HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/01/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 25, 2010
3:30 p.m. Round About Tour – Bus loads at City Hall
0. Roundabout Bus Tour
Box lunches available in Westwood Room after tour for City Council Members
attending Round About Tour
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 1 and February 8, 2010
2. 6:35 p.m. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Follow-Up Regarding Wi-
MAX Services
3. 7:20 p.m. Draft Ordinance - Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) (with
Consultant)
4. 7:50 p.m. 2010 Utility Rate Study Discussion Continuation
5. 8:50 p.m. Planning Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
6. 8:55 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
7. November - December, 2009 Monthly Financial Reports
8. Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December, 2009)
9. 2010 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds –
Proposed Allocation
10. Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 4th Quarter 2009
11. Operation Mayday Overview
9:00 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 25, 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: Tour
TITLE:
Roundabout Bus Tour.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required. Council and staff will be participating in a bus tour visiting intersections with
modern roundabouts in the communities of Eagan and Cottage Grove.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This tour will not only provide for driving / touring two roundabouts, but will also allow Council an
opportunity to ask questions and obtain information (from Council representatives) regarding
operations, concerns, and public acceptance of roundabouts.
BACKGROUND:
Council and staff have been investigating the use of modern roundabouts for the Highway 7 and
Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project and a tour was scheduled to visually see designs that are under
consideration.
Council and staff will be utilizing a 24 passenger Mini Motor Coach that will arrive at City Hall at
3:15 p.m. and depart at 3:30 p.m. sharp, returning to City Hall at approximately 6:00 p.m. prior to
the start of the 6:30 p.m. scheduled Study Session. For Council members participating in the tour, a
box lunch will be available upon their return to City Hall in the Westwood Room.
Schedule
3:30 p.m. Leave St. Louis Park City Hall - 40 minute travel to Cottage Grove
4:10 p.m. TH 61/Jamaica Roundabout Tour with Cottage Grove City Administrator –
Ryan Schroeder (20 min.)
4:30 p.m. Leave Cottage Grove - 35 minute travel to Eagan
5:05 p.m. Diffley/Rahn Roundabout Tour with Eagan Representative (TBD) (20 min.)
5:25 p.m. Leave Eagan - 30 minute travel back to City Hall
5:55 p.m. Arrive at St. Louis Park City Hall
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: None
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Jim Olson, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 25, 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 – February 1 and February 8, 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a special study session on February 1 and the
regularly scheduled study session on February 8, 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 February 1, 2010 and the regularly scheduled study session on
February 8, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for February 1 and 8, 2010
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Special Study Session, Monday, February 1, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. 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.
2. Finalize City Council Workshop Agenda – Administrative Services (15 minutes)
Staff and the City Council to finalize the agenda for the City Council workshop being held
on February 19 and 20.
End of Meeting: 7:15 p.m.
Study Session, Monday, February 8, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. MSC Soil Removal Options – Inspections and Parks & Recreation (45 minutes)
Staff, along with Consultant AECOM, will discuss possible sites for moving 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.
3. Board and Commission Policies – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
In the past the Council has expressed an interest in exploring policy related matters relative
to membership on the City’s boards and commissions. These have included minimum
length of residency requirements for prospective commissioners and commission members
providing consulting services to the City.
4. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan –
Administrative Services (10 minutes)
The City Council will be asked to review the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission’s
work plan and annual report. If so desired by the City Council, on February 22, 2010, the
Commissioners and staff liaisons will discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan with
Council. Council will be asked to provide feedback to the Commissioners.
5. Police Advisory Commission 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan – Administrative
Services (10 minutes)
The City Council will be asked to review the Police Advisory Commission’s work plan and
annual report. If so desired by the City Council, on February 22, 2010, the Commissioners
and staff liaisons will discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan with Council. Council will
be asked to provide feedback to the Commissioners.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3
6. Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan –
Administrative Services (10 minutes)
The City Council will be asked to review the Board of Zoning Appeal’s work plan and
annual report. If so desired by the City Council, on February 22, 2010, the Commissioners
and staff liaisons will discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan with Council. Council will
be asked to provide feedback to the Commissioners.
7. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
Solid Waste Program Survey Results – Public Works
MSC Renovation Project Update
End of Meeting: 8:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: January 25, 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:
Telecommunications Advisory Commission Follow-Up Regarding Wi-MAX Services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested. The information provided in this report is a follow-up to the
Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) 2009 Annual Report provided at the January 11
Council meeting. Council requested that staff and the TAC attend a future meeting to learn more
about, and address the status of, LocaLoop MAX and Clearwire. Both LocaLoop MAX and
Clearwire are planning to provide Wi-MAX service in St. Louis Park.
This also serves as a follow-up to the September 29 study session and October 26, 2009 meeting
with LocaLoop MAX, at which time Council directed staff to pursue an agreement with LocaLoop
MAX for the leasing of fiber capacity in a manner that is fair to both the City of St. Louis Park and
to future potential lessees of fiber capacity. Such an agreement would also incorporate considerations
of water tower leasing and fiber infrastructure that LocaLoop is proposing to build and turn over to
the City of St. Louis Park. This report serves as both a refresher to the October 26 report and an
opportunity for new Council members to learn about the LocaLoop MAX opportunity.
While no formal action is requested at this meeting, staff is requesting direction from Council on its
comfort level with the status of LocaLoop MAX agreement points. Based on that direction, it is
possible that related agreements could be presented to Council for formal consideration as soon as
February.
Finally, information requested by Council on Federal stimulus monies related to broadband in
Minnesota is also included in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Based on updates provided in this report and the meeting, does Council wish staff to
continue to pursue an agreement with LocaLoop MAX as directed on October 26?
An agreement with LocalLoop would include the leasing of fiber capacity in a manner that is fair to
both the City of St. Louis Park and to future potential lessees of fiber capacity. Such an agreement
would also incorporate reference to a standard water tower leasing (in the form of another
agreement). The agreement would include fiber infrastructure that LocaLoop is proposing to build,
pay for, and convey ownership of, to the City of St. Louis Park. As part of this, LocaLoop is also
proposing to pay for $6,000 of legal, technical, and other consulting costs associated with this
project. The project includes the potential use of the Wi-MAX service to support City services.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
With respect to this policy question, it is important to have Council direction so appropriate and
timely steps can be taken by the City and LocaLoop MAX.
BACKGROUND:
This issue was first considered by Council at its September 29 study session. Since September 29,
staff has solicited input from the Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC), at its October
8 meeting. At that meeting, the TAC provided positive support for moving ahead with respect to the
policy question noted above (see attached minutes). TAC also considered other policy questions. In
addition, staff received further direction from Council at its October 26 study session.
As noted on September 29, as the wi-fi project was coming to a conclusion in 2008, Council
requested that staff prepare some policy points around both the potential use of existing City-owned
fiber optic capacity and related ordinances requiring installation of fiber capabilities in construction.
Now that the wi-fi project clean-up has ended, it seemed like the right time to start addressing these
questions.
The jointly owned fiber network was installed beginning in 1997 following collaborative planning
by the City, the School District, and LOGIS in the early 1990’s. Major segments of the network
were completed in 1998 by the School District and in 2005 by the City and LOGIS. Incremental
additions were made to connect certain sites, plus an additional 8 miles received as part of the wi-fi
project legal settlement.
The existing fiber network includes about 26 miles of infrastructure. Different network segments
have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit only
without fiber strands. These “conduit only” segments were generally installed during road
construction projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with
appropriate capacities to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are known.
Installation of fiber conduit when a road is under construction is relatively inexpensive.
The City and School District are meeting many high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice, data,
and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8 years for
an asset that should last 20 or more years. Other City / School needs remain (e.g., use of fiber for
video) while some future uses cannot be anticipated. However, industry-wide, fiber is projected to
have a real future based on its demonstrated performance. We need to and will reserve fiber capacity
for these needs as well as spare strands. One question that arises is what to do with the remaining
capacity.
LONG-TERM STUDY TOPICS:
Over time, the City Council and Telecommunications Advisory Commission have asked about the
future use of the existing and growing fiber optic network. In addition, questions have been raised
about whether the City should consider playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property
owners to install some portion of fiber optic capabilities during new construction or major
remodeling. There are several potential longer-term study questions surrounding the fiber optic
network whose owners include the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park ISD #283, and Local
Government Information Systems (LOGIS).
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Council provided direction to staff to pursue a study of such long-term topics. A study will be
undertaken in 2010 with the leadership of the TAC and is estimated to cost no more than $25,000.
The approved 2010 Cable TV Fund budget includes this funding.
SHORT-TERM OPPORTUNITY:
Staff has been approached by several firms, and received a more concrete request from one firm,
LocaLoop MAX. LocaLoop MAX is a new St. Louis Park-based firm that is interested in providing
Wi-MAX wireless service in St. Louis Park. Information on LocaLoop MAX’s project plan is
attached. Here are some highlights of this firm’s plans:
• LocaLoop plans to install a Wi-MAX network that covers the entire City. They intend to
market this service on a retail basis and it would provide wireless Internet service.
• LocaLoop may wish to pilot its service. Most of its pilot users would be residential.
Eventually, they would like to incorporate a few City staff pilot users for their mobile Wi-
MAX service.
• LocaLoop claims its pilot project will lead to a full-blown citywide service. In fact, they
indicate current plans call for early installation of some equipment to eventually provide that
citywide service.
In summary, the short-term opportunity Council gave direction to pursue on October 26 is the
mechanics of leasing capacity (fiber strands) within its fiber optic network in a way that (1) preserves
capacity for current and future City needs and (2) provides fair access, based on limited capacity, to
other potential lessees of fiber capacity. This short-term process involves some legal and consulting
time as well. LocaLoop has offered to cover $6,000 of these costs.
BUSINESS POINTS AND PARAMETERS:
Below is an outline of proposed business points and parameters the City of St. Louis Park and
LocaLoop MAX have been pursuing. As noted on October 26, these were proposed starting points
subject to negotiation, and specifics are subject to final verification.
Water Tower Agreement
• Currently in place and used by other wireless providers, mostly cell phone providers.
• LocaLoop was interested in discussing a lease rate reduction compared with cell providers
because its equipment is smaller. Note that staff is recommending against a rate reduction in
fairness to the cell providers, but is proposing credits to the leases.
• LocaLoop is interested in using existing providers’ brackets instead of welding additional
brackets to support a maximum of four Category 5 cables (total of about ½-inch diameter)
on each tower.
Dark Fiber Agreement
• Formula for the rate of fiber resale:
o Median cost between the City’s actual cost to install the fiber and the current cost to
install fiber. Once calculated, the “sell rate” will be determined by the length of time
the City wishes to have its ROI.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
o Using this formula, the monthly charge per mile would be $196 for a 20-year ROI.
LocaLoop is currently interested in leasing approximately 7.14 miles of fiber.
o LocaLoop is open to terms and may be willing to have a clause in the contract to
reset rates if the market changes.
Fiber Extensions
• LocaLoop needs to install approximately just under one mile of additional fiber. This fiber is
to close the gap between the City’s fiber and the water tower and private tower locations.
• LocaLoop intends to build these fiber extensions at their cost and will give ownership of the
additional fiber to the City. These extensions provide the opportunity for future use of the
water towers by the City and other wireless operators.
• It is recommended that in exchange for this additional fiber and conveyance of its ownership
to the City, the City waive the first year of fiber lease payments.
• To be fair, a similar arrangement could be completed with other potential customers who
need to install additional fiber to accomplish their business goals, and turn over ownership of
that fiber to the City.
Legal, Consulting, Technical Fees
• LocaLoop MAX has agreed to pay $6,000 of legal, consulting, and technical fees that the
City may have in the process of negotiating this agreement and implementing the project.
Credits
• LocaLoop MAX and the City are proposing that LocaLoop MAX receive credits of $66,193
to reflect the value of fiber LocaLoop will be conveying to the City as well as legal, technical,
and consulting fees LocaLoop will pay.
• In addition, it is proposed that LocaLoop MAX be credited $58,800 for Wi-MAX
subscriptions it will provide to the City of St. Louis Park.
• These credits are to be applied to the water tower lease fees first, then the fiber lease fees.
Council may also find the following points helpful:
• After meeting with and hearing staff and LocaLoop representatives at its October 8 meeting,
the Telecommunications Advisory Commission has provided its positive support.
• This is a private sector initiative and project, thus, the financial risk to the City is low.
• The City of St. Louis Park is not re-entering the retail wireless service business. It would be
important to clearly communicate this and the City’s role strictly as a lessor of assets.
• Wi-MAX is not wi-fi. That is, Wi-MAX was designed from the ground up for outside and
mobile connectivity. Wi-fi began as an indoor connectivity tool and has been modified to
operate outside, within its technical limitations. Wi-MAX requires a few antennas in very
high locations, compared to the hundreds of antennas needed for wi-fi.
• We already lease water tower assets for similar purposes. LocaLoop is requesting a modified
approach to the water tower agreement (credits against lease fees) and creation of a new fiber
leasing agreement.
• Any agreement with LocaLoop MAX (as with any private provider) would be non-exclusive
so other competitors may enter the St. Louis Park market.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 5
• LocaLoop is still prepared to cover $6,000 of the legal, consulting, and technical costs to the
City associated with its project.
• At the very least, the City of St. Louis Park would gain (1) about $60,000 worth of fiber
infrastructure and (2) fiber connectivity to its elevated water towers for future City use and
potential use by other private providers (part of fair treatment). In fact, LocaLoop has begun
construction of this fiber facility.
• If successful, the City of St. Louis Park could experiment with Wi-MAX for municipal uses
in public safety and public services.
• This project could also help inform the longer-term fiber study with a real world example.
• If Council continues to feel access to additional high-speed Internet alternatives in St. Louis
Park is a worthy goal, this could contribute to that goal.
It is important to have the current City Council’s understanding and feedback on this opportunity
with LocaLoop MAX. Since October 26, more business point details have become available, and are
based on Council’s October 26 direction. LocaLoop MAX indicates it is hoping to start its service as
soon as possible. In order for that to happen, enabling agreements may be presented for Council
consideration as soon as February.
CLEARWIRE:
Council may have seen the recent StarTribune article regarding Clearwire’s planned deployment of
Wi-MAX service in the Twin Cities metro area. Clearwire indicates it will launch this service in the
Brooklyn Park area. Clearwire has indicated it intends to provide Wi-MAX service throughout the
metropolitan area by the end of 2010. Indeed, of late, Clearwire has been aggressively submitting
plans and applications to mount its Wi-MAX radios on several municipal elevated water towers,
including those in St. Louis Park. Thus, St. Louis Park now has the potential for two Wi-MAX
service providers – Clearwire and LocaLoop MAX -- starting in the same year. The following points
about Clearwire, some relative to LocaLoop MAX, may be of interest to Council:
• Clearwire is planning to blanket the entire metropolitan area with Wi-MAX service, so that a
subscriber who lives in St. Louis Park should be able to receive mobile Wi-MAX service in
another metro area community. LocaLoop is planning to serve only St. Louis Park at this
time.
• Clearwire has successfully deployed Wi-MAX in at least 25 other areas in the USA.
• Clearwire has not proposed to provide any fiber infrastructure to the City of St. Louis Park,
which LocaLoop has. In part, this fiber serves LocaLoop’s technical network model.
Clearwire’s technical network model apparently does not require any City-owned fiber
infrastructure.
• Clearwire has not sought any lease fee credits for fiber or service, and has also not offered any
fiber or services. LocaLoop has done so, and is also offering to provide fiber assets and
subscriber service to the City of St. Louis Park. The City of St. Louis Park would be willing
to discuss credits for other providers interested in building and conveying ownership of
potentially useful fiber assets to the City.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 6
• One of Clearwire’s investors is Comcast, the City’s cable provider. In some locations,
Comcast is a re-seller of Clearwire’s Wi-MAX service. Sprint owns more than half of
Clearwire.
• Final subscriber pricing for services from either provider have not been released, but one
would imagine pricing will need to be competitive with each other and other broadband
Internet services from telecoms such as Qwest and Comcast.
FEDERAL STIMULUS MONIES FOR BROADBAND
Council had also requested some information on Federal stimulus dollars available in Minnesota for
broadband initiatives. There are at least two pieces to this.
First, on December 22, 2009, the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) announced that it awarded 15 grants to fund broadband
mapping and planning activities in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
and Tennessee under NTIA’s State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program. The
program, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), will increase broadband
access and adoption through better data collection and broadband planning. The data will be
displayed in NTIA’s national broadband map, a tool that will inform policymakers’ efforts and
provide consumers with improved information on the broadband Internet services available to them.
In Minnesota, NTIA has awarded Connected Nation approximately $1.2 million for broadband
data collection and mapping activities over a two-year period and almost $500,000 for broadband
planning activities over a five-year period in Minnesota, bringing the total grant award to
approximately $1.7 million. Connected Nation is the designated entity data collection and planning
agency for the state of Minnesota.
Second, the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) and USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) just announced availability of
$4.8 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grants and loans to expand broadband
access and adoption in America. This is the second funding round for the agencies’ broadband
programs. The investment will help bridge the technological divide, boost economic growth, and
create jobs. Under NTIA, approximately $2.6 billion will be allocated in this funding round of
which approximately $2.35 billion will be made available for infrastructure projects. In this round,
NTIA is adopting a “comprehensive communities” approach as its top priority in awarding
infrastructure grants, focusing on middle mile broadband projects that connect key community
anchor institutions – such as libraries, hospitals, community colleges, universities, and public safety
institutions. Comprehensive Community Infrastructure projects maximize the benefits of
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) by leveraging resources, promoting
sustainable community growth, and ultimately laying the foundation for reasonably priced
broadband service to consumers and businesses.
In addition, NTIA plans to award at least $150 million of the funding for Public Computer Center
projects, which will expand access to broadband service and enhance broadband capacity at public
libraries, community colleges, and other institutions that service the general public. NTIA also plans
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 7
to award at least $100 million for Sustainable Broadband Adoption projects, which include projects
to provide broadband education, training, and equipment, particularly to vulnerable population
groups where broadband technology has traditionally been underutilized.
The City of St. Louis Park did not make application to round one funding. Staff is currently
reviewing round two specifications to determine what the specific opportunities and requirements
are, and whether to recommend the City make application.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
It is recommended that the City of St. Louis Park continue to assume $6,000 of out-of-pocket legal,
consulting, and technical fees associated with the LocaLoop MAX project be paid by LocaLoop
MAX, similar to other development projects. There should be very few, if any, other out-of-pocket
costs associated with the LocaLoop MAX agreements. Other costs include staff time. At this point,
Clearwire is not proposing to cover any extraordinary legal or technical fees, but Clearwire is also not
requesting a waiver or deferral of any fees or providing any fiber assets to the City as part of an
agreement. Revenue streams from LocaLoop MAX and Clearwire are possible with the leasing of
fiber and water tower assets.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The LocaLoop MAX project and Clearwire’s efforts both have the potential to support St. Louis
Park’s desire to be a well connected community.
STUDY SESSION RESOURCES:
Staff, the City’s consultant from Elert & Associates, and TAC members will be present to help
address Council questions.
