/06, there was unreported revenue and interest owed totaling $14,672. For the
Comcast period of 10/1/06-6/30/08, it was $6,181. The auditor said that Comcast would be
responsible for the entire amount since they assumed control of the system in 2006. But Comcast
notified City staff October 30 that Time Warner would be responsible for their period of the audit
because of the way the various cable systems were transferred in 2006. Staff then forwarded the
report to Time Warner on November 2, 2009, and has not received a response.
Comcast Fees and Services Changes Effective January 1, 2010
Staff and Comcast’s Public Affairs Coordinator Arlen Mattern addressed new prices and changes in
service at the December 10 meeting. Basic Cable stays the same price; all other cable TV packages
increase by $1.95. High-speed internet service will effectively increase $1 for most customers because
there is a $3 increase in cable modem monthly rental, but a $2 decrease for the actual Internet
service. There are no changes in prices for installation fees, equipment like digital converters,
premium services like HBO and Showtime, or bundled Triple Play Packages. The best news is that
Comcast has introduced a new level of cable TV service called Digital Economy, which includes 49
digital channels for $29.95 per month if the customer has High Speed Internet or Digital Voice
service. The stand alone price for Digital Economy is $39.95.
Officers
At the December 10 meeting, the Commission elected Bruce Browning as Chair and Toby Keeler as
Vice Chair for 2010.
Telecommunications Commission Attendance: 2009
Commissioner 2/12/09 3/23/09
Council
Study
Session
5/7/09 8/13/09 10/8/09 12/10/09 Total
attended
Toby Keeler (Chair) YES YES YES YES YES YES 6
Rolf Peterson (Vice Chair) YES - YES - YES - 3
Bruce Browning YES YES YES YES YES YES 6
Rick Dworsky YES YES YES YES YES YES 6
David Dyer YES - YES - - - 2
Dale Hartman YES - YES YES YES YES 5
Mike Mulligan YES - YES YES - YES 4
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 5
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This report supports the strategic direction – St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community.
Attachment: Cable TV complaints received & logged by city staff 2004-2009
Telecommunications Commission Work Plan: 2010
Telecommunications Advisory Commission Bylaws
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Through: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Cable TV complaints received & logged by city staff
(Some customers reported more than one complaint)
Complaint Category Complaints
2005
Complaints
2006
Complaints
2007
Complaints
2008
Complaints
2009* AS
OF
12/10/09
Billing 10 36 19 30 28
Construction (e.g., right of way,
unburied cable, property damage)
7 3 0 2 3
Customer Service/ Relations (e.g.,
missed or late appointments, company
response to issue, attitude)
7 3 8 7 0
Installation (e.g., property damage) 0 0 0 0 0
Programming Options (lost channels,
want new channels)
7 12 27 16 6
Rates, prices 6 3 22 16 7
Technical Service (e.g., outage,
reception, equipment faulty/lack of
features)
7 15 3 15 10
Service Requests (e.g.,
residential/commercial)
0 0 0 0 0
Telephone Customer Service (e.g.,
hold, busy, no one available)
2 12 10 9 8
Miscellaneous 2 3 8 9 14
Total Cable Service Complaints 48 87 97 99 76
Digital Voice/Telephone 0 2 2 3 2
Cable Modem/Internet Issues 3 18 13 6 3
Combined Total of All Processed
Complaints (includes Digital
Voice/Telephone and Cable Modem/
Internet)
51 107 112 108 81
Average complaints per month
reported to city staff
4.3 8.9 9.3 9.8 6.75
Total complaint calls
(some callers mention more than 1
complaint)
89 85 83 76
Approx number of subscribers on
average for the year
13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Note: Time Warner to Comcast transition: August 1, 2006
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 7
2010 Telecommunications Commission Work Plan
January 11: Written report to Council (Annual report for 2009, Work Plan for 2010)
January 25: Joint meeting at City Council Study Session (if requested by Council)
February 11 Council Chambers
♦ LocaLoop update
♦ Fiber optic long range planning ordinance update
♦ Park TV & Community TV update
♦ Franchise fee audit, including proper notice for future audits to cover 7/1/08 and onward
♦ Federal law updates
May 13 Council Chambers
♦ Review School District reports & Park TV integration
♦ Hot Spots Subcommittee update: plans for Lenox Community Center
♦ LocaLoop update
♦ Fiber optic long range planning ordinance update
August 19 Council Chambers
♦ LocaLoop update
♦ Fiber optic long range planning ordinance update
♦ Comcast customer service update
October 21 Council Chambers
♦ Review School District reports & Park TV integration
December 2 Council Chambers
♦ Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up
♦ Draft Annual Report for 2010
♦ Set meetings for 2011
♦ Draft Work Plan for 2011
♦ Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 8
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMISSION BYLAWS
ARTICLE I – THE COMMISSION
1.1 Name of the Commission. The Commission was officially created as the Cable Television
Advisory Commission by Ordinance 1783-89 on April 17, 1989, and reestablished and
renamed the Telecommunications Advisory Commission (“The Commission” by Ordinance
2216-01 effective January 1, 2002.