Attachments: LocaLoop St. Louis Park Project Deployment Summary
Excerpt of October 8, 2009 TAC Minutes
St. Louis Park Fiber Map
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 11
October 8, 2009 Related TAC Minutes
1. New Business
A. Long term fiber infrastructure planning
Mr. Pires reported the City needed to discuss what should happen with the 26 miles of
fiber that the City of St. Louis Park has installed for both the short term and in the
long term. The Council will discuss what happens with fiber in the City on October
26, and so the Commission’s comments and suggestions are appreciated. For the short-
term opportunity, LocaLoop has approached the City about providing Wi-MAX 4th
generation (4G) services for the private sector, not provided by the City. They would
use City-owned assets, specifically water towers, and would lease capacity on the City’s
fiber optic system. There is an issue of fairness and accessibility to other providers.
This would not be much different than the current relationships with other wireless
providers using water towers.
Carl Torarp, Local Loop, presented their business proposal:
• Building “Mobile Wi-MAX 4G” Broadband Service (affordable internet service
combined patented technology with standard mobile, creates profitable business
for mobile and fixed broadband
• Timing – There is an increased demand for Broadband
• Technology - Speed, capacity and spectral efficiency separates the 4G from 3G
(can handle both fixed and mobile and the technology is proven)
• Community Benefit – This would provide community broadband for all of St.
Louis Park, anywhere in the city. In additional to the fixed service to the
home, LocaLoop would offer a complimentary service that is mobile,
competitively priced, and performs 5-6 times the speed of cellular 3G.
LocaLoop is a local St. Louis Park company.
• Benefit to City – Private affordable broadband, utilize City assets, utilize City’s
investment in fiber, extension of City fiber at LocaLoop cost, available city-
wide for public safety and additional applications (Police, Fire, Inspections,
Public Works, GIS), aid in establishing long term policy for fiber leasing, no
financial up front cost, long-term obligation or risk, special programs for under
privileged groups, first Minnesota city with complete mobile coverage for next
generation broadband internet services
• Consumer Pricing – Mobile: $29/month, $99 device, $29 activation; fixed-
home, $49/month, $8/rental, $79 activation; Indoor/Wi-Fi, $49/month,
$9/rental, $99 activation; Outdoor, $49/month, $9/rental, $149 activation.
Commissioner Browning asked if Wi-MAX was the defined standard? Mr. Torarp
replied yes.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Commissioner Browning asked if there were issues with signal interference or with
weather? Mr. Torarp replied one reason this was the global standard and Wi-MAX was
developed was because of those issues. It is a non line of sight product that gets to the
user. Distance can diminish the signal, but the network will be designed in an
intelligent way to compensate.
Commissioner Browning asked how fast it was? Mr. Torarp replied by feeding Wi-
MAX with fiber, you don’t have the bottleneck others have. It is 5-6 times better than
3G, 700-800 kilobits average (x6), with peak speed up to 30 megabits/second. It also
depends on usage of the network. They will only offer a premium service.
Chair Keeler asked if the 4G network had been rolled out in other countries? Mr.
Torarp replied this application would take back the lead in wireless broadband Internet
technology. Europeans are stuck in cellular technology. Wi-MAX is being
implemented in many places all over the world.
Chair Keeler asked if he purchased the Wi-MAX antenna, could it be used outside of
St. Louis Park? Mr. Torarp replied initially no. Outside of St. Louis Park it would
receive Wi-Fi, but it won’t take long for the potential hand off to other carriers where
Wi-MAX is available.
Chair Keeler asked about the administration and if LocaLoop would be the seller of
the service and do the sign up of St. Louis Park residents? Mr. Torarp replied yes.
Chair Keeler asked if they had an anticipated staffing plan? Mr. Torarp replied they
would hire according to need as the business grows. There would probably be 20
people just for St. Louis Park.
Chair Keeler asked if they had deployed this anywhere? Mr. Torarp replied this was
the first deployment.
Chair Keeler asked about the financial backing? Mr. Torarp responded there were no
issues with the financing, they are privately financed.
Commissioner Hartman asked if this would be compatible with the 4G network that
had been announced by Verizon? Mr. Torarp replied Verizon was using competing
technology, which would be tested in the spring.
Commissioner Browning asked about the scalability and if there was capability to
enhance from premium service? Mr. Johnson replied part of the premise of Wi-MAX
was to go beyond the best effort service. It is an adaptive, intelligent network. The
next standards to come out hold promise of bigger speeds. The experience is different
with Wi-MAX.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 13
Mr. McHugh asked if they would be able to cover ten square miles with the existing
towers? Mr. Torarp responded that was what they were proposing with the three
towers. Mr. Johnson added there would be more deployed.
Mr. Dunlap asked why there would be need to install more fiber? Mr. Torarp replied
to fill the gaps from the fiber network to the tower locations.
Mr. Pires stated the proposal is to build fiber at their cost and turn over the assets to
the City.
Chair Keeler asked if they had determined a pilot area? Mr. Torarp replied they would
have 50 consumers with both businesses and residents and run for a month. They
were considering Southeast St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Browning asked about power levels? Mr. Johnson replied that power
levels vary but the design of the network will compensate for that. They need to look
at the density and number of stations.
Tom Pavek, Elert and Associates, stated there were global issues to consider from a
long-term standpoint. This is an aggressive time line for this opportunity and the City
needs protect its long term interests. There is excess fiber that does not have another
city use and is valuable for others to use. It is like renting space on the water towers,
or if there was another empty floor on this building, renting it because it’s an available
asset. The City needs to make a distinction between renting and leasing and the
business opportunity. It’s LocaLoop’s business to market and be successful; it’s the
City’s interest to provide the asset at a market rate and not subsidize the service.
Options for the fiber include: lease or sell strands; do nothing, barter services, or could
sell services like a phone company, which is more difficult.
• Because this entity (LocaLoop) wants to fast track, the City needs to make sure
there is enough capacity for other users and that there is no preferential
treatment
• Different than in the prior wireless project, it is their (LocaLoop) risk
• This is renting space
• The City doesn’t have much role in what LocaLoop does with this asset
• Don’t let short-term interests affect the long-term plan
• From a down side, they aren’t substantial, but they exist. Will residents make a
connection that this is not the City?
• The City needs to maintain the fiber network – much like it does now
• Make sure everyone has opportunity to set up private enterprise – not subsidize
their business
• Long-term, the City needs a policy for this is a valuable asset
• Look at short-term opportunities and protect the long run
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 14
Commissioner Hartman asked if they could add more fiber to the conduits? Mr.
Pavek replied yes, there would be costs to install more fiber. We’d need to look at the
routes to determine if there were any limited routes and consider adding more fiber to
that area. It looks as though only one area is vulnerable but we’ll work with the
School District on that.
Chair Keeler asked what the current excess capacity is, and what the City and School
are using? Mr. Pires replied it varied by part of town and what they were running.
One example is the new fiber installed by ARINC included 48 strands and almost
none of that is being used.
Mr. Pavek stated if there are aspects with this agreement where they run out, they will
address that in the agreement.
Chair Keeler asked what the market rate was for leasing? Mr. Pavek stated they have
some preliminary information, but need substantial documented information.
Mr. Pires stated over the past twelve months the City had been approached by seven
firms interested in leasing fiber, so that’s another reason for a long term policy.
Commissioner Browning asked how much bandwidth was available? Mr. Pires said
from 24 strands to close to 200 strands. Mr. Pavek replied they are likely to improve
electronics and less likely to increase fiber, and that you don’t want to lease all strands.
Chair Keeler asked what role the Telecommunication Commission played? Mr. Pires
responded when this was discussed with City Council they wanted the Commission’s
input and recommendations.
Mr. Dunlap noted the Council would discuss this issue at their October 26th meeting
and that they could be provided with this meeting’s minutes for background.
Mr. Pires added they had discussions with the City Attorney and had determined
leasing of fiber would be very similar to how the City leases water tower space.
Mr. Pavek felt it was good timing and could be a nice package for the City if they were
protected.
Commissioner Browning liked this concept and felt it was coming at the right time.
The only option for broadband was in bundled services. He has issues with bundled
services, but understood the marketing. This is a great opportunity for the City.
Commissioner Dworsky indicated he would send his comments to Mr. Dunlap. He
agreed that LocaLoop is responsible for the service but the City has responsibility for
the hard asset.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 15
Commissioner Hartman asked how trees affected the frequency? Mr. Torarp replied
they have licensed frequency to make it work. He said when Sprint deployed the
mobile Wi-MAX system in Baltimore, they did a lousy job because they fed the base
stations with T1 telephone lines. That wasn’t enough capacity to provide the service.
So it goes back to network design, and this technology will go through the tree canopy
assuming you design it correctly.
Chair Keeler felt this was a good opportunity for residents of St. Louis Park and good
timing. He agrees we need to develop a long-term policy on fiber and include fairness
to other parties and maintenance plans for City future use.
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Dworsky, to
recommend the City move forward with the project as proposed.
The motion passed 4-0. (Peterson was no longer on teleconference).
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Hartman, to
proceed with a long-term fiber policy.
The motion passed 4-0. (Peterson was no longer on teleconference).
Chair Keeler noted the Commission had formed a sub committee to work on fiber
issues, was that an appropriate forum to work on a policy? Mr. Pires replied yes.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 16
Meeting Date: January 25, 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:
Draft Ordinance - Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action needed at this time. This report and study session discussion is a follow-up to
previous City Council discussions on wind energy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Should the city adopt ordinances to regulate alternative wind energy sources?
• Does the City Council concur with the recommendations provided in this report?
• Should staff commence the formal review process to allow for consideration of an ordinance
regulating wind energy conversion systems?
BACKGROUND:
On March 23, 2009, the City Council received a report from staff outlining current regulations as
they pertain to wind turbines. The conclusion was that existing regulations do not specifically
address wind turbines, and that it would be best to be proactive and take a closer look at the issue of
wind generators and city regulations.
Since the March 23rd meeting, staff attended two separate seminars on wind energy, and utilized the
resources available at the Minnesota Office of Energy Security pertaining to Renewable Energy and
Advanced Technologies such as wind, solar and geo-thermal energy. The city also retained Brian
Ross, Principal of CR Planning to provide a framework for wind energy regulations. His firm
specializes in energy planning, and has assisted numerous cities, counties and some states including
Minnesota in formulating energy policies and regulations. Mr. Ross prepared a Wind Energy
Background Report specifically addressing wind energy options for St. Louis Park. A copy of this
report was forwarded to the Council on September 14, 2009, and is also attached to this report for
your convenience.
A draft ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission at the January 6, 2010 study session.
The Commissioners discussed whether or not WECS should be allowed in residential areas. Mr.
Ross stated that the current draft does not allow WECS in residential districts. WECS at single
family homes located in inner ring suburbs like St. Louis Park, where consistent wind resources are
poor, are more like wind sculptures than effective alternative energy systems. He also stated that
residential WECS tend to generate many neighbor complaints because of the visual, height and
sometimes noise impacts. It’s possible that as technology improves, there may come a time where
they are more effective, however, other alternative energy systems such as solar and geo-thermal will
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
most likely always be more practical and efficient in settings like St. Louis Park. Also the city could
re-evaluate the ordinance as technology improves and the actual and perceived impacts on
neighboring properties lessen.
Research Summary:
Wind Energy Background Report:
In his report (see attachment) Mr. Ross reported on the feasibility of WECS in St. Louis Park,
taking into consideration research and resources available, current and anticipated WECS
technology and general development patterns, topography and ground cover in St. Louis Park. The
report is attached, and highlights of the report are as follows:
▪ Two reasons for having regulations on wind energy installations are:
i. To promote or encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency; and
ii. To address actual or perceived nuisances associated with wind energy installations.
▪ Wind energy installations are not the most cost effective means to reduce energy bills, however
they can be a step toward sustainability and energy self sufficiency.
▪ The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is an area of poor wind resources. The urban landscape
creates a low-speed and turbulent wind resource that is difficult to capture with existing
technology.
▪ Wind generators can be categorized into three broad types, Utility-scale generators, Small wind
generators (potentially powering a single site); and, Micro wind systems (emerging technology –
very low power generators)
▪ St. Louis Park does not have any large scale wind opportunities. Some property owners may be
interested in pursuing small or micro scale generators.
▪ While micro wind systems may be the most applicable type for St. Louis Park, most of our
residential areas are not appropriate for these systems because of:
i. Visual impacts - the height needed is at least 30 feet above obstructions,
ii. Tower fall zone is needed at 100% or more of height,
iii. Noise is generated from WECS and can be an issue.
WECS Draft Ordinance:
In addition to studying the feasibility of wind energy in St. Louis Park, Mr. Ross assisted staff in
preparing a draft ordinance. This draft is written based on the study findings that wind is not
considered to be a viable energy alternative for most of the city. Even WECS installed in areas that
have good topography, clear zones and height are still not expected to be cost effective due to the
cost of the system and low consistent wind speeds. Therefore the intent of the draft ordinance is to
allow WECS only in the large open areas typically found in commercial, industrial and park areas
where they are most effective. In conjunction with the ordinance, the city will continue to
encourage home owners to pursue more efficient means of saving energy and money by utilizing
existing programs to replace windows, siding, roofs, insulation and appliances.
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 3
In summary, the draft ordinance proposes the following:
1. WECS would be allowed in the commercial, office, and industrial districts only.
2. 1-1.5 acre minimum lot sizes would be required.
3. Minimum setbacks from property lines would be 110% of the WECS height.
4. Roof-mounted WECS would not be allowed.
5. Towers would be required to be monopole design only, without guy wires.
6. WECS would be required to meet noise limits defined in existing city code.
7. Height limits are similar to radio towers allowed in the respective districts.
8. Several other design and general requirements.
Planning Commission discussion
On January 6, 2010, the Planning Commission discussed the draft wind ordinance. Consultant
Brian Ross was present. There were several technical questions and a discussion ensued about
whether or not turbines should be allowed in single family residential zoning districts. Mr. Ross
noted that nuisances arise in areas with urban-size lots. The issues primarily surround the visual
impacts, and the fact that the safety fall zone ends up in someone else’s yard. Some Commissioners
suggested the idea of sustainability might be worth allowing systems in single family areas. Mr. Ross
indicated that while he is a renewable energy advocate, he knows turbines generate many complaints
for cities, and it is hard to justify them if they are not truly viable as renewable energy systems given
St. Louis Park’s low energy wind regime. Commissioners noted they would not want to shut the
door on such systems; staff indicated it is an area where technology will have to be monitored and
the ordinance will have to be revisited as it becomes a stronger choice.
Next Steps:
If directed by the Council, staff will set a public hearing to consider a zoning ordinance amendment
addressing WECS.
City Attorney, Tom Scott will finalize his review of the ordinance.
City staff will complete a brochure summarizing all alternative energy and energy efficiency
programs available to St. Louis Park residents and business owners.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Council previously authorized up to $10,000 to research and prepare the draft ordinance. Staff
contracted with a consultant specializing in alternative energy to assist in the research and
preparation of the ordinance. The contract amount is $2,500 plus a fee for additional meetings as
requested by staff.
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 4
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Research on wind turbine towers is consistent with the Council’s Vision Strategic Direction, “St.
Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.”
Attachments: Draft Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance
Wind Energy Background Report – Community Resources Planning
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Draft Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance
Sec. 36-4. Definitions.
Wind energy conversion system (WECS) means all necessary devices that together convert
wind energy into electricity, including the rotor, nacelle, generator, tower, electrical components,
foundation, transformer, and electrical cabling from the tower to building or substation(s) and their
support facilities.
Wind energy conversion system, building mounted means a wind energy conversion system
that is attached to a building for structural support.
Wind energy conversion system, large means a wind energy conversion system with a rated
capacity of greater than 100 kW.
Wind energy conversion system tower means a support structure to which the nacelle and
rotor are attached.
Wind energy conversion system height means the distance measured from the lowest exterior
grade at the base of the WECS to the highest point of any component of a WECS.
***
Sec. 36-___. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS).
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum requirements for the size,
placement and maintenance of wind energy systems by adoption of regulations governing all
wind energy systems in the city.
(b) Findings. The City finds that:
(1) While there is limited opportunity for wind power generation in St. Louis Park, the
City may have some sites that have the right characteristics of topography, land cover,
and lack of turbulence for the land owner to consider wind energy as an option for
sustainability. These sites tend to be large open areas typical of commercial, industrial
or park properties.
(2) Wind energy systems can create a number of real or perceived nuisances and safety
considerations including structural reliability, visual impacts, bird and bat kills, noise,
shadow flicker, and ice throw. Therefore, careful consideration must be given when
siting a wind energy conversion system.
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 6
(c) Standards by Zoning District. Table 36-___A lists in which zoning districts WECS are
allowed. The table also identifies, by zoning district, the maximum allowed height, the
maximum number of WECS allowed per lot and the minimum required lot size.
Table 36-___A
WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM STANDARDS
Height Limit (feet)*
Distric
t
Permitte
d, up to
Condition
al Use, up
to
Max. # of
WECS per
lot*
Minimum Lot
Size
C-2 110 170 2 1.5
O 110 170 2 1.5
I-P 110 199 4 1.5
I-G 110 199 4 1.5
* The height and number of systems per lot is dependent on meeting
the setback requirements.
(d) Setbacks. WECS shall meet the following setback requirements:
(1) At least 110% of the WECS height from all property lines.
(2) At least 100% of the WECS height from other WECS.
(3) At least 20 feet from principal buildings.
(4) The furthest reach of the blade must be at least 30 feet from the ground and any other
obstruction.
(e) Design requirements. All WECS shall meet the following design requirements.
(1) Monopole tower. All towers shall be of a free standing monopole type that does not
utilize guyed wires or any other means to support the tower.
(2) Roof mounting. Roof mounted WECS are prohibited.
(3) Minimize visual impact. WECS design and location shall minimize visual impact.
(4) Color and finish. All WECS shall be white, grey or another non-obtrusive color.
Blades may be black in order to facilitate deicing. Finishes shall be matt or non-
reflective.
(5) Tower lighting. WECS shall not be artificially lighted, except to the extent required by
the FAA or other federal or state law or regulation that preempts local regulations.
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 7
(6) Signs and displays. The use of any portion of a WECS for displaying flags and signs,
other than warning or equipment information signs, is prohibited.
(7) Associated equipment. Ground equipment associated with a WECS shall be housed in
a structure. Structures housing equipment shall meet the architectural design standards
of the Zoning Ordinance. Control wiring and power-lines shall be wireless or
underground.
(8) Braking system required. All WECS shall have an automatic braking, governing or
feathering system to prevent uncontrolled rotation, overspeeding and excessive pressure
on the tower structure, rotor blades and turbine components.
(9) Design height. The applicant shall provide evidence that the proposed height of the
WECS does not exceed the height recommended by the manufacturer or distributor of
the system.
(10) Interconnection agreement. The applicant shall provide a copy of the utility
notification requirements for interconnection, unless the applicant intends, and so
states on the application, that the system will not be connected to the electricity grid.
(11) Technology standards. WECS must meet the minimum standards of a WECS
certification program recognized by the American Wind Energy Association, such as
AWEA’s Small Wind Turbine Performance and Safety Standard, the Emerging
Technologies program of the California Energy Commission, or other 3rd party
standards acceptable to the City.
(f) Permits required. In addition to the information and permits required elsewhere in this
Code, applications for a WECS shall include the following information unless it is
determined by the Zoning Administrator that certain information is not required based upon
the nature of the proposed WECS.
(1) A dimensioned drawing that illustrates the total WECS height, including the footings
and tower width.
(2) A site plan illustrating that the proposed WECS complies with all setbacks and other
requirements affecting where a WECS can be located.
(3) A report that describes decibels at varying wind speeds for a set distance from the
turbine, up to the cut-out wind speed.
(4) Additional information requested by the Zoning Administrator necessary to evaluate
the request.
(g) Noise. Audible sound due to wind energy system operations shall comply with the
standards governing noise contained in the City of St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances.
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 8
(h) Abandonment and decommissioning. If the WES remains nonfunctional or inoperative
for a continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed abandoned and shall
constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense
after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including
foundations to below natural grade and transmission equipment.
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -1- City of Saint Louis Park
Local Government Goals for Renewable Energy Regulation
Communities typically enact wind energy development regulations in order to meet two distinct
goals:
1. In order to promote or encourage renewable energy in their community;
2. In order to address the actual and perceived nuisances associated with wind energy
installations.
These two goals are not mutually exclusive; most
communities consider both goals as they
construct development regulations to address
wind energy installations. The most important
consideration as the community evaluates wind
energy ordinance provisions is to keep these two
goals in mind as each aspect of regulation is
debated. While the two goals are not mutually
exclusive, some regulatory provisions will serve
one of these goals at the expense of the other.
The St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan has a
number of goals that demonstrate the need to
consider both of the two general goals noted
above. The Comprehensive Plan calls both for
improving the sustainability of the City and for
protecting neighborhood character. Many
communities are struggling with the question of
whether wind energy is a reasonable use in
residential areas or if it should be considered
primarily as a non-residential use.
Why invest in wind energy?
Investments in wind energy systems are made for a variety of reasons. Every investment in wind
energy, furthermore, involves multiple levels of stakeholders, including adjacent property
owners, the electric utility, and the local government. Homeowners, businesses, utilities, and
local governments have distinct interests in wind energy, as noted below.
Homeowners are interested in wind energy to reduce their carbon footprint, become more self-
sufficient or independent, save money on the utility bill, and because of an interest in the
technology.
Businesses are interested in wind energy for the ‘green’ symbolism of renewable energy and
meeting climate protection or sustainability commitments. Businesses also may see wind energy
installations as a way to reduce energy costs or limit risk of energy price volatility through
diversifying their energy supply.
Balancing Goals
A typical element of wind energy regulation is
regulating tower height. Restricting tower
heights serves the goal of limiting visual
nuisances and addressing safety considerations,
serving goal #2. Restricting tower height also
has the effect of limiting renewable energy
production (goal #1). Electric production from a
wind turbine is greatly affected by tower height;
limiting tower heights has a dramatic diminishing
effect on the production of renewable energy.
Similarly, setting the tower height limit to 120
feet will allow most small wind turbines to
maximize the local wind energy, best serving
goal #1. In urban areas, however, a 120 foot
tower comes with visual impacts and safety risks.
In the event of a tower collapse, albeit a rare
event, a 120-foot tower in an urban area poses
safety risks to more than one neighbor.
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -2- City of Saint Louis Park
Utilities have several interests in wind energy development. For instance, utilities have a
statutory interest in renewable energy in the form of the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Most of
the RPS capacity, however, will be met via contracts with large-scale wind developers and some
of their own investment in wind farms. Small scale wind is unlikely to play significantly in the
utility meeting its statutory obligations. In addition to meeting their RPS goals, utilities have an
interest in small wind energy projects because these projects fall under Minnesota’s “net
metering” law (the utility has to buy the power at the same rate as the home or business buys
from the utility), and distributed wind generation affects how energy is consumed, generated, and
distributed on the utility grid.
Local governments have several point of interest in renewable energy. Cities such as St. Louis
Park have made commitments to sustainability or climate protection and might see renewable
energy as being in the portfolio of solutions to meeting those commitments. Renewable energy
is also a local resource that displaces an ‘imported’ resource, meaning that renewable energy has
economic development benefits. Finally, renewable energy is a form of “distributed generation”,
which has proven to improve power quality and reliability on the local electric grid, a critical
component of local infrastructure that runs along City rights-of-way.
Balancing Sustainability Choices
Local governments need to consider the interaction of these various interests in evaluating local
renewable energy policy or regulation. In making informed choices about sustainability, the City
must also consider the multiple paths to sustainability. For instance, while wind energy
installations will reduce a homeowner’s or business’s energy bill, wind energy is not the most
cost effective means to achieve that particular goal. Energy efficiency is virtually always a better
investment than renewable energy systems from the standpoint of cost savings or total effect on
greenhouse gas reductions.
The cost-effectiveness perspective is not, however, always the primary interest in choosing a
sustainability strategy – energy efficiency rarely provides a visible symbol of sustainability as
does a renewable energy system. Renewable energy also offers the promise of self-sufficiency
(you need some kind of energy production to build a zero-energy building or to get to a zero net
carbon footprint). Within renewable energy choices, solar energy is sometimes the better
sustainability choice than wind energy. Solar is not as cost-effective as wind energy, except in
urban areas where the wind resource is sporadic and the nuisances of wind energy more limiting.
Both wind and solar energy are complementary to an energy efficiency strategy for moving
toward a zero-energy or zero-carbon building.
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -3- City of Saint Louis Park
Wind Energy Resources and Technology
Wind Resources in Minnesota, the Metropolitan Area and St. Louis Park.
Minnesota has a tremendous wind energy potential. The wind energy resource is, however, not
distributed evenly across the State; some areas have an excellent wind resource, while other
areas have a poor wind resource. A statewide representation of wind resources is shown in
Figure 1.
The factors that contribute to a good wind resource include:
¾ Topography: high ground has more wind resource than low ground. The Buffalo Ridge in
southwest Minnesota is higher than surrounding areas for miles, and thus provides a large area
of good wind resource.
The Minnesota River
Valley similarly stands
out as a lower resource
area than surrounding
land.
¾ Land Cover: Land
cover such as trees and
buildings reduce wind
resources, while land
cover such as crops and
prairie have little
effect. Prairies and
lakes show up as good
areas for wind energy,
forested areas are poor
(at least at the 30 meter
height).
¾ Obstructions Creating
Turbulence: A single
object sticking up will
create turbulence in the
wind. Buildings, trees,
even wind turbines
themselves will create
turbulence for
surrounding areas.
Turbulence will
dramatically reduce the
effectiveness of wind
energy conversion
systems.
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -4- City of Saint Louis Park
Given these characteristics, one can understand why the metropolitan region appears to be an
area of poor wind resources. Figure 2 shows a blowup of the same map for the metropolitan
region. As can be noted, there are very few obvious opportunities to capture high-quality wind
energy. The urban landscape creates a low-speed turbulent wind resource that is difficult to
capture with existing technology.
When considering the wind resource maps, keep in mind that the maps present data at a 500-
meter resolution. This resolution accurately depicts the regional wind resource differences, but
does not provide resolution sufficient to identify specific sites that are good or bad for wind
energy. There are small sites that are quite good for wind energy in the white (poor resource)
areas, and poor sites in the high value areas (orange and brown) along Buffalo Ridge. Also, the
maps show wind resources at 30 meters (about 100 feet). We chose to present the 30 meter data
because that is the most relevant information for the type of wind turbine likely to be seen in St.
Louis Park (see the wind technology summary).
Wind Energy Conclusions
Based on these data, St. Louis Park certainly does not have any large scale wind energy
opportunities. St. Louis Park may, however, have some small sites that have the right
characteristics of topography, land cover, and lack of turbulence for the land owner to consider
wind energy as an option for sustainability. Even the best sites, however, are likely to be
marginal from the standpoint of cost effectiveness or productive energy output per dollar of
capital. Identifying good sites is likely to occur on an ad hoc basis, or on guesswork by the
SLP
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -5- City of Saint Louis Park
landowner. Some communities have evaluated wind resources at a more detailed community
level in order to assess where to put, for instance, a wind energy overlay district. The cost of
such a study (ranging from $3,000 to $7,000) must be balanced against the likelihood of
identifying meaningful wind resources. As noted later, if the City wishes to consider renewable
energy production as a regulatory threshold, it can require performance estimates in the
application for a land use or building permit.
Current Technology and Technology Trends
Wind energy technology has changed considerably over the last 20 years, and continues to
evolve. For the purposes of this background report, we have separated the technology into three
categories that help guide renewable energy regulation in St. Louis Park;
1) Utility-scale wind turbines
2) Small wind turbines
3) Micro- and alternative-design turbines
1) Utility-scale Wind Turbines. Utility-scale turbines are the largest type of turbine, typically
seen in rural areas as part of wind farms, as seen in western Minnesota and northern Iowa, but
occasionally on an individual basis, such as the Carleton Collage and Saint Olaf College turbines
on the edge of Northfield.
Size: These turbines are 300-600 feet in height and have a rated capacity measured in the
megawatt (MW) range.
Purpose: Utility-scale turbines are almost always designed to generate electricity for sale on
the electric grid, and can produce electricity that is cost competitive with more traditional
fuels.
Evolution of technology: As the industry evolves, these turbines are getting bigger and
bigger; 15 years ago a large turbine had less than one MW of generating capacity, turbines
now are multiple MWs in capacity and getting larger.
Applicability to St. Louis Park: The only cities that need to address such large turbines in
their development ordinances are cities outside metropolitan areas. The turbines need to be
clearly separated from homes and infrastructure by hundreds of feet and are placed only
where the wind resource is optimal. St. Louis Park does not have sites suitable for such a
large scale turbines.
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -6- City of Saint Louis Park
2) Small Wind Turbines. Small wind turbines include most all
non-utility scale turbines and have a wide range of heights and
capacity. They are substantially smaller than utility scale
turbines – there is a large gap in size and capacity between
utility-scale and small wind turbines.
Size: Small wind turbines usually have towers between 60
and 120 feet, although some will approach 200 at the top
end of the scale. Capacity is measured in kilowatts (KW)
rather than the MW range of the utility-scale turbines, but
rarely is more than 100 KW.
Purpose: Small wind turbines are usually deployed as
single units rather than as part of a wind farm, and
frequently sized to first meet on-site electric demand rather
than to generate electricity for sale on the grid. These
systems are not cost competitive as utility power sources,
but can be (with a good wind resource) cost competitive
from a retail perspective. Small wind is probably the most
cost effective on-site renewable energy technology.
Evolution of technology: While small wind technology is
evolving, the capacity and height are largely unchanged
over the last ten years. Changes have been in improved
efficiency, reduced noise, and increased reliability.
Applicability to St. Louis Park: Many cities need to address small wind in their development
ordinances. The cost of small wind turbines is within the reach of homeowners and small
businesses. As the interest in renewable energy grows, more individuals wish to put up small
wind turbines in order to make a relatively economic investment in renewable energy. Issues
will include visual impacts, safety considerations,
and concerns about noise, shadow flicker, and
property value impacts.
3) Micro systems and Alternative Technologies.
Micro systems and alternative technologies include
very small traditional turbines, and a variety of
vertical axis and building-mounted wind energy
systems. These systems are far less common than
traditional small wind and do not have the years of
demonstrated success of either small wind or utility
scale wind.
Size: Micro systems and alternative systems are
usually less than 80 feet tall and frequently are
advertised to be mounted in urban areas even on
buildings. The capacity is usually less than 10KW
and may even be measured in watts (less than one
kilowatt).
Purpose: Micro systems and alternative
technologies are intended to provide power for
The Swift wind turbine from Cascade
Engineering (Credit: Cascade Engineering)
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -7- City of Saint Louis Park
primarily on-site use in situations where traditional small wind cannot be deployed (such as
low-speed wind, turbulent wind, and in urban settings). The systems are intended to compete
with other forms of on-site energy production (solar energy, wood energy, biomass), and
offer a renewable alternative to retail electric prices.
Evolution of technology: Micro systems and alternative designs are rapidly changing. A
number of new companies are marketing new products for the specific purpose of tapping
into the urban and suburban market for wind energy. Nearly all these products, however, are
largely unproven as a meaningful source of renewable energy. Some recent real world tests
of these technologies have demonstrated a much lower than advertised performance. New
technologies are being rolled out but no technology has yet proven to be able to capture
urban or low-speed wind.
Applicability to St. Louis Park: Many cities need to address micro turbines and small wind
in their development ordinances. The target market for these systems is the homeowner and
small businesses, and the cost is generally lower than traditional small wind systems. Issues
to address include both nuisance considerations as noted for small wind systems and the
viability of the systems to actually generate renewable energy.
Technology Conclusions
St. Louis Park is most likely to see requests to install the latter two categories of wind energy
technologies; small wind, and micro/alternative technologies. St. Louis Park has a variety of lot
sizes and land uses, some of which could be appropriate for wind energy systems. Most
residential areas, however, have lot sizes and residential density that is not appropriate even for
small wind, leaving just the micro- and alternative systems as a potential option for these areas.
As noted above, the primary question then becomes whether such systems are even viable as
renewable energy systems in St. Louis Park’s low energy wind regime.
Some consideration may also need to be given to systems that exceed the small wind size
thresholds noted above that could conceivably be used on a few industrial or large commercial
sites. For instance, the wind turbine at the Great River Energy facility in Maple Grove, adjacent
to the large commercial shopping are, does not reach the threshold of a utility-scale system but is
bigger than what is considered a small wind system. Such a possibility can be addressed via a
conditional use permit process to assess the particular visual and safety impacts on the larger site.
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -8- City of Saint Louis Park
Regulatory Issues
Regulation associated with wind energy takes two forms, which mirror the two regulatory goals
noted at the beginning of this background report:
1. Regulation to encourage renewable energy
2. Regulation to address nuisances and land use conflicts
Nuisance Regulation
Wind energy systems can create a number of real or perceived nuisances or safety considerations
that are addressed in wind regulatory ordinances, including the following:
¾ Tower fall zone
¾ Visual impacts
¾ Bird and bat kills
¾ Noise performance standards
¾ Shadow flicker
¾ Harm to habitat
¾ Construction impacts
¾ Electro-magnetic interference
¾ Ice throw
¾ Impacts to property value
Most of these considerations, including construction impacts, electro-magnetic interference, bird
and bat kills, shadow flicker, and harm to habitat, are much more associated with utility scale
turbines and wind farms (multiple turbines operated to generate power for the wholesale market).
St. Louis Park does not need to consider wind farms or utility scale turbines, and thus can likely
disregard these considerations except as a perceived, rather than real, risk. Individual instances
may occur, such as a few birds killed by turbines, but the impact on bird populations from small
wind systems is negligible. Other considerations, particularly ice throw and related risks such as
blades breaking off and flying hundreds of feet, are exclusively perceived risks with little
evidence to support actual risk. Finally, the assertion that wind energy negatively affects
property values is frequently raised as a risk, but for which there is little evidence. Property
value impacts are not supported by evidence in market studies, with the exception of some
anecdotal evidence where utility-scale wind farms are located near residential properties or
where safety setbacks were ignored in areas of urban density.
Therefore, the primary regulatory issues for the type of wind development likely to be seen in St.
Louis Park include the following:
Tower fall zone – While extremely rare, towers of all types have been blown down or damaged
in severe weather. Small wind towers are no exception, and most communities address this issue
in development regulation.
Noise – Wind turbines do create noise, and early versions of small wind turbines created enough
noise to exceed nuisance thresholds. Most newer small turbines stay below nuisance noise
thresholds (below 50 decibels), but noise is still considered a nuisance risk in most communities
that regulate wind energy.
Visual impacts – Visual impacts are the most qualitative nuisance risk, but also the most
common. In many cases, opposition to wind turbines is rooted almost entirely in the anticipated
visual impact the tower has from nearby homes; other issues may be raised, but the visual impact
is the lynchpin to most concerns. Visual impacts are also extremely difficult to mitigate except
by reducing tower heights, which then reduces the renewable energy value of the installation.
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -9- City of Saint Louis Park
Incentives in Regulation
Identifying regulatory incentives helps meet the first goal for renewable energy development
regulation (promoting or encouraging renewable energy in the community). Many cities,
including St. Louis Park, have set high-priority goals to improve sustainability, reduce climate-
changing emissions, or foster the use of local resources. Renewable energy development can
help a community meet all these goals, and is frequently described as an important
implementation element for meeting sustainability or climate protection goals. Regulatory
initiatives take two forms in land use and development regulation:
A. Removing regulatory barriers to renewable energy development, and
B. Creating incentives within development regulation.
A. Removing regulatory barriers is primarily a process of: 1) identifying where the city’s
traditional tools of land use regulation, such as setback requirements, dimensional standards,
height requirements, and design standards, conflict with the goal of encouraging renewable
energy, and; 2: identifying how regulations can be changed to better accommodate renewable
energy without subverting the original intent of the land use regulation.
Some forms of renewable energy, such as solar power, are fairly compatible with the urban
form of development typically found in St. Louis Park. Solar power does not, in most cases,
need to be higher than the primary structure, it makes no noise, and presents virtually no safety
risk to surrounding properties. The primary nuisance is one of aesthetics or conflicts with
design standards, and the primary resource concern is addressing solar access across property
lines. Mitigating tools are readily available for most of these issues.
Removing barriers to wind energy systems, however, presents a more difficult set of choices
for St. Louis Park. In order to be most effective, wind turbines must be where the wind is best;
50 feet above nearby structures or trees. In light of this need, removing regulatory barriers
requires that the City consider the following changes:
¾ Changing in height limitations to allow substantially higher structures (towers) in order to
allow capture of the wind resource.
¾ Finding setback compromises that address the tower fall zone, using either a setback standard
or a lot size limitation.
¾ Considering impacts on community character in regard to visual impact by identifying areas
where towers have significant impact on character or viewshed, and those areas where visual
impacts are less significant.
B. Creating incentives for renewable energy is a relatively new consideration for local
governments. Fortunately, local governments have significant experience with local incentives
for other goals, and many of those incentives can be adapted to encouraging renewable energy.
Appropriate incentives for wind energy, assuming wind energy can meet community standards
for safety, aesthetics, and performance, may include the following:
¾ Regulatory flexibility in new construction
¾ An option for meeting sustainability requirements when the City is a financial partner in a
development
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -10- City of Saint Louis Park
¾ An option with PUDs
¾ A preference within ‘green’ or high performance building standards, such as LEED.
Types of Wind Energy Regulations
A discussion of specific regulatory tools
and how communities sometimes use
these tools follows. Specific examples
of how these concepts have been applied
can be found in the model ordinance
referenced in the text box.
Tower Height – Allowing wind turbines
on a lot, but limiting tower height to
anything less than 80 feet in St. Louis
Park is likely to dramatically limit
energy productivity. The relationship
between tower height and energy
production is not linear, but geometric.
In urban areas, for instance, a 50%
increase in tower height, from 40-feet to
60-feet, may only result in a marginal
improvement in production. A 50%
increase, from 60-feet to 90-feet,
however, may dramatically improve
productive value.
From the standpoint of sustainability,
limiting tower height is a poor way to regulate wind turbines. Sustainability goals are not served
by allowing investment in renewable energy, then severely constricting the renewable energy
output.
Lot Size – Limiting installations of wind energy to lots of an acre or more can address several
nuisance issues. An acre or more ensures that installations might be able to meet safety setback
requirements, mitigates for noise considerations beyond the lot line, and mitigates some of the
visual impact. Community sustainability goals may be compromised if large lots are in poor
wind locations, meaning that wind energy installations can only happen through redevelopment
at lower density (which may conflict with other sustainability goals).
Setbacks – Setbacks are a necessary element of regulating wind energy, except perhaps for
building-mounted systems. Setbacks generally need to be at least the height of the tower from
either a lot line or a residence (other than the residence on site). Some communities will require
a larger setback - 110% or 125% of tower height. Some communities have extended the setback
even farther, asking that turbines be 200% of tower height, although there is little quantifiable
justification for a 200% setback for small wind installations.