1.2 Powers. The powers of the Commission shall be as stated in section 2-184 of the St. Louis
Park City Code.
1.3 Relation to the Ordinance. These bylaws supplement the Ordinance, and in the case of
conflict, are subordinate to the Ordinance.
ARTICLE II – OFFICERS & STAFF
2.1 Officers. The officers of the Commission shall be the Chair and Vice-Chair.
2.2 Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and is eligible to vote on
all matters coming before the Commission. The chair shall appoint all committees. The
chair shall have the responsibility for calling special meetings of the Commission and for
conducting all meetings in an orderly manner.
2.2 Vice-Chair. The Vice-Chair shall perform the duties of the chair in the absence or
incapacity of the Chair.
2.3 Staff Liaison. A staff liaison to the Commission shall be appointed by the city manager and
shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the city. The staff liaison may
facilitate or assist in the meetings and shall be responsible for recording attendance of
commission members and for preparation of minutes. The staff liaison is responsible for
keeping the city manager informed regarding the business of the commission and shall
communicate to the city manager any problems or issues that may arise. The staff liaison
shall also be responsible for assisting the commission in considering their financial needs and,
if deemed necessary by the commission, shall request appropriate funding from the city
council through the annual budget process.
ARTICLE III - ELECTIONS
3.1 Elections. A regular election shall be held at the annual meeting each year. Officers shall be
nominated from the floor by any voting member of the commission.
3.2 Term of Office. Officers will assume office at the first meeting following an election. The
term for officers shall be one year and the chair may only serve one consecutive year as chair.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 9
3.3 Succession of Office. The Vice-Chair shall succeed to the office of Chair in the event the
Chair is vacant by virtue of any inability to fulfill the duties of the office. Should the Vice-
Chair thus move to the Chair, a special election shall be held to fill the unexpired term of the
Vice-Chair.
ARTICLE IV – CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
4.1 Voting. Each regular member of the Commission including the Commissioner appointed
by the School Board and any Youth Member appointed by the City Council shall be entitled
to one vote on all matters brought to a vote.
4.2 Quorum. Four (4) commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting
its business. A smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is obtained.
4.3 Majority Vote Required. A majority vote of the members present and voting is required for
passage of all matters before the Commission.
ARTICLE V – MEETINGS
5.1 Meetings. All meetings of the commission will be conducted in accordance with the
Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Proceedings of the Commission will be conducted as
outlined in the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure.
5.2 Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the Commission shall be the last meeting held
each year at which time elections will be held and a summation of progress made, work
accomplished and a proposed work program for the coming year shall be prepared for
delivery to the City Council.
5.3 Regular Meetings. The Commission will hold at least four regular meetings each year.
Regular meeting dates shall be set during the final meeting of each year for the upcoming
year and shall not be held on any of the holidays recognized by the St. Louis Park City
Council. Those holidays include: Ash Wednesday, Chanukah, Christmas, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Martin Luther King Day, Memorial Day, Passover (first two nights),
President’s Day, New Year's Day, Rosh Hashanah, Thanksgiving Day and the Friday after
Thanksgiving Day, Veterans Day and Yom Kippur. (For Chanukah, Christmas, Passover,
Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiday includes the evening before the holiday.) The
meeting time shall be 7:00 p.m. promptly. Meeting dates shall be posted in advance in the
city offices. The commission may change the regular meeting time or date as deemed
appropriate, provided the public notice requirement for a special meeting is met.