Elements of a Wind Energy Conversion System
(WECS) Ordinance
Counties, cities, and townships are enabled to regulate land
use under Minnesota Statutes 394 and 462 for the purpose
of: “promoting the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the community.” How wind energy land use
issues affect each type of community will significantly
change the structure and focus of the WECS ordinance.
Some common elements to consider in all communities are
noted below.
A. Distinguish between Types of Wind Energy
Applications
B. Define Necessary Permits
C. Establish Setbacks
D. Establish Safety Standards
E. Establish Design Standards
F. Establish Other Applicable Standards
G. Minimize Infrastructure Impacts
Source: From Policy to Reality: Revised Model Ordinances for
Sustainable Development, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency/CR Planning, Inc., 2009
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -11- City of Saint Louis Park
District limitations – Wind energy can be
restricted, or given preference, by zoning
district or overlay district. Communities
may, for instance, prohibit wind turbines
in higher density residential districts, but
make wind turbines a permitted use in
industrial and large commercial districts.
The overlay concept can be used to restrict
wind systems, such as in a scenic view
area. Overlays are also used to encourage
wind, such as a wind overlay district
where wind resources are known to be
valuable and wind turbines are given
precedence over visual considerations.
Performance standard – Performance
standards can address many real or
perceived nuisances associated with wind
turbines. Noise standards, measured at the
property line, protect both adjoining
landowners from excessive noise and the
wind turbine owner from unwarranted
complaints. Other standards that
communities sometimes set include:
¾ lighting,
¾ protection of natural resource areas,
¾ electromagnetic interference,
¾ maintenance
Design standards – In order to mitigate specific visual
or safety considerations, some communities will
regulate the tower’s appearance or design. Regulated
items include:
¾ tower type (monopole, guyed, frame)
¾ tower finish (non-obtrusive color)
¾ prohibiting signage on tower
¾ attractive nuisance – no unsecured ladders on
towers or fencing around ladders
¾ design and location of ancillary structures and
facilities (power lines, battery storage, etc).
Productivity standards – The performance of the wind turbine, in terms of how productive the
turbine is at producing electricity, would not normally be a regulatory issue. Productivity
generally affects only the owner. Given, however, that the City is considered two regulatory
goals (regulating nuisances and improving sustainability) productivity becomes an important
Wisconsin Small Wind Model Ordinance
00.05 Standards.
A small wind energy system shall be a permitted use in
all zoning districts subject to the following requirements:
(1) Setbacks. A wind tower for a small wind system
shall be set back a distance equal to its total height
from:
(a) any public road right of way, unless written
permission is granted by the governmental entity
with jurisdiction over the road;
(b) any overhead utility lines, unless written
permission is granted by the affected utility;
(c) all property lines, unless written permission is
granted from the affected land owner or neighbor.
(2) Access.
(a) All ground mounted electrical and control
equipment shall be labeled or secured to prevent
unauthorized access.
(b) The tower shall be designed and installed so as to
not provide step bolts or a ladder readily accessible
to the public for a minimum height of 8 feet above
the ground.
Source: Small Wind Energy System Ordinance, Focus on Energy
Noise Performance Standard
D. Sound Pressure Level: On-site Use
wind energy systems shall not exceed
55 dB(A) at the property line closest to
the wind energy system. This sound
pressure level may be exceeded during
short term events such as utility
outages and/or severe wind storms. If
the ambient sound pressure level
exceeds 55 dB(A), the standard shall
be ambient dB(A) plus 5 dB(A).
Source: Sample Zoning Amendments
for Wind Energy Systems, Michigan
State University Extension, 2008
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -12- City of Saint Louis Park
consideration. Sustainability is not improved by a wind turbine that does not produce any
electricity, or the produces at rate that the owner would have been better off putting in a solar
system, efficiency measure, or other sustainability investment. The productivity of micro
turbines, building mounted systems, and other alternative technologies are particularly prone to
dramatic underperformance.
If the City is considering incentives to encourage wind energy, productivity is very important.
The City is a partner in the installation and should get a reasonable ‘return’ on its partnership.
Installers should provide an estimate of annual production, and production should be monitored
to ensure that claimed benefits occur.
Regulatory Conclusions
St. Louis Park should consider the following regulatory issues:
¾ Wind locations. Where in St. Louis Park might full height (80 - 120 feet) towers for small
wind be located without having significant impact on surrounding land uses? Do such
locations exist, and if so should wind energy systems be given preference over visual impacts
on neighbors?
¾ Land use limitations. What limitations should be placed on wind energy as a land use outside
areas that can accommodate full size towers? A number of tools can be used to limit wind
energy installations, including designating wind systems as only allowed in specific districts,
limiting installations by lot size of the primary use, setback requirements, and limiting height.
¾ Performance standards. What performance standards should the City consider for small and
micro-wind systems? Performance standards can be used to both mitigate nuisances and
protect wind turbine owners by setting a clear standard against which they can be measured.
¾ Productivity. Should the City consider, in developing ordinances, the productivity of the
system? In other words, should the City discourage wind turbines that have questionable
productivity, including building-mounted micro-turbines or wind turbines on short (35- 60
foot) towers?
¾ Incentives. Is the City considering incentives or other encouragement for renewable energy
installations? If so, the City should consider performance standards that ensure that the City is
getting benefit for the incentive; is the renewable energy installation providing real renewable
energy benefit?
¾ Large turbines. What standards should be in place to evaluate a conditional use application
for a larger wind turbine on a large commercial or industrial site?
Meeting Date: January 25, 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:
2010 Utility Rate Study Discussion Continuation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This is the second discussion 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 Monday’s study session is to present additional information on the current state of our utility
enterprises and funding needs as it relates to our utility rates and related capital projects. In
addition, staff is proposing some suggested rate increases within the utility funds. Council direction
from this discussion will be then used by staff to prepare for either additional discussion with
Council or to prepare to amend the 2010 utility rates and plan for 2011 and beyond.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
As the Council reviews the information presented staff has raised the following policy questions:
• Does the City Council concur with the proposed utility rates for residential, commercial
and irrigation rates for the Water Fund?
• Does the City Council concur with the proposed utility rate changes in the Sewer, Solid
Waste and Storm Sewer funds?
• Does the Council concur with staff’s recommendation to continue the analysis in 2010
regarding commercial rates and further analyze the option of tiering for water usage?
BACKGROUND:
This is a continued discussion from the January 11 Study Session. This report covers the following
topic areas:
1. Information requested at the January 11th meeting:
a. How are other cities financing their capital improvements?
b. How much borrowing capacity does the City have?
c. How would utility rates change by issuing more debt?
2. Water Fund Analysis. Adjustments to our rates need to be implemented in 2010 as follows:
a. Commercial usage rates - do not change significantly at this time - continue study in
2010 regarding rates and tier options
b. Residential fixed rate changes by March or April 2010
c. Residential tiered rate changes by March or April 2010
d. Commercial fixed and usage rate changes by March or April 2010
e. Irrigation usage rate changes by March or April 2010
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
3. Solid waste analysis. Implement rate adjustment by March or April, 2010 and continue with
pay as you throw plan.
4. Storm Sewer Analysis. Increase fixed quarterly fee by March or April, 2010.
5. Sanitary Sewer Analysis. Increase fixed rate and usage rate by March or April, 2010.
How are Other Cities Financing Their Capital Improvements?
From the information prepared by Ehlers, the City of St. Louis Park has relatively low utility debt
outstanding per capita when compared to some other communities. This amount includes the $4
million bond issue for the Municipal Service Center undertaken in 2008. Even factoring this in, the
City of St. Louis Park still is very favorable in terms of its debt.
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
St. Louis Park Richfield Edina Plymouth Chanhassen Brooklyn Park Hopkins
Per Capita Utility Debt Outstanding
How Much Borrowing Capacity Does the City Have?
One calculation the City prepares each year as part of its financial reporting is called the Legal Debt
Margin. This calculation determines our statutory bonding capacity. Currently, the City of St.
Louis Park is utilizing less than 2% of its available bonding capacity that is applicable to the Legal
Debt Margin. This places the City in a sound financial position to issue more debt based on
Council direction in the future if the need arises.
How Would Utility Rates Change by Issuing More Debt?
From the January 11th meeting, staff and Ehlers proposed that the City would need to issue debt in
the Water, Sewer and Storm Sewer funds, especially in the near term, due to large capital projects
scheduled. For future capital needs, staff and Ehlers are not recommending the issuance of debt for
most years due to the relatively small issuances that would be needed and due to the cost associated
with issuance costs, underwriting fees, etc. Rather, it is recommended that utility rates be adjusted
so they are sufficient to cover these capital needs and meet cash availability targets. In analyzing how
rates may change by issuing debt for all capital, no adjustments to rates would be able to occur until
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3
at least 2012 and then the rate adjustments downward would be nominal. Therefore a hybrid
approach of issuing debt early on and then utilizing a pay as you go method in future years would
seem to be the most appropriate.
Commercial water usage rates - continued analysis needed
As noted below, staff is recommending an adjustment to the fixed rate and water usage rate for
commercial users commensurate with rate increases for residential users. However, after discussion
and further review staff is recommending that more time be given to analyzing commercial rates for
water usage, and particularly for large water users, before any significant rate changes are made.
Such analysis will include a more in-depth review of creating tiers for this type of user or continue
with one rate structure. It is staff’s feeling that a more thorough analysis and information sharing
with Council is necessary and will provide for a more informed policy decision and subsequent rate
structure that is effective, competitive and defensible for the long-term. Staff will provide more
information on this at the Study Session
Proposed water rate changes: residential, commercial and irrigation
Proposed Residential Fixed Rates:
• The charge for residential water meter service, which is a fixed fee to offset the cost of
making water available to residential customers, is proposed to increase by 7%. The dollar
amount increase is based on the size of the meter. Over 97% of residential customers would
see an increase of $0.41 to $0.74 per quarter in this charge.
Proposed Residential Tiered Rates:
• Tier One-Usage to 40 units, or 30,000 gallons per quarter, charged at $1.29 per unit 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
from $1.51 in 2009 or 7%.
• Tier Three-Usage over 80 units, or over 60,000 gallons, charged at $2.43 per unit from
$2.27 in 2009 or 7%.
Proposed Commercial Fixed and Usage Rates:
• The charge for commercial water meter service, which is a fixed fee to offset the cost of
making water available to commercial customers, is proposed to increase by 12.5%. This
rate increase has not been changed in over 8 years, which is why the increase is more
significant than the residential change. The dollar amount increase is based on the size of the
meter, but will range from $0.45 to $8.07 per month. Over 88% of commercial customers
would see an increase of $0.45 to $1.47 per month in this charge.
• Increase base usage rate from $1.21 per unit to $1.29 per unit.
Irrigation Usage Rates:
• Based on the utility rate study and DNR guidelines, it could be argued that irrigation water
usage should be set at the highest rate that a city charges. By following this suggestion the
irrigation usage rate would double. Staff felt it would be prudent to not impact users all in
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 4
one year, but rather phase the increase in over two years. Therefore, it is proposed that the
irrigation usage charge increase from $1.21 per unit to $1.82 per unit, or 50% and phase in
the other portion of the increase in 2011.
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 with debt being projected to be issued in years 2012, 2018 and 2019. These are years
with larger capital expenditures when bonding would be reasonable. The sewer fund is not subject
to the mandate of imposing conservation rates.
Proposed Rate Changes
For the Sewer Fund, the recommended changes are as follows:
• Quarterly sewer service charge – which is the fixed fee of making sanitary sewer service
available, be increased 7% from $10.65 per quarter to $11.40 per quarter.
• The sanitary sewer rate - 10% increase from $2.01 to $2.21 per unit of water used. The
sewer rate is calculated based on the customer’s winter water consumption.
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 rate 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. This was done to accomplish a rate structure so that each 30 gallons of service receives a
2010 proposed $11.65 incremental increase in the disposal costs up from $11.20, or 4%, from
2009. For 2010, rates excluding sales tax will range from $42.85 for 30 gallon service to $240.86 for
540 gallon service. This fund only has one proposed capital investment, which is in 2011, and has
adequate cash reserves to finance this activity without issuing debt or compromising the fund’s
financial position.
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 such as 2010 where capital needs
are projected to be approximately $1.3 million. In future years, projected capital costs drop
significantly and are projected to remain relatively stable, thereby allowing cash reserves within the
fund to finance the projects. 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. For 2010, a proposed increase in the rate to $14.50 per quarter. This is a
$1.00 increase, or 7.4% from the 2009 rate of $13.50. Rate increases will need to continue over the
next several years to maintain a positive and healthy cash balance.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Overall Rate Impact on Single Family Home
As noted in the Utility Rate Study, for a residential property with a 60 gallon cart refuse service the
cumulative increased cost per quarter would be as follows:
• Average user (28,500 gallons of water/quarter) - $15.21/quarter
• High user (60,000 gallons of water/quarter) - $28.03/quarter
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.
The suggested timeframe for discussing the matter is as follows:
• January 25 Study Session – continued discussion from January 11th on rate study
• February or March – adopt new rates for Residential and Commercial Water, Sewer,
Solid Waste and Storm Sewer effective March 2010
• February - communication of new rates
• 2010 continued study and work with Council on changes to the commercial rates
• Budget process for 2011 – review and adopt new rates to be in place for January 1, 2011
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 25, 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:
Planning Commission 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes work performed by the Planning Commission in 2009 and outlines the
intentions of Planning Commission work to be completed in 2010. The Planning Commission and
planning staff request feedback and guidance from Council regarding the reports.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Are the actions of the Planning Commission in alignment with the expectations of the
City Council?
• Does the City Council wish to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss their
annual report and work plan?
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission advises the City Council in matters concerning comprehensive planning,
zoning, platting, street changes, and general planning and development. This Commission may also
hold public hearings on certain issues. The commission consists of seven regular members and one
non-voting youth member. Meetings are held the first and third Wednesday of each month at 6:00
p.m. Planning Commission meetings are shown live on Civic Cable TV Channel 17. Meetings are
also replayed on Wednesdays - 8:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. and Fridays - 8:00 a.m., 2:00
p.m. and 2:00 a.m.
In accordance with Council policy, the 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan are attached in
full for City Council review at the January 25 study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The 2010 Planning Commission Work Plan primarily addresses all of the Strategic Directions: being
a connected and engaged community; being a leader in environmental stewardship; providing a well-
maintained and diverse housing stock; and promoting and integrating arts, culture and community
aesthetics in all city initiatives.
Attachments: Planning Commission 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
Planning Commission Bylaws
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
St. Louis Park Planning Commission
2009 Annual Report
Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3
2009 St. Louis Park Planning Commission
Robert Kramer, Chair
Richard Person, Vice-Chair
Lynne Carper
Andrew Ford, Youth Member
Claudia Johnston-Madison
Dennis Morris
Carl Robertson
Larry Shapiro, School Board Representative
St. Louis Park Planning Staff
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Adam Fulton, Planner
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 4
In 2009, the Planning Commission held public hearings on numerous applications. The cases are
listed by type, and the projects are described in the paragraphs to follow.
Applications Processed 2006 2007 2008 2009
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 1 1 2
Conditional Use Permits 14 8 9 5
Planned Unit Developments 3 5 5 4
Re-zonings 2 2 2 2
Subdivisions 11 7 5 1
Variance 7 1 5 2
Zoning Code Amendments 3 3 5 0
Major Development and Redevelopment
Projects that came before the Planning Commission in 2009 are briefly summarized below:
The West End – Amended PUD and Variance – The Planning Commission reviewed amendments
to the Planned Unit Development for the sign plan and a variance for signage.
Wooddale Pointe – Amended PUD, Subdivision – The Commission recommended approval for an
amended PUD to reduce the amount of units with changes to the site plan. The subdivision was
amended with easement variances.
Marriot Hotel – Preliminary Planned Unit Development, Subdivision – The Planning Commission
recommended preliminary approval for construction of a new 162 room, 7-story hotel adjacent to
the 600 tower in the Metropointe Office Complex.
Benilde-St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements – The Planning Commission recommended
approval of an amended special permit to reconfigure and reconstruct athletic facilities and improve
stormwater.
Groves Academy – An amendment to a special permit was approved to enlarge the school facility.
Municipal Service Center – The Planning Commission recommended approval of an amendment to
a special permit to construct improvements to the City’s Public Works and Parks maintenance
facility.
Galaxy Drive In – A Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning from residential to commercial
were recommended for approval to remove one single family home for parking.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Comprehensive Plan
The Planning Commission was charged with the primary responsibility for updating the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Over the past two years the Commission spent 15+ meetings reviewing,
discussing and modifying the plan. A public hearing was held by the Commission on Dec. 2, 2009.
The following meetings were held by the Commission throughout 2009:
February 4, 2009 Study Session
• Parks, Rec and Open Space Plan
• Transportation
• Land Use Discussion (Business Park, Mixed Use, Land Use Changes)
• Public Engagement Process
March 4, 2009 Study Session
• Land Use Planning
• Parks, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan
• Plan by Neighborhood Public Process
April 1, 2009 Study Session
• Transportation Plan
• Sewer, Water and Solid Waste Plans
• Housing Plan
April 15, 2009
• Housing chapter
• Land Use update
• Schedule update
May 6, 2009
• Land Use and Redevelopment
• Public Input Process
• Timing for draft plan
May 20, 2009 Study Session
• Discuss land use chapter and sending draft out for review
June 3, 2009 Study Session
• Highlights for Land Use and Redevelopment
July 15, 2009 Study Session
• Neighborhood Planning Process report with HKGi
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 6
September 16, 2009 Study Session
• Land Use map changes
• Plan by Neighborhood – next steps
• Studies and Implementation Steps
November 4, 2009 Study Session
• Land Use map changes
• Business Park
• Next steps and schedule
November 18, 2009 Study Session
• Goals and policies: Land Use, Economic Development and Redevelopment,
Housing, Highways and Streets, Bicycles and Pedestrians, Transit
• Next steps and schedule
Plan by Neighborhood
As a means to update the Plan by Neighborhood chapter and gain neighborhood input on the draft
version of the updated Comprehensive Plan, the City undertook a neighborhood input process in
Spring 2009. The neighborhood input process was organized around seven neighborhood planning
areas that grouped the 35 neighborhoods into geographic areas.
Southwest LRT Station Area Planning
The Planning Commission worked throughout the year to assist the work being completed by
Hennepin County on the initial Station Area Planning for the Southwest Light Trail transit line.
The Planning Commission reviewed work completed by the County’s consultant, Hay Dobbs;
attended public meetings related to the Station Area plans in May and August; and took part in a
tour that included a review of the station areas within St. Louis Park. As work continues on the
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Southwest Light Rail project, the Planning Commission expects to stay closely involved with issues
related to transportation and land use around the future station sites.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 8
St. Louis Park Planning Commission
2010 Work Plan
1. Review Planning Applications – Hear applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs),
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings,
Preliminary Plats and variances. Hold public hearings, discuss planning impacts, and make
recommendations to the City Council.
Potential and Continuing Applications:
West End (Duke) Redevelopment
Gateway Retail – Comprehensive Plan land use amendment and rezoning
Two fire stations
Subdivision – PBK – L.A. Fitness site
Final Approvals:
Galaxy Drive-In – Conditional Use Permit and lot combination
Marriot – Final PUD
2. 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Complete Plan by Neighborhood Section by spring 2010.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. is completing the 35 individual neighborhood plans. These
will incorporate information from the Comprehensive Plan and the public input process
from 2009. When completed, plans will be shared with neighbors and adopted into the
overall Plan.
3. Updates to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance – Continue work to update the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, including electronic signs, wind energy systems,
business park zoning district, and land use changes resulting from the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
4. Special Studies
A. Lake Street area - Louisiana to Wooddale Avenue
As prioritized by the City Council, the Planning Commission will participate in
studying the Lake-Walker area near the high school as the first of the “commercial
nodes and corridors” studies. The purpose of the study is to look at the market
conditions, circulation, infrastructure, buildings, mix of uses, connectivity and image
to plan for the appropriate type and amount of commercial development and to
determine what the city can do to help the private market succeed.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 9
B. Southwest LRT Station Area Planning
Over the last year and one half Staff has worked on a Hennepin County funded
Station Area Planning Study. This initial plan is just completed and a number of
items from it are being incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan update. Hennepin
County has designated the corridor as a County “Community Works” project. This
will allow continued planning with the communities along the LRT line, and
provide for the potential for funding infrastructure improvements. Areas needing
future study in St. Louis Park include looking closely at the circulation and access
and development/market opportunities. Staff will continue to work on these areas
continuously over the next two to five years.
The City will continue to be involved with the parallel SWLRT planning process in
the next several years as well. Hennepin County will finalize the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process, and then the project will be
turned over to the Metropolitan Council and the Preliminary Engineering (PE)
phase will begin. It is expected there will be staff groups to work on details of the
route and station area planning at this level also.
Continued work on the SWLRT station areas will include Planning Commission
input and consideration, particularly on transportation and land use issues.
C. Freight Relocation Study by Hennepin County
Hennepin County will be undertaking a study to relocate the TC&W route from an
east-west line in St. Louis Park to the north-south Canadian Pacific rail line through
the northern part of St. Louis Park. If traffic is moved to this line, some of the tracks
and bridges will likely have to be rebuilt and/or reconfigured. This will have
significant community impacts for circulation. Public process is expected with this
study, and it is expected the Planning Commission will be informed and involved as
it moves forward.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 10
Planning Commission Adopted August 6, 1969
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Revised June 19, 1989
Revised November 18, 1992
Revised February 21, 2001
Revised May 18, 2005
Revised January 3, 2007
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS
Article I -– The Commission
Section 1. The name of the Commission shall be the “Planning Commission”.
Section 2. The planning commission shall have the following powers and duties to:
(1) Prepare a comprehensive plan for the future development of the city to be submitted
to the city council for implementation and to maintain such plan and recommend its
amendment to the city council as may become necessary.
(2) Initiate, direct and review, from time to time, a study of the provisions of the zoning
chapter and the subdivision regulations and to report to the city council its advice and
recommendations accordingly.
(3) Study applications and proposals for amendments to the zoning chapter and
applications for special permits and to advise the city council of its recommendations.
(4) Study preliminary and final plats and to advise the city council of its
recommendations.
(5) Submit to the city council by April 1 of each year an annual report of the activities of
the commission during the previous year.
(6) Submit an annual work plan to the city council that details activities and projected
timelines for the calendar year. The Community Development Department will
develop the work plan for approval by the commission.
(7) Act in an advisory capacity to the city council in all matters wherein powers are
assigned to the city council by state law or city Charter concerning land use,
comprehensive planning, zoning, platting, changes in streets and other matters of a
general planning nature.
Article II - Officers and Their Duties
Section 1. At its first meeting of each calendar year, the Commission shall elect from its
membership a Chair and a Vice-chair. The Chair position shall rotate annually. The staff liaison shall be
the Secretary of the Commission.
Section 2. The Chair and Vice-chair shall take office immediately following their election and
shall hold office for a term of one year and until their successors are elected and assume office.
Section 3. The Chair shall preside at all meetings, appoint committees, and perform such other
duties as may be ordered by the Commission
Section 4. The Vice-chair shall act in the capacity of the Chair in the absence of the Chair. In the
event the office of the Chair becomes vacant, the Vice-chair shall become Chair, and the Commission
shall elect a successor to the office of Vice-chair for the unexpired term.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 11
Section 5. A staff liaison to the Planning Commission shall be designated 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. 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-Election of Officers
Section 1. Nomination of officers shall be made by the members of the Commission present at
the annual organization meeting and the elections shall follow immediately thereafter.
Section 2. A candidate receiving the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the
Commission shall be declared elected.
Section 3. Vacancies in offices shall be filled by regular election procedures for the unexpired
term.
Article IV -Meetings
Section 1. All regular and special meetings, records, and accounts shall be open to the public
and conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Section 2. The annual organization meeting of the commission shall be the first regular
meeting of the year at which time elections will be held and the schedule for the following year’s
regular meeting schedule will be considered.
Section 3. The Commission shall hold regular meetings on the first and third Wednesday of
each month at 6:00 p.m., provided however, that when the day fixed for any regular meeting of the
Commission falls upon any of the following holidays: Ash Wednesday, Chanukah, Christmas, Veterans
Day, Independence Day, New Year's Day, Passover (first two nights), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur,
such meeting shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding Wednesday not a holiday. (For
Chanukah, Christmas, Passover, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiday includes the evening
before the holiday.) All regular meetings of the Commission shall be held in the City Hall of the City or
other public building as noticed. The commission may, by a majority vote, change the regular meeting
dates for any reason provided proper public notice of the changed meeting is provided to the public.
Section 4. The Chair or any two members of the Commission may call a special meeting of the
Commission after having given notice not less than three days in advance of such meeting to each
member of the Commission. Such notice shall provide the date, time, place and purpose of meeting and
be delivered personally to each member or be left at the member's usual place of residence with a person
of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or written notice thereof shall be left in a conspicuous
place at the residence if no such person be found there. If however, all commissioners attend and
participate in the meeting, these notice requirements are not necessary. The presence of any
commissioner at a special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any formal notice unless the commissioner
appears for the special purpose of objecting to the holding of such meeting. Notice of the date, time,
place and purpose of a special meeting must also be posted by the secretary on the principal bulletin
board of the city at least three days prior to the date of the meeting.
Section 5. A quorum shall consist of a simple majority of the members eligible to vote on matters
before the Commission. Without a quorum, the meeting cannot be opened, and Planning Commission
business or voting cannot be conducted. Passage of any matter before the Commission shall require the
presence of a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum.
Section 6. Voting on regular motions shall be by voice and will be recorded by yeas and nays
unless a roll call is requested by a member of the Commission.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 12
Section 7. In all points not covered by these rules, the Commission shall be governed on its
procedure by Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure.
Section 8. All meeting minutes, records and accounts shall be in writing kept in
accordance with MN Statute and Rules regarding preservation of public records and the MN
Data Privacy Act.
Section 9. No member of the Commission shall discuss or vote on any question in which the
member has a direct or indirect financial interest.
Section 10. Commissioners should only communicate on issues pending or before the
Commission during scheduled Commission meetings. If a Commissioner wishes to transmit information
regarding the business of the Commission, the Commissioner should present it to the Staff liaison or
other Community Development Department staff for distribution to the Commissioners.
Section 11. Any Commissioner that is unable to attend a scheduled meeting of the Commission
may submit written comments pertaining to an item on the agenda to the Community Development
Director or the Secretary of the Commission for distribution to the Commissioners prior to the meeting or
at the meeting and may request that such comments be attached as an addendum to the minutes of the
meeting.
Article V - Order of Business
Section 1. The order of business shall be as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Hearings
4. Unfinished Business
5. New Business
a. Consent Items
b. Other New Business
6. Communications
7. Miscellaneous
8. Adjournment
Section 2. Unless objection is made by motion of the Commission, the Presiding Officer may
modify the foregoing order of business in order to accommodate citizens present or to expedite the
business of the Commission.
Section 3. Unless a reading of the Commission meeting minutes is requested by a member of
the Commission, such minutes may be approved without reading if the secretary has previously furnished
each member with a copy thereof.
Section 4. Unless there is objection from the Commission, Staff or anyone in attendance at the
meeting, Consent Items may be acted upon without discussion.
Section 5. The case before the Commission shall be presented in summary by Planning staff or
a designated member of the Commission and parties in interest shall have privilege of the floor thereafter.
In those instances where the matter is considered non-controversial and does not warrant a summary,
the Presiding Officer may entertain a motion without presentation of the summary, unless an objection is
expressed by anyone present.
Section 6. The Commission may postpone any case or continue any case for further study and
information until the next regular meeting unless otherwise designated.
Section 7. Any person desiring to address the Commission shall first secure the permission of
the Presiding Officer to do so.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 13
Section 8. Each person addressing the Commission, shall, if requested by the Presiding Officer,
step up in front of the rail, shall give his/her name and address in an audible tone for the records, and
unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer, shall limit his/her remarks to five minutes. All
remarks should be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to any member thereof. No person,
other than the Commission and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any
discussion, either directly or through a member of the Commission, without the permission of the
Presiding Officer. No question shall be asked a Commission member except through the Presiding Officer
.
Section 9. No person, except City Officials and their representatives, shall be permitted on the
elevated portions of the Council Chambers without the express consent of the Commission.
Article VI - Hearings
Section 1. In addition to those required by law, the Commission may, at its discretion, hold public
hearings when it declares such hearings will be in the public interest.
Section 2. In the event of a public hearing, notice of such hearing shall be published in the official
newspaper of the municipality not less than ten days before the time of the hearing.
Article VII - Attendance and Performance of Duties
Section 1. Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued membership.
Commission members are expected to attend regular and special commission meetings and assigned
committee meetings. Planned absences communicated to the commission chair or committee task force
chair in advance of the meeting will be deemed excused. Any other absence will be deemed unexcused.
The commission will approve and record the approval of all excused and unexcused absences.
Section 2. Council will be informed if a member receives three unexcused absences in any
calendar year, if a member attends scheduled meetings irregularly or if a member is frequently absent
from scheduled meetings.
Section 3. Commissioners are expected to adequately prepare for meetings. Commissioners
unable to complete an assigned task should notify the commission chair or task force chair as soon as
possible. The commission may ask the Council to review a member's appointment based upon its
assessment of significant non-performance of duties.
Article VIII - By-laws and Rules
Section 1. These by-laws are subject to the City Council’s Rules and Procedures for Boards and
Commissions, amended by Resolution 06-148 on September 18, 2006 and Chapter 2, Administration, the
St. Louis Park City Code.
Section 2. Written notice of proposed changes to the Planning Commission by-laws shall be
provided to Commissioners thirty days prior to formal action by the Commission. These rules may be
amended at any regular or special meeting by an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership.
The City Council has thirty days to take action to modify the by-laws or amendments approved by the
Commission.
Meeting Date: January 25, 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 25, 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:
November - December, 2009 Monthly Financial Reports.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues and
expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds should be a
primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use
of tax levy dollars.
Through the month of November, actual expenditures should generally not exceed about 92% of
the annual budget. At the end of November, the General Fund had expenditures totaling 86% of
the revised budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures were at 87%. This continued the
trend for the year in that both of these figures were not only below the general expected level, but
they were also below the prior year comparable figures of 87% and 99% respectively.
Through the month of December, General Fund revenues for 2009 are at 99% of budget, while
expenditures are at 94.5%. Park & Recreation revenues are at 95%, while expenditures are at 93%
of budget. Park & Recreation revenues may increase slightly as year end receivables are booked for
ice time.
While this report does not represent the final year end numbers for December 31, 2009, it does
indicate that the City should end the year with a positive change in fund balance in both of these
funds. Invoices for 2009 expenses will continue to be recorded through mid February, and year end
audit entries will be completed over the next few months. The final audited financial statements for
2009 will be presented at a separate Council meeting in the spring of 2010.
Significant variances from the revised budget for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted
below accompanied with a general discussion of reasons for the variance.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2
General Fund
Revenues:
• General Fund property tax revenues will slightly exceed 100% of budget due to an additional
$570,000 that was received with our second half tax settlement relating to two decertified
TIF districts. The Oak Park Village and Excelsior Boulevard districts were both decertified
on July 31, 2009. The City received an amount in the second half settlement equal to
approximately 36% of what would normally have been received as increment for these two
districts as they come back on the regular property tax rolls. If not for this, General Fund
property tax revenues would have fallen short of budget by 2%. Staff has been concerned
that this revenue source could potentially fall short of the 99% that we have generally
collected in prior years because of increasing delinquencies county-wide and the increase in
commercial tax court petitions which have the ability to reduce taxes retroactively.
• License and permit revenues will exceed budget by almost 11%. Liquor license revenues
under the Administration Department fell short of budget by $46,000. However,
Inspections Department revenues continued to be strong throughout the year and will
exceed projections by 15%.
• Charges for Services revenue looks low for the year, however, this is primarily due to year
end entries that will be made to reimburse Public Works Engineering time spent on capital
projects.
• While interest earnings are not allocated until the end of the year, it is likely that this source
of income will be down significantly, probably about $150,000 below budget, with short
term rates staying well below 1%. Accordingly, the 2010 interest income budget has been
revised downward to account for the fact that interest rates may not improve in the near
future.
Expenditures:
• Communications & Marketing Services and Other Charges exceed budget at about 119%
for the year, but this reflects the full cost of the combined Park & Recreation brochure and
Park Perspective. The 2009 budget for IR did not assume paying for the full cost of the
combined Park and Recreation and Park Perspective publication. As such, savings are shown
in the Park and Recreation budget relating to the cost of the Park and Recreation
publication.
Parks and Recreation
Revenues:
• Revenues for the Rec Center Division will be lower than last year due mainly to the cool
weather conditions over the pool season. For the 2010 budget, we have reduced the aquatic
park revenue projection to account for the fact that this revenue source can fluctuate
significantly depending on the weather.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Expenditures:
• Environmental Division expenditures have exceeded 100% of budget primarily because of
tree removals. While the number of tree removals is down a bit this year, the diameter of the
trees being removed due to disease are larger making the cost more. The Services and Other
Charges expenditures, where the direct tree removal charges are identified, are over budget
by 70%. This issue has been addressed in the 2010 budget through an addition in budgeted
expenditures for tree removals.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Finance Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:24:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,653,275.00- 7,701,788.85- 14,910,782.16- 257,507.16 101.76 |14,107,179.00-13,235,208.58- 93.82
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,515,000.00- 154,363.80- 2,790,701.89- 275,701.89 110.96 |2,712,715.00-4,115,212.91- 151.70
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 312,000.00- 18,309.30- 307,631.23-4,368.77- 98.60 |311,000.00-325,102.43- 104.53
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,647,214.00- 27,934.29- 1,428,821.82- 218,392.18- 86.74 |1,709,365.00-1,903,239.88- 111.34
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,201,900.00- 79,387.47- 718,772.15- 483,127.85- 59.80 |1,084,975.00-1,082,300.92- 99.75
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-7,083.33- 145,183.55- 45,183.55 145.18 |100,000.00-131,199.96- 131.20
4001 REVENUES 20,429,389.00-7,988,867.04-20,301,892.80-127,496.20-99.38 |20,025,234.00-20,792,264.68-103.83
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,496,154.00 1,578,681.81 18,152,388.91 343,765.09 98.14 |17,638,555.00 17,554,302.68 99.52
6210 SUPPLIES 766,135.00 53,301.49 617,891.90 148,243.10 80.65 |758,098.00 751,783.18 99.17
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 70,775.00 14,033.79 56,135.74 14,639.26 79.32 |71,350.00 34,496.02 48.35
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,160,215.00 299,820.23 3,373,264.38 786,950.62 81.08 |4,258,872.00 3,667,139.95 86.11
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 91.02 91.02-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 23,493,279.00 1,945,837.32 22,199,771.95 1,293,507.05 94.49 |22,726,875.00 22,007,721.83 96.84
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,678,910.00- 219,075.82- 2,628,909.84- 50,000.16- 98.13 |2,555,694.00-2,558,321.10- 100.10
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00- 18,503.19- 22,896.94- 20,896.94 1,144.85 |2,000.00-445.00- 22.25
8100 INTEREST 350,000.00-76,283.34 426,283.34- 21.80- |325,000.00-358,730.24- 110.38
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 5,953.00 5,953.00-|700.00-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 125.00- 6,250.00-6,250.00 |5,925.00-
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 651.30-991.80-991.80 |5,952.12-
8001 OTHER INCOME 3,030,910.00-238,355.31-2,576,812.24-454,097.76-85.02 |2,882,694.00-2,930,073.46-101.64
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES .71 .71-|17.04
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,000.00 192.35 274.68 180,725.32 .15 |180,650.00 69,777.62 38.63
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,633.06 21,402.93 2,402.93- 112.65 |400.00 32,128.44 8,032.11
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,000.00 1,825.41 21,678.32 178,321.68 10.84 |181,050.00 101,923.10 56.30
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 232,980.00 6,279,559.62-657,254.77-890,234.77 282.11-|3.00-1,612,693.21-*********
01000 GENERAL FUND 232,980.00 6,279,559.62-657,254.77-890,234.77 282.11-|3.00-1,612,693.21-*********
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 4
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:24:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,073,118.00- 2,036,559.00- 4,073,118.00-100.00 |3,750,197.00-3,750,197.00- 100.00
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 130.00- 6,865.00-6,865.00 |6,275.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 55,702.00-1,489.07- 66,634.59- 10,932.59 119.63 |56,402.00-86,454.46- 153.28
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,141,598.00- 52,288.14- 1,027,848.36- 113,749.64- 90.04 |1,058,170.00-1,093,888.36- 103.38
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 883,000.00- 86,756.31- 698,787.67- 184,212.33- 79.14 |823,061.00-963,342.46- 117.04
4001 REVENUES 6,153,418.00-2,177,222.52-5,873,253.62-280,164.38-95.45 |5,687,830.00-5,900,157.28-103.73
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,503,813.00 254,037.27 3,406,580.27 97,232.73 97.22 |3,403,854.00 3,435,314.79 100.92
6210 SUPPLIES 872,131.00 30,618.98 650,397.42 221,733.58 74.58 |795,292.00 782,613.02 98.41
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 89.51 998.33 3,121.67 24.23 |4,500.00 3,900.62 86.68
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,703,002.00 74,447.49 1,614,457.81 88,544.19 94.80 |1,543,904.00 1,850,353.41 119.85
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 15,352.00 7,574.25 7,777.75 49.34 |19,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,098,418.00 359,193.25 5,680,008.08 418,409.92 93.14 |5,766,550.00 6,072,181.84 105.30
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00-56,599.12- 75.47
8100 INTEREST |1,600.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 12,000.00-4,773.00-7,227.00- 39.78 |11,100.00-6,538.00- 58.90
8200 MISC REVENUE 2,890.00-2,890.00 |1,013.17-
8001 OTHER INCOME 12,000.00-7,663.00-4,337.00-63.86 |87,700.00-64,150.29-73.15
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 8,981.04 100.00
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 12.97 12.97-|123.76
8580 MISC EXPENSE 871.75 871.75 871.75-|111.80
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 1,134.08 17,580.70 17,580.70-|15,974.72
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2,005.83 18,465.42 18,465.42-|8,981.00 25,191.32 280.50
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 67,000.00-1,816,023.44-182,443.12-115,443.12 272.30 |1.00 133,065.59 *********
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 67,000.00-1,816,023.44-182,443.12-115,443.12 272.30 |1.00 133,065.59 *********
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 5
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
100 GENERAL
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,653,275.00- 7,701,788.85- 14,910,782.16- 257,507.16 101.76 |14,107,179.00-13,235,208.58- 93.82
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00- 22,602.50- 45,205.00-100.00 |45,205.00-368,917.81- 816.10
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,948.60- 2,321.32-2,321.32 |2,662.30-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 85,231.75-231.75 100.27 |85,000.00-85,124.16- 100.15
4001 REVENUES 14,783,480.00-7,733,423.28-15,043,540.23-260,060.23 101.76 |14,237,384.00-13,691,912.85-96.17
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00-|52.50
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00-|52.50
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,678,910.00- 219,075.82- 2,628,909.84- 50,000.16- 98.13 |2,555,694.00-2,558,321.10- 100.10
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 18,445.43- 18,445.43- 18,445.43 |
8100 INTEREST 350,000.00-76,285.95 426,285.95- 21.80- |325,000.00-358,726.46- 110.38
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 500.00 500.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME 3,028,910.00-237,521.25-2,570,569.32-458,340.68-84.87 |2,880,694.00-2,917,047.56-101.26
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,000.00 2,600.00 1.44
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,000.00 2,600.00 1.44
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 17,632,390.00-7,969,144.53-17,612,309.55-20,080.45-99.89 |16,938,078.00-16,606,307.91-98.04
100 GENERAL 17,632,390.00-7,969,144.53-17,612,309.55-20,080.45-99.89 |16,938,078.00-16,606,307.91-98.04
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 6
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
110 ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 215,500.00-125.00- 169,601.96- 45,898.04- 78.70 |178,000.00-180,716.65- 101.53
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-6,750.00-1,250.00- 84.38 |8,000.00-4,000.00- 50.00
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 947.30-947.30 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 97.00-97.00 |
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 143.40-143.40 |
4001 REVENUES 223,500.00-125.00-177,539.66-45,960.34-79.44 |186,000.00-184,716.65-99.31
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 531,500.00 46,601.87 518,011.89 13,488.11 97.46 |511,250.00 525,245.20 102.74
6210 SUPPLIES 3,700.00 756.98 3,364.85 335.15 90.94 |4,350.00 7,113.91 163.54
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,635.00 40,096.45 402,648.04 52,986.96 88.37 |518,727.00 482,031.12 92.93
6001 EXPENDITURES 990,835.00 87,455.30 924,024.78 66,810.22 93.26 |1,034,327.00 1,014,390.23 98.07
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 340.50-340.50 |30.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 340.50-340.50 |30.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES .71 .71-|8.25
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 4.86 4.86-|24.93
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 5.57 5.57-|33.18
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 767,335.00 87,330.30 746,150.19 21,184.81 97.24 |848,327.00 829,676.76 97.80
110 ADMINISTRATION 767,335.00 87,330.30 746,150.19 21,184.81 97.24 |848,327.00 829,676.76 97.80
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 7
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 FINANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 50,000.00-4,026.50- 43,939.75-6,060.25- 87.88 |50,000.00-46,911.00- 93.82
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,229.36-1,229.36 |
4001 REVENUES 50,000.00-4,026.50-45,169.11-4,830.89-90.34 |50,000.00-46,911.00-93.82
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 937,200.00 80,685.59 967,400.18 30,200.18- 103.22 |951,407.00 886,402.05 93.17
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 201.44 3,430.72 794.28 81.20 |4,000.00 4,755.15 118.88
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 162,555.00 9,268.63 136,951.27 25,603.73 84.25 |167,356.00 166,636.98 99.57
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,103,980.00 90,155.66 1,107,782.17 3,802.17-100.34 |1,122,763.00 1,057,794.18 94.21
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 125.00- 6,250.00-6,250.00 |5,925.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE 651.30-651.30-651.30 |281.71-
8001 OTHER INCOME 776.30-6,901.30-6,901.30 |6,206.71-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |8.79
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 24.41 475.59 4.88 |150.00 63,496.49 *********
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 22.97 477.03 4.59 |300.00 10.16 3.39
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 47.38 952.62 4.74 |450.00 63,515.44 *********
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,054,980.00 85,352.86 1,055,759.14 779.14-100.07 |1,073,213.00 1,068,191.91 99.53
120 FINANCE 1,054,980.00 85,352.86 1,055,759.14 779.14-100.07 |1,073,213.00 1,068,191.91 99.53
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 8
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
130 HUMAN RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 9,000.00-260.00- 10,964.00-1,964.00 121.82 |9,000.00-3,758.00- 41.76
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30.00-30.00 |
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-260.00-10,994.00-1,994.00 122.16 |9,000.00-3,758.00-41.76
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 481,000.00 40,268.00 478,862.12 2,137.88 99.56 |459,624.00 463,094.72 100.76
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 260.20 1,861.52 138.48 93.08 |2,000.00 1,728.94 86.45
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 3,192.56 99,011.54 61,538.46 61.67 |168,050.00 120,313.34 71.59
6001 EXPENDITURES 643,550.00 43,720.76 579,735.18 63,814.82 90.08 |629,674.00 585,137.00 92.93
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 634,550.00 43,460.76 568,741.18 65,808.82 89.63 |620,674.00 581,379.00 93.67
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 634,550.00 43,460.76 568,741.18 65,808.82 89.63 |620,674.00 581,379.00 93.67
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 9
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 12,000.00-1,255.00- 14,329.25-2,329.25 119.41 |12,000.00-12,505.00- 104.21
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |1,667.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 585,000.00- 62,217.87- 534,773.03- 50,226.97- 91.41 |572,675.00-596,709.13- 104.20
4001 REVENUES 597,000.00-63,472.87-549,102.28-47,897.72-91.98 |584,675.00-610,881.13-104.48
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,023,000.00 84,912.43 998,002.25 24,997.75 97.56 |1,019,147.00 1,001,970.55 98.31
6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 125.54 807.60 2,192.40 26.92 |3,000.00 883.88 29.46
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 219.09 21.91
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,750.00 446.66 47,890.33 8,859.67 84.39 |57,750.00 47,114.17 81.58
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,083,750.00 85,484.63 1,046,700.18 37,049.82 96.58 |1,080,897.00 1,050,187.69 97.16
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 486,750.00 22,011.76 497,597.90 10,847.90-102.23 |496,222.00 439,306.56 88.53
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 486,750.00 22,011.76 497,597.90 10,847.90-102.23 |496,222.00 439,306.56 88.53
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 10
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 8,200.00-11,500.00-3,300.00 140.24 |8,200.00-19,006.00- 231.78
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-15,000.00-100.00 |15,000.00-15,000.00- 100.00
4001 REVENUES 23,200.00-26,500.00-3,300.00 114.22 |23,200.00-34,006.00-146.58
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 534,000.00 43,489.29 528,162.94 5,837.06 98.91 |510,784.00 497,540.03 97.41
6210 SUPPLIES 90,500.00 19,981.07 61,973.76 28,526.24 68.48 |109,500.00 75,701.03 69.13
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 13,885.05 12,114.95 53.40 |31,000.00 9,474.48 30.56
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 502,942.00 42,435.42 385,717.85 117,224.15 76.69 |536,642.00 433,444.96 80.77
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,153,442.00 105,905.78 989,739.60 163,702.40 85.81 |1,187,926.00 1,016,160.50 85.54
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |385.09-
8001 OTHER INCOME |385.09-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 37.02 37.02-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 20.00 223.10 223.10-|34.26
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 20.00 260.12 260.12-|34.26
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,130,242.00 105,925.78 963,499.72 166,742.28 85.25 |1,164,726.00 981,803.67 84.29
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,130,242.00 105,925.78 963,499.72 166,742.28 85.25 |1,164,726.00 981,803.67 84.29
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 11
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,277.42-1,277.42 |
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |75.00-
4001 REVENUES 1,277.42-1,277.42 |75.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 562,500.00 47,204.07 573,637.60 11,137.60- 101.98 |566,679.00 568,419.01 100.31
6210 SUPPLIES 30,800.00 228.29 19,673.22 11,126.78 63.87 |31,200.00 24,468.64 78.43
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 983.50 4,267.73 4,267.73-|2,300.00 4,088.74 177.77
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 877,970.00 98,268.42 739,646.69 138,323.31 84.25 |860,660.00 756,305.79 87.88
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,471,270.00 146,684.28 1,337,225.24 134,044.76 90.89 |1,460,839.00 1,353,282.18 92.64
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 113.97 113.97-|52.75
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 113.97 113.97-|52.75
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,471,270.00 146,684.28 1,336,061.79 135,208.21 90.81 |1,460,839.00 1,353,259.93 92.64
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,471,270.00 146,684.28 1,336,061.79 135,208.21 90.81 |1,460,839.00 1,353,259.93 92.64
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 12
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,000.00-3,000.00-|2,500.00-
4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-3,000.00-|2,500.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 184,980.00 10,663.78 147,829.83 37,150.17 79.92 |173,932.00 160,384.27 92.21
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 104,245.00 1,044.69 124,163.88 19,918.88- 119.11 |113,850.00 153,429.47 134.76
6001 EXPENDITURES 289,225.00 11,708.47 271,993.71 17,231.29 94.04 |287,782.00 313,813.74 109.05
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 16.49 16.49-|16.18
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 16.49 16.49-|16.18
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 286,225.00 11,708.47 272,010.20 14,214.80 95.03 |287,782.00 311,329.92 108.18
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 286,225.00 11,708.47 272,010.20 14,214.80 95.03 |287,782.00 311,329.92 108.18
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 13
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
160 POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS |55.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 18,149.30- 300,721.23-2,778.77- 99.08 |302,600.00-320,512.43- 105.92
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 809,009.00-5,331.79- 735,422.49- 73,586.51- 90.90 |882,160.00-832,752.42- 94.40
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00- 10,543.50- 95,002.52- 14,697.48- 86.60 |110,300.00-103,999.66- 94.29
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 43,523.85- 43,523.85 |29,300.80-
4001 REVENUES 1,222,209.00-34,024.59-1,174,670.09-47,538.91-96.11 |1,295,060.00-1,286,620.31-99.35
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,546,794.00 550,448.18 6,439,080.34 107,713.66 98.35 |6,185,321.00 6,247,854.36 101.01
6210 SUPPLIES 150,900.00 2,830.90 85,754.48 65,145.52 56.83 |155,300.00 95,993.40 61.81
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 35,775.00 3,345.60 24,673.63 11,101.37 68.97 |33,550.00 19,958.37 59.49
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 547,053.00 20,353.09 381,575.17 165,477.83 69.75 |552,343.00 392,077.81 70.98
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,280,522.00 576,977.77 6,931,083.62 349,438.38 95.20 |6,926,514.00 6,755,883.94 97.54
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-57.76- 4,451.51-2,451.51 222.58 |2,000.00-445.00- 22.25
8100 INTEREST 2.61-2.61 |3.78-
8200 MISC REVENUE |39.72-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00-57.76-4,454.12-2,454.12 222.71 |2,000.00-488.50-24.43
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00 3,681.13 736.23
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 20.52 224.31 275.69 44.86 |100.00 225.50 225.50
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 20.52 224.31 775.69 22.43 |600.00 3,906.63 651.11
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,057,313.00 542,915.94 5,752,183.72 305,129.28 94.96 |5,630,054.00 5,472,681.76 97.20
160 POLICE 6,057,313.00 542,915.94 5,752,183.72 305,129.28 94.96 |5,630,054.00 5,472,681.76 97.20
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 14
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,500.00 6,389.49 76,120.06 379.94 99.50 |73,127.00 74,096.34 101.33
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |1,100.00 473.75 43.07
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 4,512.96 4,192.04 51.84 |9,756.00 6,059.64 62.11
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,055.00 6,389.49 80,633.02 5,421.98 93.70 |83,983.00 80,629.73 96.01
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,055.00 6,389.49 80,633.02 5,421.98 93.70 |83,983.00 80,629.73 96.01
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,055.00 6,389.49 80,633.02 5,421.98 93.70 |83,983.00 80,629.73 96.01
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 15
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 50,000.00-7,300.81- 48,849.63-1,150.37- 97.70 |55,000.00-49,322.93- 89.68
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-192,224.53- 107,775.47- 64.07 |332,000.00-256,540.25- 77.27
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-285.00- 15,964.00- 11,964.00 399.10 |4,000.00-12,597.50- 314.94
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |1,700.00-
4001 REVENUES 354,000.00-7,585.81-257,038.16-96,961.84-72.61 |391,000.00-320,160.68-81.88
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,815,680.00 279,476.05 2,748,862.34 66,817.66 97.63 |2,712,378.00 2,614,819.06 96.40
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 8,227.49 45,366.75 26,443.25 63.18 |93,648.00 96,009.04 102.52
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 9,704.69 12,614.33 7,614.33- 252.29 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 224,183.00 25,130.32 178,200.85 45,982.15 79.49 |223,092.00 205,381.67 92.06
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,116,673.00 322,538.55 2,985,044.27 131,628.73 95.78 |3,029,118.00 2,916,209.77 96.27
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 5,453.00 5,453.00-|700.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 5,453.00 5,453.00-|700.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 11.52 11.52-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 11.52 11.52-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,762,673.00 314,952.74 2,733,470.63 29,202.37 98.94 |2,638,118.00 2,595,349.09 98.38
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,762,673.00 314,952.74 2,733,470.63 29,202.37 98.94 |2,638,118.00 2,595,349.09 98.38
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 16
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,162,500.00- 143,782.99- 2,491,966.05- 329,466.05 115.24 |2,392,615.00-3,784,433.33- 158.17
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 56.00- 2,333.11-2,333.11 |800.00-30,434.77- 3,804.35
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 25.19-25.19 |
4001 REVENUES 2,162,500.00-143,838.99-2,494,324.35-331,824.35 115.34 |2,393,415.00-3,814,868.10-159.39
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,915,500.00 144,410.81 1,820,586.94 94,913.06 95.04 |1,771,747.00 1,799,196.17 101.55
6210 SUPPLIES 22,300.00 290.54 11,810.36 10,489.64 52.96 |11,500.00 19,333.89 168.12
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 71,627.00 10,416.02 64,598.88 7,028.12 90.19 |69,627.00 116,887.22 167.88
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,009,427.00 155,117.37 1,896,996.18 112,430.82 94.40 |1,852,874.00 1,935,417.28 104.45
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS |3,215.60-
8001 OTHER INCOME |3,215.60-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 192.35 213.25 213.25-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,592.54 20,763.97 2,763.97- 115.36 |31,708.24
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,784.89 20,977.22 2,977.22-116.54 |31,708.24
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 135,073.00-13,063.27 576,350.95-441,277.95 426.70 |540,541.00-1,850,958.18-342.43
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 135,073.00-13,063.27 576,350.95-441,277.95 426.70 |540,541.00-1,850,958.18-342.43
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 17
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |12,902.03-
4001 REVENUES |12,902.03-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 826,500.00 75,350.36 890,842.54 64,342.54- 107.78 |793,133.00 795,127.66 100.25
6210 SUPPLIES 4,500.00 107.55 4,003.70 496.30 88.97 |4,500.00 2,333.87 51.86
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 22,950.00 979.11 18,395.20 4,554.80 80.15 |33,450.00 27,142.24 81.14
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,950.00 76,437.02 913,241.44 58,291.44-106.82 |832,583.00 824,603.77 99.04
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21.74 21.74-|31.15
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 21.74 21.74-|31.15
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,950.00 76,437.02 913,263.18 58,313.18-106.82 |832,583.00 811,732.89 97.50
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,950.00 76,437.02 913,263.18 58,313.18-106.82 |832,583.00 811,732.89 97.50
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 18
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-1,900.00- 65,110.00-9,890.00- 86.81 |75,000.00-88,150.00- 117.53
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 436,000.00-50.00-600.00- 435,400.00-.14 |330,000.00-253,320.53- 76.76
4001 REVENUES 511,000.00-1,950.00-65,710.00-445,290.00-12.86 |405,000.00-341,470.53-84.31
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 844,000.00 58,498.09 738,308.96 105,691.04 87.48 |690,511.00 716,001.22 103.69
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 581.68 3,713.83 3,336.17 52.68 |7,000.00 4,353.80 62.20
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 695.00 1,305.00 34.75 |2,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 2,469.86 53,436.85 17,313.15 75.53 |85,671.00 31,264.11 36.49
6001 EXPENDITURES 923,800.00 61,549.63 796,154.64 127,645.36 86.18 |785,182.00 751,619.13 95.73
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |25.27
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |25.27
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 412,800.00 59,599.63 730,444.64 317,644.64-176.95 |380,182.00 410,173.87 107.89
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 412,800.00 59,599.63 730,444.64 317,644.64-176.95 |380,182.00 410,173.87 107.89
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 19
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 845.00-845.00 |100.00-30.00- 30.00
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 500.00-160.00-160.00-340.00- 32.00 |400.00-590.00- 147.50
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 490,000.00-455,022.50- 34,977.50- 92.86 |450,000.00-440,862.40- 97.97
4001 REVENUES 490,500.00-160.00-456,027.50-34,472.50-92.97 |450,500.00-441,482.40-98.00
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,217,000.00 110,283.80 1,226,680.92 9,680.92- 100.80 |1,219,515.00 1,204,152.04 98.74
6210 SUPPLIES 374,500.00 19,709.81 376,131.11 1,631.11- 100.44 |331,000.00 418,633.88 126.48
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |755.34
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 894,300.00 43,919.00 734,714.87 159,585.13 82.16 |861,898.00 728,998.93 84.58
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 91.02 91.02-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,485,800.00 173,912.61 2,337,617.92 148,182.08 94.04 |2,412,413.00 2,352,540.19 97.52
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |2,000.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |2,000.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,995,300.00 173,752.61 1,881,590.42 113,709.58 94.30 |1,961,913.00 1,909,057.79 97.31
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 1,995,300.00 173,752.61 1,881,590.42 113,709.58 94.30 |1,961,913.00 1,909,057.79 97.31
01000 GENERAL FUND 232,980.00 6,279,559.62-657,254.77-890,234.77 282.11-|3.00-1,612,693.21-*********
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 20
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,073,118.00- 2,036,559.00- 4,073,118.00-100.00 |3,750,197.00-3,750,197.00- 100.00
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-44,702.00-100.00 |44,702.00-44,702.00- 100.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 259,298.00- 24,643.52- 255,185.99-4,112.01- 98.41 |242,070.00-248,788.51- 102.78
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-575.00- 21,054.20- 12,945.80- 61.92 |19,600.00-17,976.58- 91.72
4001 REVENUES 4,411,118.00-2,061,777.52-4,394,060.19-17,057.81-99.61 |4,056,569.00-4,061,664.09-100.13
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 729,162.00 49,505.84 686,517.48 42,644.52 94.15 |711,222.00 740,557.26 104.12
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 9,414.99 41,457.56 17,993.44 69.73 |66,892.00 47,315.19 70.73
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 89.51 89.51 89.51-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 502,597.00 10,214.51 428,456.57 74,140.43 85.25 |472,585.00 473,630.11 100.22
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,291,210.00 69,224.85 1,156,521.12 134,688.88 89.57 |1,250,699.00 1,261,502.56 100.86
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |1,600.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 14,000.00-1,500.00- 12,500.00- 10.71 |13,100.00-3,990.00- 30.46
8200 MISC REVENUE 2,890.00-2,890.00 |1,013.17-
8001 OTHER INCOME 14,000.00-4,390.00-9,610.00-31.36 |14,700.00-5,003.17-34.04
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 3.79 3.79-|42.55
8580 MISC EXPENSE |111.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 1,097.96 16,972.82 16,972.82-|15,305.81
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,097.96 16,976.61 16,976.61-|15,459.36
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,133,908.00-1,991,454.71-3,224,952.46-91,044.46 102.91 |2,820,570.00-2,789,705.34-98.91
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,133,908.00-1,991,454.71-3,224,952.46-91,044.46 102.91 |2,820,570.00-2,789,705.34-98.91
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 21
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
201 RECREATION CENTER
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 679,000.00- 14,597.98- 498,436.48- 180,563.52- 73.41 |645,500.00-579,349.11- 89.75
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 722,000.00- 77,774.89- 530,615.72- 191,384.28- 73.49 |691,200.00-808,188.83- 116.93
4001 REVENUES 1,401,000.00-92,372.87-1,029,052.20-371,947.80-73.45 |1,336,700.00-1,387,537.94-103.80
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 792,467.00 46,319.73 755,377.81 37,089.19 95.32 |765,999.00 736,301.71 96.12
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 8,421.16 169,208.88 1,141.12 99.33 |167,100.00 173,171.35 103.63
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 491,950.00 29,930.48 404,511.06 87,438.94 82.23 |413,284.00 474,319.08 114.77
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |12,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,454,767.00 84,671.37 1,329,097.75 125,669.25 91.36 |1,358,383.00 1,383,792.14 101.87
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 9.18 9.18-|2.64
8580 MISC EXPENSE 871.75 871.75 871.75-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 871.75 880.93 880.93-|2.64
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 53,767.00 6,829.75-300,926.48 247,159.48-559.69 |21,683.00 3,743.16-17.26-
201 RECREATION CENTER 53,767.00 6,829.75-300,926.48 247,159.48-559.69 |21,683.00 3,743.16-17.26-
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 22
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
202 PARK MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 130.00- 6,865.00-6,865.00 |6,275.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,700.00-130.00 10,830.00-1.21- |8,700.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 26,000.00-38,473.23- 12,473.23 147.97 |11,600.00-34,803.06- 300.03
4001 REVENUES 36,700.00-130.00-45,208.23-8,508.23 123.18 |20,300.00-41,078.06-202.35
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 969,400.00 74,234.38 951,370.38 18,029.62 98.14 |961,356.00 992,456.78 103.24
6210 SUPPLIES 93,555.00 5,550.83 85,752.78 7,802.22 91.66 |88,700.00 101,742.32 114.70
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 387.85 3,732.15 9.41 |4,000.00 3,900.62 97.52
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 369,510.00 17,971.48 324,620.95 44,889.05 87.85 |316,462.00 361,449.67 114.22
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 5,971.42 1,028.58 85.31 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,443,585.00 97,756.69 1,368,103.38 75,481.62 94.77 |1,377,518.00 1,459,549.39 105.96
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,406,885.00 97,626.69 1,322,895.15 83,989.85 94.03 |1,357,218.00 1,418,471.33 104.51
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,406,885.00 97,626.69 1,322,895.15 83,989.85 94.03 |1,357,218.00 1,418,471.33 104.51
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 23
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
203 WESTWOOD HILLS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 82,600.00-5,563.00- 97,065.94- 14,465.94 117.51 |80,150.00-86,237.85- 107.60
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 18.00-350.00-350.00 |282.95-
4001 REVENUES 82,600.00-5,581.00-97,415.94-14,815.94 117.94 |80,150.00-86,520.80-107.95
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 420,586.00 29,455.17 418,288.85 2,297.15 99.45 |404,679.00 402,552.69 99.47
6210 SUPPLIES 26,700.00 3,383.99 18,825.88 7,874.12 70.51 |22,650.00 19,174.47 84.66
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 500.00 500.00-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 44,500.00 2,285.76 34,901.69 9,598.31 78.43 |39,349.00 39,246.59 99.74
6001 EXPENDITURES 491,786.00 35,124.92 472,516.42 19,269.58 96.08 |466,678.00 460,973.75 98.78
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 1,473.00-1,473.00 |3,657.75-
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,473.00-1,473.00 |3,657.75-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 36.12 607.88 607.88-|637.09
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 36.12 607.88 607.88-|637.09
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 409,186.00 29,580.04 374,235.36 34,950.64 91.46 |386,528.00 371,432.29 96.09
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 409,186.00 29,580.04 374,235.36 34,950.64 91.46 |386,528.00 371,432.29 96.09
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 24
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
204 ENVIRONMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |29,500.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 110,000.00-7,483.64- 170,158.35- 60,158.35 154.69 |81,750.00-160,154.15- 195.91
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 3,860.98-3,860.98 |1,430.00-
4001 REVENUES 110,000.00-7,483.64-174,019.33-64,019.33 158.20 |81,750.00-191,084.15-233.74
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,898.00 7,601.26 107,681.02 1,216.98 98.88 |99,297.00 100,838.52 101.55
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 300.40 15,741.62 3,683.38 81.04 |17,900.00 17,070.12 95.36
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 158,470.00 977.17 289,566.06 131,096.06- 182.73 |171,285.00 338,526.13 197.64
6001 EXPENDITURES 286,793.00 8,878.83 412,988.70 126,195.70-144.00 |288,982.00 456,434.77 157.95
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN |34,467.78-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 1,800.00-3,800.00 90.00- |2,000.00 1,109.75 55.49
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 1,800.00-3,800.00 90.00-|2,000.00 33,358.03-1,667.90-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |.80
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |.80
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 178,793.00 1,395.19 237,169.37 58,376.37-132.65 |209,232.00 231,993.39 110.88
204 ENVIRONMENT 178,793.00 1,395.19 237,169.37 58,376.37-132.65 |209,232.00 231,993.39 110.88
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 25
1/19/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:29:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
200912/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 11,000.00-1,489.07- 21,932.59- 10,932.59 199.39 |11,700.00-12,252.46- 104.72
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 7,131.60-7,131.60 |19,358.74-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 104,433.54-3,433.54 103.40 |100,661.00-100,661.04- 100.00
4001 REVENUES 112,000.00-9,877.49-133,497.73-21,497.73 119.19 |112,361.00-132,272.24-117.72
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,300.00 46,920.89 487,344.73 4,044.73- 100.84 |461,301.00 462,607.83 100.28
6210 SUPPLIES 502,650.00 3,547.61 319,410.70 183,239.30 63.55 |432,050.00 424,139.57 98.17
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 20.97 20.97-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 135,975.00 13,068.09 132,401.48 3,573.52 97.37 |130,939.00 163,181.83 124.62
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 8,352.00 1,602.83 6,749.17 19.19 |
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,130,277.00 63,536.59 940,780.71 189,496.29 83.23 |1,024,290.00 1,049,929.23 102.50
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00-22,131.34- 29.51
8001 OTHER INCOME |75,000.00-22,131.34-29.51
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 8,981.04 100.00
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |78.57
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |31.82
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |8,981.00 9,091.43 101.23
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,018,277.00 53,659.10 807,282.98 210,994.02 79.28 |845,910.00 904,617.08 106.94
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,018,277.00 53,659.10 807,282.98 210,994.02 79.28 |845,910.00 904,617.08 106.94
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 67,000.00-1,816,023.44-182,443.12-115,443.12 272.30 |1.00 133,065.59 *********
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 7)Page 26
Meeting Date: January 25, 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:
Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October - December, 2009).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is provided for Council’s review.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s portfolio is focused on shorter term cash flow needs, with investment in other longer
term securities. This is done as an effort to try to maximize interest income potential while still
adhering to the City’s Investment Policy (see attached) and Minnesota Statute 118A. As in past
quarters, we saw a large part of our portfolio turn over as calls came in on some of our higher rate
securities. There were nine investments called this quarter with rates ranging from 2% to 5.25%.
Because we are unable to replace these investments with equivalent rates, it tends to drive our total
portfolio yield lower.
It is always necessary to have a reasonable amount of cash available to cover the normal cash flow
needs for payroll and general operating expenses. However, significant cash outlays will also be
required in the early part of 2010 for debt service payments, Pay As You Go developer note
payments, and construction contractor payments for the MSC expansion project. Because of these
cash requirements in the very short term, a larger amount of cash is being kept liquid at the present
time to ensure the ability to cover the City’s cash flow needs. Cash needed for the Wooddale and
Hwy 7 project will most likely slow for the next few months until construction picks up again in the
spring. Therefore, Finance is working to purchase a few longer term securities whenever competitive
rates are being offered.
Our current portfolio yield is averaging approximately 1.8%. This overall level of return is the
reason why staff reduced the expected interest earnings in the 2010 budget process. Cities generally
use a short horizon benchmark such as the two year Treasury (1.1% at 12/31) or some similar
measure. Our primary money market fund for investing available cash is the Minnesota Municipal
Money Market Fund, better known as the 4M Fund. This fund is governed and sponsored by the
League of Minnesota Cities and is customized specifically for public entities. While the 4M Fund
has dropped to an average yield of .12%, longer term investments that have been purchased raise the
total portfolio yield. Since commercial paper, which are unsecured notes that corporations and
banks issue for their short term financing needs, is no longer considered as secure as it once was,
there are very few options other than money markets to lock in safe, short-term investments for cash
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
flow purposes. In early 2010, Finance plans to meet with the City’s local bank to determine if there
are opportunities for increased interest earning potential by maintaining a larger cash balance with
them.
Many of our longer term purchases are callable agency bonds. These bonds are issued by
government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank or Fannie Mae, and are considered a very
safe investment. They typically have more reasonable interest rates for the final maturity date which
is in three to five years, but the issuer has the right to call the bond in three months to a year. This
effectively reduces the average life of our investments, since it is expected most of these securities to
be called if interest rates remain low. However, it is also imperative that sufficient liquidity is
available to be able to lock in higher rates once the economy begins to expand. This is another
reason to keep a portion of our portfolio in money market accounts.
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at December 31, 2009:
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City has a sound investment policy that brokers are required to follow with the goals of
preservation of capital, liquidity and return on investment. The policy is strictly followed in making
investment decisions to protect the City’s resources.
Attachments: Quarterly Investment Report
Investment Policy
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Finance Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
9/30/09 12/31/09
<1 Year 34% 44%
1-2 Years 10% 13%
2-3 Years 10% 11%
>3 Years 46% 32%
9/30/09 12/31/09
Money Markets $18,559,431 $26,379,453
Certificates of Deposit $993,312 $488,597
Municipal Debt $5,799,921 $8,437,891
Agency Bonds $35,021,238 $28,053,905
City of St. Louis Park
Investments
December 31, 2009
Institution Type Maturity
Yield to
Maturity Basis
Adjusted
Market Value
12/31/08
Market Value at
12/31/2009
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
4M MM 0.12%24,099,804 11,478,617 13,774
Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 7/6/2011 2.00% 2,000,000 2,032,500 40,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 01/04/2012 5.00% 1,000,000 1,039,690 1,000,000 50,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 05/20/2013 4.00% 1,000,000 1,015,420 1,012,100 40,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 2/26/2014 2.00% 1,000,000 999,380 20,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 7.19%59,175 52,254 3,757
Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 5/21/2014 2.00% 1,000,000 1,002,810 20,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 6/30/2014 3.00% 1,000,000 1,009,860 30,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney Govt MM Fund 0.10%3,144,943 9,551,558 9,552
16,660,462
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 96,686 97,719 4,032
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 96,686 97,719 4,032
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 96,686 97,719 4,032
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/19/2010 4.25% 96,000 96,684 97,720 4,080
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/19/2010 4.25% 96,000 96,684 97,720 4,080
Wachovia/Wells Fargo FNMA 1/22/2014 2.00% 1,000,000 1,002,812 20,000
Wachovia/Wells Fargo FNMA 5/13/2014 2.00% 1,200,000 1,197,348 24,000
Wachovia/Wells Fargo FNMA 7/8/2014 3.00% 1,000,000 1,001,875 30,000
Wachovia/Wells Fargo FHLB 10/15/2014 2.00% 1,000,000 1,002,187 20,000
Wachovia/Wells Fargo US Govt MM Fund 0.01%2,505,519 251
7,198,340
UBS/Paine Webber UBS Cashfund 0.01%5,747,091 2,785,718 279
Sterne, Agee FHLB 02/12/2010 5.00% 1,067,800 1,072,850 1,007,600 53,390
Sterne, Agee Farmer Mac 1/14/2011 1.62% 1,068,088 1,045,370 17,303
Sterne, Agee Gov't Debt 9/26/2011 1.55% 964,160 968,050 14,944
Sterne, Agee FAMC 10/3/2011 2.10% 1,070,954 1,065,260 22,490
Sterne, Agee FHLB 12/9/2011 2.63% 1,026,113 1,054,890 1,044,020 26,987
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2012 2.80% 101,504 102,349 2,842
Sterne, Agee FHLB 7/23/2012 4.15% 1,055,968 1,061,810 1,027,520 43,812
Sterne, Agee FHLB 8/27/2012 5.05% 1,000,000 1,056,140 1,028,790 50,500
Sterne, Agee FHLB 08/27/2012 2.81% 1,063,803 1,058,740 1,030,050 29,850
Sterne, Agee FHLB 10/29/2012 4.03% 1,030,220 1,054,700 1,034,850 41,466
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 12/30/2012 2.45% 1,579,605 1,565,850 38,700
Sterne, Agee FNMA 01/04/2013 2.77% 1,041,216 1,021,930 1,000,000 28,883
Sterne, Agee FNMA 1/18/2013 3.85% 1,004,210 1,030,770 1,028,640 38,662
Sterne, Agee FHLB 2/25/2013 3.65% 523,010 537,626 539,779 19,064
Sterne, Agee FNMA 2/26/2013 3.05% 1,022,043 1,022,200 1,005,300 31,162
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 3/1/2013 2.03% 752,580 747,230 15,277
Sterne, Agee FNMA 03/18/2013 3.96% 1,000,000 1,032,210 1,041,910 39,600
Sterne, Agee FNMA 4/29/2013 3.60% 815,084 822,777 825,115 29,319
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2013 3.12% 307,584 309,399 9,597
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2013 3.16% 599,360 603,705 18,940
Sterne, Agee FNMA 5/28/2013 4.05% 999,000 1,059,340 1,060,390 40,460
Sterne, Agee FFCB 12/27/2013 2.20% 974,412 962,433 21,398
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 12/30/2013 2.95% 1,574,415 1,550,835 46,445
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 4/1/2014 2.53% 820,919 810,332 20,769
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2014 3.52% 720,475 724,521 25,361
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 6/1/2014 4.04% 1,003,740 1,055,620 40,551
Sterne, Agee Gov't Cash Trust 0.01%124,248 58,041 6
24,242,959
Wells Fargo FHLB 12/30/2011 1.05% 1,000,000 993,750 10,500
GRAND TOTAL 63,359,846 1,120,147
Portfolio Yield 1.8%
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 8)Page 3
St. Louis Park Investment Policy 1
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Policy
October 27, 2008
It is the policy of the City of St. Louis Park to establish guidelines for the investment of
all public funds. This policy is designed to ensure the prudent management of public
funds, the availability of operating and capital funds when needed and providing the
highest investment return with maximum security and minimum risk.
I. SCOPE
This policy applies to all financial assets of the City of St. Louis Park. While
separate investment funds are created to accommodate reporting on certain
bonded indebtedness, individual investments are purchased using a pooled
approach for efficiency and maximum investment opportunity. The City’s funds
are defined in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include:
• General Fund;
• Special Revenue Funds;
• Debt Service Funds;
• Capital Project Funds;
• Proprietary Funds;
• Internal Service Funds;
II. OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives in priority order of the City’s investment activities will be:
A. Safety of Principal
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program.
Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure
preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to
mitigate credit risk by purchasing only highly rated securities with
adequate collateral and interest rate risk by matching maturities to cash
flow needs and holding securities to maturity..
B. Liquidity
The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City
to meet all operating and capital requirements that might reasonably be
anticipated. A portion of the portfolio may be placed in money market
mutual funds or local government investment pools which offer same-day
liquidity.
C. Yield
The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining
a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking
into account investment risk constraints and liquidity needs.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 8)Page 4
St. Louis Park Investment Policy 2
III. STANDARDS OF CARE
The prudent person standard shall be applied to the management of the portfolio.
This standard states: “Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under
circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and
intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation,
but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the
expected income to be derived.”
Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and this
investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal
responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes,
provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and the
liquidity and the sale of securities are carried out in accordance with the terms of
this policy.
IV. INVESTMENT AUTHORIZATION
The Director of Finance/Treasurer is designated as the Investment Officer of the
City and is responsible for investment management decisions and activities. The
Director of Finance/Treasurer shall carryout established written procedures and
internal controls for the operation of the investment program consistent with this
investment policy. The Director of Finance/Treasurer is authorized, as allowed
under the State Statute, to designate depositories and broker-dealers for City
Funds.
V. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any city official involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal
business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment
program or which could impair his/her ability to make impartial investment
decisions. Employees shall disclose any material interests in financial institutions
with which they conduct business. Employees and officers shall refrain from
undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with which
business is conducted on behalf of the City.
VI. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL DEALERS AND INSTITUTIONS
The Director of Finance/Treasurer will maintain a list of financial institutions
authorized to provide investment services to the City. All broker/dealers who
desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must supply the
Director of Finance/Treasurer with:
• Audited financial statements and proof of National Association of Security
Dealers (NASD) certification;
• Proof of Minnesota Registration Broker Notification and Certification form
required by Minnesota Statutes 118A prior to any investment transactions
with the City. The Broker Notification must be updated annually.
• The Official Broker/Dealer Questionnaire must be on file for each broker the
City is currently doing business with.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 8)Page 5
St. Louis Park Investment Policy 3
• Certification of having read the City’s investment policy and agreement to
conduct investment transactions in accordance with the policy and objectives,
as well as state statutes.
• Written agreement to disclose potential conflicts of interest or risk to public
funds that might arise out of business transactions between the firm and the
City.
Authorized institutions must maintain an investment office within the Twin Cities
metropolitan area and have other Minnesota local government clients.
VII. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
The City is authorized, under State Law Chapter 118A, to invest the securities
listed in Exhibit A.
VIII. COLLATERALIZATION
Full collateralization will be required on non-negotiable certificates of deposit.
All deposits will be insured or collateralized in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 118.
IX. SAFEKEEPING
Investments shall be kept at the broker/dealer in the City’s name. Certificates will
be held at the financial institution in the City’s name. All securities should be a
risk category one according to the Government Accounting Standard No. 3. The
broker/dealer must provide asset protection of $10,000,000 through the Securities
Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC)
X. INVESTMENT PARAMETERS
The City’s investments shall be diversified as to specific maturity, issuer and
institution in order to minimize the risk to the portfolio. Investments should be
purchased to match expected cash flow needs, minimizing the market risk
associated with the early sale of the investments.
XI. REPORTING AND REVIEW
A. The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the
parameters outlined in this policy. The portfolio will be designed with the
objective of obtaining a rate of return throughout budgeting and economic
cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and cash flow
needs.
B. The City’s investment policy shall be adopted by resolution by the City
Council. The City’s investments shall be reported to the City Council
quarterly. The information reported to the City Council should include:
1. A listing of individual securities held at end of reporting period.
2. A listing of investments by maturity date.
3. The percentage of the total portfolio in each type of investment.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 8)Page 6
St. Louis Park Investment Policy 4
4. Rate of return for quarter.
5. Market to market analysis.
C. Interest earned on investments shall be allocated to various funds based on
each fund’s average monthly cash balance.
XII. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Specific investment parameters for the investment of public funds by the City are
found in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 118A.
XIII. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
A. Amendments
This policy shall be reviewed on an annual basis. Any changes must be
approved by City Council resolution.
B. Interest Allocation
The general fund shall be allocated a management fee equal to three
percent of the total net investment earnings of the investment pool,
excluding investments related to the Economic Development Authority.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 8)Page 7
St. Louis Park Investment Policy 5
MAXIMUM PER MAXIMUM PER MINIMUM CREDIT MAXIMUM
INVESTMENT TYPE ISSUE INVESTMENT QUALITY MATURITY
US Treasuries No more than No limit. N/A Five years. If beyond
15% of the total five years, should be
portfolio.related to the specific
debt payments.
US Governmental No more than No limit.N/A Five years. If beyond
Agencies and Federally 15% of the total five years, should be
Sponsored Agency portfolio.related to specific
Securities. To include cash flow needs.
callables and step-ups
Commercial Paper - No more than No limit.Any two of the 270 days.
issued by United States 15% of the total following national
corporations or their portfolio.ratings: A1, P1, F1
Canadian subsidiaries or D1.
Repurchase Agreements No more than No limit.Provided they are 30 days.
or Reverse Repurchase 15% of the total fully collaterized at
Agreements portfolio.102% of market
value by US
Treasuries or
Agencies.
Bankers Acceptances - No more than No limit.Any two of the 270 days.
Fed eligible United 15% of the total following ratings: A1,
States banks portfolio.P1, F1 or D1.
Certificates of Deposit No more than No limit.Provided it is Five years. If beyond
15% of the total guaranteed by the five years, should be
portfolio.FDIC, FSLIC or is related to specific
backed by collateral cash flow needs.
as required by M.S.
118A.
Guaranteed Investment No more than The issuer's or
Contracts - issued or 15% of the total guarantor's short-
guaranteed by United portfolio.term and long term
States commercial banks unsecured debt must
domestic branches of be rated in one of
foreign banks, United the two highest
States Insurance categories by a
Companies, or their nationally recognized
Canadian subsidiaries.rating agency.
Should the issuer's
or guarantor's credit
quality be down-
graded below "AA" or "Aa",
the city must have
withdrawal rights.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 8)Page 8
St. Louis Park Investment Policy 6
MAXIMUM PER MAXIMUM PER MINIMUM CREDIT MAXIMUM
INVESTMENT TYPE ISSUE INVESTMENT QUALITY MATURITY
General Obligations of No more than No more than Rated "A" or better Five years. If beyond
state or local government 15% of the total 50% of the by a national bond five years, should be
with taxing powers. portfolio. portfolio. rating service. related to specific
debt payments.
Revenue Obligation of No more than No more than Rated "AA" or better Five years. If beyond
any state or local govern- 15% of the total 50% of the by a national bond five years, should be
ment with taxing powers portfolio. portfolio. rating service. related to specific
debt payments.
General Obligation of the No more than No more than Rated "A" or better Five years. If beyond
Minnesota Housing 15% of the total 50% of the by a national bond five years, should be
Finance Agency which is portfolio.portfolio.rating service. related to specific
a moral obligation of debt payments.
the State of Minnesota
Money Market Mutual No limit.No limit.Invested primarily in N/A
Funds the securities
allowed by this
policy.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 8)Page 9
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2010 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds - Proposed Allocation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided to inform the Council of the proposed
allocation of 2010 CDBG funds. Please let staff know of any questions or comments you might
have. Time is available to allow a study session discussion to be scheduled on this matter if so
requested by the Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council concur with the recommendations made for the allocation of the 2010
CDBG funds?
BACKGROUND:
At this time each year the City must decide how to use its annual allocation of CDBG Funds. The
City must submit its proposed use of the allocation to Hennepin County by February 23rd. Prior to
submittal, the City must hold a public hearing. The hearing and official City Council action is
scheduled for February 16th.
The City is estimated to receive $206,455 in federal CDBG funds in 2010. They are US Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) funds distributed through Hennepin County. This year’s funding
is an increase of $3,000 over last year’s allocation. The 2010 Federal CDBG budget increased from
$364 billion in 2009 to $399 billion in 2010. The City’s allocation is based on a HUD formula
which considers: 1) population; 2) number of persons with incomes at or below poverty; and 3)
overcrowded housing units within the City compared to the rest of Urban Hennepin County.
The national objectives of the CDBG program are:
• Benefit low and moderate-income persons (moderate is defined as up to 80% of median income
or $64,000 for a family of four, and low is defined as up to 50% of median income or $41,950
for a family of four in 2009).
• Prevention or elimination of slum or blight.
• Meet a particular urgent community development need.
From a policy perspective, the City Council has typically focused CDBG funds on “sticks and
bricks” improvements to the housing stock for low-income families, for both single-family owners
and multifamily housing residents. Over the past years a small portion of funds have been allocated
to support services for St. Louis Park Housing Authority (SLPHA) residents; park programming for
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 2
low-income youth; and, assisting St Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) with acquiring a
permanent facility.
Proposed 2010 CDBG Allocation
The proposed use of our allocation of CDBG funds reflect the priorities described in Vision St.
Louis Park and the City’s housing goals incorporated from the Housing Summit into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. These priorities include preserving existing housing and increasing affordable
ownership opportunities.
This year’s proposed allocation is summarized in Table 1, below. It shows that funding focuses on
assisting low income single family homeowners with rehab. loans. Perhaps due to current economic
conditions, the demand for low-income deferred loans has been high. A waiting list for the low
income single family deferred loan program has grown to over twelve residents. Last year $40,000
was allocated to this program. This year $128,955 is proposed. The increased allocation for this
project activity, along with the program income realized from repayment of previous CDBG
deferred loans, should make it possible to serve seven to nine of these residents.
Other proposed uses of the 2010 CDBG allocation include smaller amounts for other single family
home rehab projects; and, a small amount to help fund summer park programming at Ainsworth
and Meadowbrook Manor Parks.
The non-profit affordable housing providers located in the city have historically received CDBG
funds to assist with their building renovations. They have completed significant renovations in
recent years and with the high need for the single family homeowner assistance, staff did not solicit
new requests from them this year.
Table 1: Proposed 2010 CDBG Allocation
Project Activity
Proposed
Budget
Activity
Status
Single Family Housing Rehab
Emergency Repair Grant $30,000 ongoing
Low Income Deferred Loan $128,955 ongoing
Housing Land Trust $20,000 ongoing
SLP Housing Authority renovation of scattered site home $20,000 ongoing
Subtotal $198,955
Public Service (Up to $30,000 allowable for Public Service)
Park programming at Meadowbrook & Ainsworth Parks $7,500 ongoing
Total $206,455
If the actual allocation is less than the estimated $206,455 the Single Family Low Income Deferred Loan project will be
decreased.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Below is a brief description of each of the project activities recommended for funding.
Emergency Repair Program – Single Family $30,000
This program is consistent with the Council’s focus on stick and bricks and has proven its
responsiveness to low income seniors and vulnerable residents with annual incomes of 50% or less of
the median area income, and assets less than $25,000. It provides grants of up to $4,000 for
emergencies such as leaking roofs and water heaters. Community Action Partners for Suburban
Hennepin County (CAPSH) currently administers this program for the City. This is an ongoing
CDBG activity.
Low Income Single Family Deferred Loan Program- $128,955
This is the primary ongoing CDBG rehab loan program targeted for homeowners with annual income of
50% or less of the median area income, or $41,950 for a household of 4, and assets less than $25,000.
The rehab focuses on improvements to bring homes into code compliance and provide long-term
maintenance free housing. The maximum loan amount is $25,000 and is forgiven after 15 years.
Repayment is required if homeowners sell the property before the 15-year period expires.
This activity is also funded as deferred loans are repaid. This program is administered by Hennepin
County Housing staff.
St. Louis Park Housing Authority – renovation of a scattered site home - $20,000
The SLP Housing Authority provides housing to low income residents that are typically below 50%
median income. The HA owns and manages 37 scattered site homes throughout the city. The HA
has requested $20,000 to assist with concrete step, foundation and sidewalk work. The HA did not
request funds for 2009, but continues to have needs for renovation of its properties.
Housing Land Trust - $20,000
Homes within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Housing Land Trust that purchases homes
and sells them to low income homeowners. Buyers pay for the cost of the building only and lease
the land for 99 years. St. Louis Park funds are leveraged with Met Council and Hennepin County
HOME funds, and Homes within Reach administers this activity. Homes within Reach has
purchased five homes in the city that have been sold to low income families. This program is
consistent with the Council’s focus on using CDBG funds for “sticks and bricks” activities.
Public Service – SLP Park and Rec. Programming at Meadowbrook Manor and Ainsworth
Park - $7,500
The Park & Rec. Department provides park programming to children at the Meadowbrook Manor
Apartment Community and the Ainsworth Park community. The $7,500 would provide an
enhanced level of programming at both the Meadowbrook Manor and Ainsworth Park
neighborhoods in 2010. Ainsworth Park abuts Perspective’s property at Louisiana Court and is used
by residents from Perspectives’ and Project for Pride in Living’s apartments.
This project has been funded since 2007, and staff recommends allocating programming funds of
$7,500.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 4
NEXT STEPS:
The St. Louis Park Housing Authority (SLPHA) will review and discuss the proposed allocation at
its February 10, 2010 meeting. The commissioners’ comments will be shared at the Public Hearing.
The following actions are required to receive 2010 CDBG funds:
February 4, 2010 Publication of Public Hearing Notice
February 16, 2010 Public Hearing and approval of Resolution outlining proposed activities.
February 23, 2010 Deadline for submission of CDBG Application to Hennepin County.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
CDBG funds allow cities discretion (within the HUD guidelines), to fund projects that meet the
national low income objectives and the needs of cities. St. Louis Park will receive an estimated
$206,455 in 2010, an increase of $3,000 from 2009. The 2010 CDBG year runs from July 1, 2010
through December 31, 2011. Staff anticipates the proposed projects can expend the funds in a
timely manner as has been our historical practice of fully expending CDBG funds.
In the event the final allocation is less than estimated, staff recommends reducing the allocation to
the single family low income deferred loan activity. Staff will keep Council apprised of actual
funding amounts.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City Councils adopted Strategic Direction related to housing is, “St. Louis Park is committed to
providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The use of CDBG funds for the proposed
allocation is consistent with this direction.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 4th Quarter 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes the current status of redevelopment projects in St. Louis Park. Staff requests
guidance and feedback from Economic Development Authority (EDA)/City Council regarding the
format and content of the report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The attached report is meant to keep the EDA & City Council informed on a quarterly basis as to
the status of various redevelopment projects in the city. It is also meant to apprise city officials of
any anticipated issues or actions relative to corresponding redevelopment contracts to which the
EDA &/or City is a party.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 4th Quarter 2009
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development & Planning Assistant
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
4th Quarter 2009
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent sold
&/or Leased Current Project Status
Wooddale Catered Living (36th and Wooddale)
(Greco Development)
111 senior assisted living rentals 3/1/2011 0% leased
10,000 SF retail space 3/1/2011 0% leased
Equity partner found, developer
awaiting final approval of HUD financing
in late spring.
Pending Contract Actions:
An amended and restated Redevelopment Contract will be required and is planned to be submitted mid-year
upon final approval of developer’s financing by HUD.
Ellipse on Excelsior (France Ave. and Excelsior Blvd)
(Bader Development)
132 market rate apartments 3/1/2011 0% leased Building under construction
16,394 SF mixed used bldg 3/1/2011 0% leased
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring adherence to contract provisions.
The West End
(Duke Realty)
350,000 SF retail/restaurant 6/1/2010 50% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
28,00 SF 2nd floor office space 6/1/2010 0% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
130-140 unit hotel 12/31/2011 0% leased Duke marketing hotel pad site
1.1 million SF Class A office space 6/1/2016
0% leased
Duke seeking tenants, construction will
commence once sufficient
commitments have been secured.
Pending Contract Actions: Revisions to project schedule and TIF note will require First Amendment to
Redevelopment Contract. Developer preparing to submit prove-up costs to city.
Oak Hill II Office Building (east of Louisiana Ave. on Walker St.)
(Anderson Builders)
15,000 SF Office building 12/31/2009 0% leased Hwy 7/LA interchange which could
impact future building, difficulty
obtaining financing due to new
preleasing requirements.
Pending Contract Actions: Contract has expired with no plans to break ground on new building.
Developer technically in default. Staff has met with developer regarding next steps. More to come.
Melrose Eating Disorders Institute
(Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital)
3-story 67,000 SF medical bldg 6/30/2009
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed
Pending Contract Actions: Monitoring adherence to contract provisions.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
4th Quarter 2009
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent sold
&/or Leased Current Project Status
Lake St Office Center (east of Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave)
(Real Estate Recycling)
4.000 SF medical office building 12/31/2009 75% leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Highway 7 Corporate Center (east of Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave.)
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/tech bldg 12/31/2007 70% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
Pending Contract Actions:
None. The long term future of the Gold and Purple parking lots is currently subject to SWLRT and Hwy 7 & LA
interchange planning.
Hoigaard Village
(Union Land II Dunbar Development )
“Harmony Vista” – 78 units,
25,000 SF retail 2/28/2008 73% leased
70 % leased Building completed, seeking tenants
“The Camerata” – 220 units 9/1/2008 76% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
“The Adagio” – 56 units 12/31/2011 0% leased
“Melody Row” – 20 townhomes 12/31/2011 0% leased
Developer marketing site, construction
will commence once condo market
recovers.
Pending Contract Actions:
For refinancing purposes developer has requested that the maturity date of its 2006 TIF Note be extended from
Feb 1 to May 1, 2010. Such an extension, while routine, may require formal approval. Continuing to monitor
adherence to other contract provisions.
Brookside Lofts (former Brookside School location)
(Master Dev & Foundation Land)
27-unit loft condo building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
14-unit townhouse building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
5 single family houses 12/31/2006 4 sold
Home builder in bankruptcy, one corner
lot on Webster remains to be sold and
developed
Pending Contract Actions:
Any sale of remaining single family home lot will require commitment from purchaser to build within nine
months.
Aquila Commons (west of Texas Ave. on 33rd St.)
(Stonebridge Dev)
106 unit senior housing cooperative 12/31/2007 79% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring adherence to contract provisions especially purchaser income/net worth requirements.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
4th Quarter 2009
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent sold
&/or Leased Current Project Status
Village In The Park (located adjacent to 36th and Wooddale Ave)
(Rottlund Homes)
78 Townhomes 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
66 loft-style condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
60 senior condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring sale of property at 36th St and Wooddale Ave to Greco Development. TIF Note to be paid off Feb. 1.
Edgewood Business Center (located in the Edgewood Industrial Park)
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/warehouse 12/4/2004 100% leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Wolfe Lake Professional Center (36th St and Beltline Blvd)
(Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc)
2-story, 54,742 SF office bldg 3/31/2004 89% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
1-story, 10,038 SF commercial
“West” bldg 5/31/2005 50% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Commons East
Excelsior & Grand
(TOLD Development)
Phase I – 338 apts, 62,700 SF
retail space 7/1/2003 Building completed
Phase NE-124 Condos, 4,500 retail
space 4/30/2006 Building completed
Phase E – 86 condos & 14,235 SF
retail space 4/1/2006 Building completed
Phase NW – 96 condos, up to
5,000 SF retail space 6/1/2007
Apts 91%
occupied
Condos 98%
sold
Retail 96%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Developer has requested EDA assistance in acquiring an underground parking stall that has been tax forfeited.
Such assistance will require formal approval.
Fern Hill (Minnetonka Blvd and Raleigh; just west of City Hall)
(Park Land Company)
30 condos & 11,200 SF commercial
space 12/1/2001 100% sold &
leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 5
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
4th Quarter 2009
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent sold
&/or Leased Current Project Status
Mill City – LA Oaks (Louisiana Ave and Hwy 7)
(MSP Real Estate)
200 mkt rate apartments 6/1/2002 90%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Zarthan & 16 Street
(CSM Hospitality & Rottlund Homes)
Marriott Springhill Ste-127 units 3/1/2002 Hotel Building completed
Marriot TownePlace Ste-107 units 8/1/2001 Hotel Building completed
86 owner occupied townhomes 1/1/2003 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Center (36th St and Park Center Blvd)
(Silver Crest Properties)
45 unit assisted living facility 6/1/2001 100%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring adherence to contract provisions.
Victoria Ponds
(SVK Development)
72 duplex townhomes 12/1/2002 100% sold Buildings completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
PNMC – Phase II
(Park Nicollet Health Services)
49,310 SF medical office 5/7/2001 100% occupied
by PN Building completed
50,690 SF medical office 12/31/2006 Not built PN paid a financial settlement
45,000 SF medical office 12/31/2010
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring adherence to contract provisions.
Meeting Date: January 25, 2010
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Operation Mayday Overview.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. This report is being provided to inform the City Council of a large scale public
safety training exercise being planned for late April, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns about the proposed training exercise that it would
like to discuss with staff?
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park Fire Department was approached with an exciting training opportunity by Adam
Services/St. Louis Park Bus Company about the possibility of working together on a drill involving a
school bus. As a result of many meetings, the scenario below has been put together.
On April 24, 2010, a number of agencies (listed below) will be conducting a full scale training
exercise to be undertaken at the SLP Junior High. The scenario involves two late arriving buses on a
“normal” school day. School will already be in session (simulated) and most students will be in the
school. The scenario will be initiated by a suicide bomber with a backpack containing an IED who
then detonates it while standing between the two buses (simulated). The first 911 calls will come
from the school and one of the drivers. Initial response will be St. Louis Park Fire and Police, along
with Hennepin County Ambulance. This will be a true 911 response with limited information
available to the first arriving crews.
This exercise will occur on a Saturday and no students will be in the building. Role players will be
used in place of students. The buses will have a total of approximately 60 passengers plus drivers.
There will be one long bus and one short bus parked side by side (normal parking for the school).
This exercise is intended to tax first responders (police, fire and EMS) to their limits. These entities,
working together, will have to manage the incident. The message from the planning group is that
we are planning for a “worst case scenario” i.e. that this event is the worst thing we could imagine
and we want to test our response capabilities. In addition, the School’s response will be measured
much like that from Operation Oriole (active shooter exercise done at the St. Louis Park Senior
High School in 2008). From the City’s point of view it is felt this exercise can have application to
other emergency events with large numbers of victims e.g. plane crash or tornado.
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Organizations currently involved in exercise/scenario planning are:
Adam Services (Bus Company) Hennepin County
St. Louis Park Schools School Bus Training Company
St. Louis Park Fire Department St. Louis Park Police Department
MN Dept. of Homeland Security Emerg. Mgmt. MN School Safety Center
Minnetonka Fire Department Hennepin County EMS
Hopkins Fire Department
There will be a comprehensive communications component to this exercise. To that end, Jamie
Zwilling, City of St. Louis Park’s Communications Coordinator, is a planning group member and
has already contacted the Public Information Officer with the School District. This report is
designed to inform the Council prior to any public communications. We will provide ongoing
effective communications with residents and other stakeholders that may be impacted by this
exercise.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
A $20,000 grant has been secured for this exercise.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Operation Mayday Objectives
Prepared by: Mike Dobesh
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 11)Page 3
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 11)Page 4
Meeting of January 25, 2010 (Item No. 11)Page 5