5.4 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the chair or three
commissioners for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for
special meeting shall be delivered in compliance with state law. At least one day prior to the
meeting, a notice must be delivered to the Commissioners of the date, time, place and
purpose of the special meeting. Notice of the date, time, place and purpose of a special
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 10
meeting must also be posted on the principal bulletin board of the city at least three days
prior to the date of the meeting.
5.5 Emergency Meetings. An emergency meeting may be called by the chair due to
circumstances which require immediate consideration. Notice must be made to
commissioners by any means available. A good faith effort shall be made to provide notice of
the meeting to any news medium that has filed a written request for notice of meetings. The
notice shall include the purpose of the meeting.
5.6 Record of Proceedings. All minutes and resolutions shall be in writing and shall be recorded
in the journal of the proceedings of the commission. Records shall be kept in accordance
with MN Statute and rules regarding preservation of public records and the MN Data
Privacy Act.
ARTICLE VI – ATTENDANCE
6.1 Absences. If a Commissioner is unable to attend a regularly scheduled or special meeting of
the Commission, that member shall notify the City staff liaison of this fact no later than 4
p.m. the day of the meeting.
6.2 Attendance. Commission members are expected to attend regular and special commission
meetings and assigned committee meetings. A roster of attendance shall be maintained.
Repeated absences shall result in the chair contacting the member to ascertain his/her
intentions as to continuing involvement on this Commission.
6.3 Request for Council Action. Should the member not wish to continue to serve on the
Commission, or should the member have continuing absences, the chair shall inform the
City Council of this fact, recommending the Council appoint a replacement.
ARTICLE VII – AMENDMENTS
7.1 Amendments. Amendments to these bylaws may be proposed by any voting member. All
proposed amendments shall be submitted in writing to each member of the Commission at
least fifteen (15) days prior to the regular meeting of the Commission at which that
amendment is to be considered. A statement explaining the purpose and effect of the
proposed amendment shall be attached to the proposed amendment. Amendments shall be
considered only at regular meetings of the Commission.
Adopted January 27, 1983
Revised August 23, 1984
Revised March 10, 1997
Revised December 5, 2002
Revised May 5, 2005
Revised December 7, 2006
Revised May 3, 2007
Meeting Date: January 11, 2010
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:
Communications (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: January 11, 2010
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:
Fire Stations Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None required at this time. This report is intended to serve as an update on the status of planning
for the replacement of the City’s two fire stations.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Nothing specific at this time.
BACKGROUND:
During the November 9 study session staff provided Council with a proposed process and approach
for designing and implementing the reconstruction of the City’s two fire stations. One
recommendation made was for the City to use a “construction management” approach to undertake
the project with a construction manager being brought on board first. By using this approach the
construction manager would act as the city’s representative throughout the planning, design and
construction of the stations. The Council concurred with this approach. Since that time city staff
has prepared and issued a “Request for Proposals” to firms providing construction management
(CM) services.
Ten firms responded to the City’s Request for Proposals. Staff is very pleased with the response and
the strong interest from the CM providers.
A Selection Subcommittee has been formed to review the proposals that were received on January 5,
2010. Staff anticipates conducting interviews on January 22, and presenting its recommendations to
City Council in February, 2010. The professional services contract for CM’s services will require
City Council approval.
The Selection Subcommittee includes: Fire Chief Luke Stemmer, Assistant Fire Chief Mark
Windschitl, Parks and Recreation Director Cindy Walsh, Inspections Director Brian Hoffman,
Building Codes Inspector Jim Dube, Community Development Director Kevin Locke, and Senior
Planner Sean Walther.
Some of the criteria staff will use to evaluate the proposals include: the firms’ general expertise,
qualifications, experience and strength; the experience of individuals on the firms’ project teams; the
firms’ understanding of the project and sites; the firm’s approach to project management; experience
with sustainable design practices; and the firms’ proposed fee structure and total amount.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2
In preparation for the request for proposal process, staff assembled a list of nearly 60 construction
management companies. Sources for the list included the Associated General Contractors of
Minnesota, Construction Management Association of America, references from members of the Fire
Chief’s Association, and CM providers that directly expressed interest.
Staff invited 12 CM providers to submit proposals. These twelve companies received positive
references from Fire Chiefs, are based in SLP, or have individuals working in the companies that
Working Group members were familiar with from past projects. The list was shared with the
Directors Oversight Group and Working Group members. The 12 firms included:
• Adolfson & Peterson Construction • Kraus-Anderson Construction Co.
• Amcon Construction Company • RA Morton and Associates
• Bossardt Corporation • RJM Construction
• EDS Builders • Sebesta Blomberg & Associates*
• Gundlach Champion* • Stahl Construction
• Knutson Construction Services • Stiglich Construction
(*Gundlach Champion and Sebesta Blomberg did not submit proposals.)
Once the CM is selected, the next steps will be to seek, and hire, the architectural and engineering
services for the fire stations project. Then the design process will begin. That process will include
community participation. Based on the work that still needs to be accomplished to allow for the
project proceed, it is not anticipated that construction will likely start until the spring of 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 11, 2010
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:
Southwest Transitway Resolution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time; This report has been prepared to provide background information to the City
Council regarding an item being placed on the 1/19/10 Council agenda regarding Southwest Transit
and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that has been selected.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to adopt a resolution in support of Hennepin County’s Locally
Preferred Alternative (LPA) as requested by Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council?
BACKGROUND:
Alternative 3A was selected by Hennepin County as the “Locally Preferred Alternative” transit route
to forward to the Metropolitan Council based on the findings of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). This route begins in Eden Prairie and goes through the Golden Triangle and
Opus office parks, continuing through Hopkins, St. Louis Park and on the Kenilworth alignment to
downtown Minneapolis (shown in yellow on the map below).
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
The anticipated timeline for the Southwest Transit project is shown in the chart below. In 2010 the
DEIS will be finalized, and the study will become a Metropolitan Council project. Preliminary
engineering is expected to begin in 2010, with the line operational in the 2015-17 timeframe.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Southwest Transit project unanimously
recommended the selection of Route 3A as the locally preferred alternative with conditions including
that agencies work cooperatively to identify impacts, mitigation requirements, and mitigation
funding options to address the potential of rerouting freight rail in a parallel process with the
Southwest LRT DEIS and to identify the freight rail issue and impacts as a part of the “secondary
and cumulative impacts.” The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for the Southwest Transit project
also recommended the selection of Route 3A as the locally preferred alternative with the conditions
as recommended by the TAC.
In order to solidify support for the line, the Metropolitan Council has asked communities to provide
a resolution of support of the Hennepin County Locally Preferred Alternative (see attached letter
from Peter Bell, Chair of the Met Council). A proposed resolution prepared by staff is attached for
Council review.
FREIGHT RAIL STUDY UPDATE
In December city staff met with County Commissioner Gail Dorfman and county staff on the
Freight Rail Relocation Study. This study, which is expected to be undertaken by the County this
spring, will focus on St. Louis Park and analyze concerns and impacts related to the relocation of
freight rail operations and mitigation measures to address these impacts. This study will have public
process as a component and the details are still being worked out. The county staff is currently
putting together a scope of work for the purpose of selecting a consultant and will review it with city
staff soon.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 3
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Letter from Peter Bell
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 4
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION RELATING TO HENNEPIN COUNTY’S DECISION OF A LOCALLY
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SOUTHWEST TRANSITWAY
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has been an active participant and supporter of
transit in the Southwest corridor, and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has participated in the Technical, Policy and
Community Advisory Committees for the Southwest Transitway, and
WHEREAS, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) unanimously recommended the
selection of Route 3A as the locally preferred alternative with conditions including that agencies
work cooperatively to identify impacts, mitigation requirements, and mitigation funding options to
address the potential of rerouting freight rail in a parallel process with the Southwest LRT DEIS and
to identify the freight rail issue and impacts as a part of the “secondary and cumulative impacts.”
WHEREAS, the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) recommended the selection of Route 3A
as the locally preferred alternative with the conditions as recommended by the TAC.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that it
supports Hennepin County’s decision of LRT alignment 3A as the locally preferred alternative for
the Southwest Transitway.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council , 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk