Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/02/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA FEBRUARY 22, 2010 6:15 p.m. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEW – Westwood Room 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning --- March 1 and March 8, 2010 2. 6:35 p.m. 2009 Police Advisory Commission (PAC) Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan (with Commission) 3. 6:55 p.m. Update on Public Safety Dispatch 4. 7:30 p.m. Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update 5. 8:15 p.m. Sidewalk Repair Pilot Project 6. 8:30 p.m. Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan 7. 8:45 p.m. Communications (Verbal) Written Reports 8. January, 2010 Monthly Financial Report 9. 2009 Annual Housing Programs Report and Housing Matrix 10. Proposed Common Driveway between Ellipse on Excelsior and former American Inn properties 11. Composting Ordinance Revision 12. MCES Golden Valley and Hopkins Interceptor Projects Update 13. Broadband Funding Opportunities 8:55 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: February 22, 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 – March 1 and March 8, 2010. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the special study session on March 1 and the regularly scheduled study session on March 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 regularly scheduled study session on March 8, 2010. In addition, on occasion, special study sessions are required as is the case for March 1. For that reason, please find attached the tentative agenda and proposed discussion item scheduled for that date. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for March 1 and March 8, 2010 Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Tentative Discussion Items Special Study Session, Monday, March 1, 2010 – 6:30 p.m. 1. Rental License Ordinance – Inspections (50 minutes) Staff and City Attorney will discuss possible revisions to the City’s rental licensing ordinance End of Meeting: 7:20 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Tentative Discussion Items Study Session, Monday, March 8, 2010 – 6:30 p.m. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Human Rights Commission 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan – Administrative Services (45 minutes) If so requested by the City Council on February 22, 2010, representatives of the Human Rights Commission will be present to discuss their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council. 3. Tax Increment Financing 101 and Bond Issuance 101 – Community Development/Finance (90 minutes) As previously requested by the Council, Ehlers and Associates, with assistance from Staff, will provide an overview on Tax Increment Financing and Bonding 4. School District Facility Plans – Administrative Services (30 minutes) At a previous study session the Council asked that this be place on a future agenda. This item is being placed on this agenda based on the understanding the School Board is scheduled to make a decision on facility changes/closures on February 22. 5. Communications – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session for the purposes of information sharing. Reports: ƒ Final Draft of proposed Business Licensing Amendments End of Meeting: 9:25 p.m. Meeting Date: February 22, 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: 2009 Police Advisory Commission (PAC) Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Each year the City Council receives from each of its boards and commissions an annual report for the past year and their work plan for the coming year. The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the 2009 annual report and 2010 work plan prepared by the Police Advisory Commission in preparation for a discussion with the PAC at the Study Session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Are the actions of the PAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council? BACKGROUND: The City Council reviewed the PAC 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan at the February 8th study session. Members of the PAC and staff will meet with Council at the February 22nd study session for discussion and guidance. The Police Advisory Commission was formed as a means to enhance awareness of police department capabilities and services; provide an opportunity for citizen involvement and input in police services and encourage exchange between the police department and the community. The work of the commission changes as the needs of the community change. Commissioners design and create their own initiatives each year. The PAC consists of eleven regular members and one voting youth member. Meetings are held the first Wednesday every other month at 7:00 p.m. The 2009 PAC Annual Report and 2010 PAC Work Plan are attached for Council’s review and discussion. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable Attachments: PAC 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan PAC Bylaws City Code Chapter 2, Division 7 relating to Police Advisory Commission Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2 ST. LOUIS PARK POLICE ADVISORY COMMISSION 2009 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2010 WORK PLAN The Purpose of the Police Advisory Commission year end report is to share the progress of the Police Advisory Commission (PAC) with the Council and to set forth a plan for work to be done in 2010. The Police Advisory Commission mission: The purpose of the Police Advisory Commission is to enhance the awareness of the police department’s capabilities and services. To provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services. To encourage exchange between the police department and the community. Several Commissioners worked with Human Rights Commissioners to staff a booth at the Children First Ice Cream Social and the City Open House. Commissioners provided information to the public about the commission and the police department. Several Commissioners were involved with the Department’s National Night Out. Commissioners rode with officers to block parties and also hosted block parties in their neighborhood. As a member of the Traffic Sub-Committee Commissioner Widmer has been attending the city staff Traffic Advisory Meetings. The Traffic Advisory group is comprised of members of the Public Works, Community Development, and Police Departments. The group meets every month to discuss traffic related issues within the community. Commissioner Widmer actively provides citizen input on traffic related issues and street projects. The Traffic Sub-Committee worked with the Park and Recreation staff and their Commission on an informational brochure concept titled Experience Biking in the Park. This initiative was in response to the Council’s request to work on traffic and bicycle related issues in 2008. A decision was made to not duplicate efforts and information the PAC brochure was incorporated into the Park and Recreation Department bike trail map. The sub-committee also assisted in the production of two bicycle safety segments which aired on the Inside the Park Community Television. The Third Annual St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund Golf Tournament was held on September 11th, 2009. It was another successful year, earning $2246 dollars for the Crime Prevention Fund. The goal of the tournament is to bring the business community together with the police department for a day of fun and recreation, and to raise funds for the Crime Prevention Fund. PAC will continue with this effort in 2010 and plan to publicize the event in early 2010. In an effort to work more closely with the Human Rights Commission on police related issues, Commissioner Pat Swiderski is attending the Human Rights Commission meetings. Commissioner Swiderski participates in Human Rights Commission activities and is encouraging their Commissioners to participate in Police Advisory Commission activities. We have jointly discussed the idea of organizing an immigrant forum similar in nature to the Somalian forum previously sponsored by the HRC and a Public Service Announcement on Police Traffic Stops to be aired on Inside the Park. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3 The fifth Citizen’s Academy was offered in 2009. Twenty community members completed the 2009 Academy. Public reaction to this series of classes is always positive and it allows the public to connect with and learn more about the Police Department. Commissioners assisted Officer Czapar with welcoming participants at the first class session and were present for the graduation ceremony. The 2010 work plan for the PAC is as follows: • Attend the Children First Ice Cream Social, City Open House, and National Night Out with the goal of providing information to the public about the commission and the police department • Work with the HRC on producing a Public Service Announcement on Police Traffic Stops to be aired on Inside the Park. The PAC goal would be to provide information regarding what to expect when stopped by a police officer. • Continue working with the City’s Traffic Advisory Committee • Produce quarterly public safety information programs for the Inside the Park Community TV • Continue the Annual St. Louis Park Police Department Crime Prevention Crime Fund Golf Tournament, with the goal of increasing participation Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA POLICE ADVISORY COMMISSION BY-LAWS Adopted July 21, 2003 Article I - The Commission 1.1 Name of Commission. The name of the Commission shall be the “Police Advisory Commission, which is referred to herein from time to time as “The Commission”. 1.2 Powers. The powers of the commission shall be vested in the Commissioners thereof in office from time to time. 1.3 Mission, Vision, Values, and Goal Statements. The Commission shall operate under the tenets of these mission, vision, values and goal statements. 1.31 Mission • Enhance the awareness of police department capabilities and services • Provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services • Encourage exchange between police department and the community 1.32 Vision • The St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission strives to create a community that is proactive, safe, informed, inclusive, and healthy • The St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission will make a difference by serving as a connection to the community, supporting the efforts of the police department, promoting partnerships, and encouraging involvement in educational opportunities 1.33 Values • The St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission values integrity, ethics, safety, prevention, and quality of life • The St. Louis Park Police Advisory Commission is motivated by communication, relationship building, and problem solving 1.34 Goals • Enhance the power of advocacy • Create more public recognition and visibility of the Police Department, Police Advisory Commission and Community Policing • Provide a more systematic, comprehensive approach to addressing community and individual issues • Provide more opportunities to improve Community Policing Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Article II - Officers 2.1 Officers. The officers of the Commission shall be Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary. 2.2 Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the commission. The chair shall also be responsible for appointing Commission members to task force committees. 2.3 Vice-Chair. The vice-chair shall perform the duties of the chair in the absence or incapacity of the chair; and in case of the resignation or death of the chair, the vice-president shall perform such duties as imposed on the chair until such time as the commission shall select a new chair. 2.4 Secretary. The secretary shall be responsible for ensuring proper notice of all meetings is given. The secretary shall also be responsible for the minutes of all meetings and for the recording of all official actions of the commission in accordance with MN Statute and City policy. The secretary shall perform other duties as the commission shall prescribe. 2.5 Staff Liaison. A staff liaison to the Police Advisory Commission shall be appointed by the city manager and shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the city. The staff liaison may facilitate or assist in the meetings and shall be responsible for recording attendance of commission members. 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. 2.6 Delegation of Duties. Officers may delegate duties of their position to other personnel as deemed appropriate by the commission. Article III - Election of Officers 3.1 Elections and Terms of Office. The chair, vice-chair and secretary shall be elected from the commission membership by its members at the regular meeting in December of each year, or as shortly thereafter as possible. Terms of office shall be for one-year and shall run from January 1st through December 31st of each year, or until a duly elected successor takes office. Officers may be elected to an unlimited number of successive terms. 3.2 Vacancies. Should the office of chair, vice-chair or secretary become vacant, the commission shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said office. Article IV - Meetings 4.1 Meetings. All meetings of the commission shall be conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Format of the meetings may be informal, however, the Chair may, at their discretion, determine that more formal proceedings are warranted. In that event the meeting shall be conducted as outlined in the third edition of The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures as adopted in city council rules and procedures. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 6 4.2 Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the commission shall be the regular meeting in December at which time elections will be held and the schedule for the following year’s regular meeting schedule will be considered. 4.3 Regular Meetings. The regular meetings of the commission shall be held a minimum of six times per year at dates, times and locations scheduled annually by the commission. 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. 4.4 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Authority may be called by the chair or two commissioners, or by the city council, for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for special meeting shall be delivered in compliance with state law. The secretary must deliver to the commissioners at least three days prior to the meeting a notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the special meeting. 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. 4.5 Emergency Meetings. An emergency meeting may be called by the chair due to circumstances which require immediate consideration. The secretary may notify commissioners by any means available. A good faith effort shall be made to provide notice of the meeting to any news medium that has filed a written request for notice of meetings. The notice shall include the purpose of the meeting. 4.5 Quorum and Voting. The presence of a majority of all currently appointed members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes. In the event a quorum is not reached, a smaller number of members may meet to discuss the business of the commission and recommendations may be made, however, formal action must be reserved for such time as a quorum of the commission is reached. Article V - Agenda and Records of Proceedings 5.1 Agenda Preparation. The agenda for regular and special meetings of the commission shall be prepared by the staff liaison subject to approval by the chair. Items to be placed on the agenda may be proposed by the chair, a commission member, the staff liaison or at the request of the city council. Residents, businesses, or other interested parties may contact individual commission members or the staff liaison to request that an item be placed on the agenda for consideration. All agenda topics presented by the city council will be placed on an appropriate agenda, requests from other parties will be placed on an appropriate future agenda at the discretion of the chair. . 5.2 Approval of the Agenda. The agenda shall be approved at each meeting prior to discussion of any item on the agenda. At the time of agenda approval, items may be removed and the order of business may be modified by a majority vote of members present at the meeting. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 7 Prior to adjournment, members present may communicate items recommended for inclusion on future agendas. 5.3 Record of Proceedings. All minutes and resolutions shall be in writing and shall be copied in the journal of the proceedings of the Authority. Records shall be kept in accordance with MN Statute and Rules regarding preservation of public records and the MN Data Privacy Act. Article VI - Attendance and Performance of Duties 6.1 Attendance. 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. 6.2 Reporting. 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. 6.3 Performance of Duties. 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 VII - Commission Activities 7.1 Annual Work Plan. The commission will adopt an annual work plan that details activities and projected timelines for the calendar year. • The chair may appoint commission members to be primarily responsible for each work plan activity. • The commission may establish task force committees to oversee work plan activities, chaired by members appointed by the chair. • Commission work plans will be submitted to the City Council by March 1st or as shortly thereafter as practicable. 7.2 Task Forces. The commission may create task force committees to investigate and perform duties related to subjects of interest to the commission and to oversee work plan activities. • Task force committees will be chaired by commission members appointed by the commission chair • A task force consists of at least two appointed commission members, one of whom will be designated committee chair or committee co-chair by the commission chair. A majority of the task force must be present to conduct business, including at least two commission members. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 8 • The commission may consolidate or dissolve existing task forces at any time. • The task force chair may appoint other commission members and representatives from the broader community to the task force. • The task force chair shall report about task force activities as an agenda item at regular commission meetings. 7.3 City Council Annual Report. The commission will submit an annual report to the City Council summarizing the past year's activities. The report may highlight issues of concern and other information the commission feels appropriate to convey to the city council. • The commission chair or designee will prepare the report for approval by the commission. Commission members may submit signed addenda presenting alternative conclusions or perspectives. • The report and addenda are submitted with the current year work plan in March or as soon thereafter as possible. Article VIII - By-Laws and Rules 8.1 Amendments. These By-Laws may be amended by a majority of all voting member of the commission. Commission members must be given one month's advance notice regarding proposed amendments prior to formal commission action. Amendments to these procedures can only be considered at a regular meeting of the commission. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 9 ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE Chapter 2 ADMINISTRATION DIVISION 7 POLICE ADVISORY COMMISSION Sec. 2-321. Membership; terms. (a) Function; composition. The police advisory commission shall be an advisory commission to the city council. It shall consist of eleven regular members and one youth member, all appointed as set forth in this section. (b) Regular members. The City Council shall appoint four regular members of the commission for terms to expire on December 31, 2004, four regular members for terms to expire on December 31, 2005, and three regular members for terms to expire on December 31, 2006. All subsequent appointments shall be for three-year terms which shall expire on December 31 of the third year of such term and until a successor is duly appointed and qualified. In the event of a vacancy, the city council shall appoint a person to complete the unexpired term. A member of the commission may be removed with or without cause by the city council. (c) Youth member. One voting youth who shall be a high school student of a private or public school located in the city may be appointed by the city council and serve a term of one year. (d) Qualifications. Regular members of the police advisory commission shall be qualified voters and residents of the city. A vacancy shall deem to exist if a member ceases to meet the residency requirements. All members of the commission shall be appointed from persons who have demonstrated an interest in the police advisory commission by submission of appropriate city forms. Sec. 2-322. Organization. (a) A staff liaison to the police advisory commission shall be appointed by the city manager and shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the city. (b) The commission shall elect its own chair and vice-chair. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the city council at any time, the commission shall provide its own rules and procedure, determine the date and time of meetings and, upon proper notice, shall call public hearings when necessary and desirable and in accordance with all requirements of local and state laws. The bylaws of the commission and amendments shall be submitted to the city council upon their adoption. Such bylaws and any amendments shall be deemed to be approved by the city council unless the city council takes action to modify such bylaws or amendments within 30 days after submission. No member of the commission shall consider or vote upon any question in which the member is directly or indirectly interested. (c) The commission shall keep proper records of its proceedings, and such records shall be maintained by the staff liaison or the liaison's designee. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 10 Sec. 2-323. Expense of members. The members of the police advisory commission shall serve without pay but may be reimbursed for actual expenses to the extent that funds therefor are provided in the annual city budget adopted by the city council. The commission shall properly account for its receipts and expenditures of monies in accordance with established city procedures. Sec. 2-324. Powers and duties. Under the direction of the city council, the police advisory commission shall perform those functions and duties necessary to: (a) Carry out their stated mission to enhance the awareness of police department capabilities and services; provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services and to encourage exchange between the police department and the community. (b) Submit to the city council by April 1 of each year an annual report of the activities of the commission during the previous year; and (c) Perform other functions as needed to carry out these duties and responsibilities as directed by the city council and to act in an advisory capacity to the city council. Meeting Date: February 22, 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: Update on Public Safety Dispatch. RECOMMENDED ACTION: We are not requesting formal action at this time. During the study session staff would like to outline more specifically the options being considered and the specifics of the analysis which is being undertaken and receive feedback from the City Council. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council concur with the options being considered and analyzed? Are there specific questions the Council would like staff to address as a part of this analysis? BACKGROUND: The City of St. Louis Park has been providing public safety dispatch service to the City of Golden Valley for more than 16 years. Per our contractual agreement, the City of Golden Valley has notified us by letter of their intention to terminate these public safety dispatch services effective December 31, 2010. The City of Golden Valley has requested that the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Department provide them with public safety dispatch services, effective the date and time of termination of the contract with the City of St. Louis Park. Currently, the City of Golden Valley is awaiting final approval of this request. As a result of this decision and notification by the City of Golden Valley, staff has begun analysis on the following four options for public safety dispatch services for 2011 and beyond: 1. Continuation of the current agreement. Until Golden Valley is formally accepted by Hennepin County, including a date certain, it is at least technically possible that Golden Valley will request a continuation of services for an extended interim period of time. 2. Consolidation with other independent PSAP(s). This option has been under review since the 2003-2004 budget struggles. Pursuit of this option has proven to be difficult and problematic; however, the possibility continues to exist. 3. Operation as a stand-alone, independent PSAP. This option would involve returning to a pre-1994 public safety dispatch environment. Analysis will focus primarily on integration and support related to our service delivery model and cost implications versus our current contribution to the dispatch budget. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2 4. Request public safety dispatch services from Hennepin County. Analysis will focus on service levels and cost/benefit as they relate to and impact our service delivery model. During the study session Staff will outline in greater detail the focus and questions related to each option and request Council feedback including anything we are missing in our approach to this analysis. The intent is to complete the bulk of the analysis such that the findings can be discussed with the City Council during a study session proposed to be held before the March 15 regular Council meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not available at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: None Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: February 22, 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: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report and discussion is to update the Council on the planning and project redevelopment activities related to this project – Project No. 2012-0100. In particular, the report provides information on the conclusion of Phase 2 (Public and Stakeholder Involvement) and a discussion on proceeding into Phase 3 (Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment). POLICY CONSIDERATION: The following input from Council is desired: ƒ Is the City Council comfortable with concluding Phase 2? ƒ Is there further information needed about the remaining two preferred concept designs or those concepts which have been discarded? ƒ Does the City Council have a preference for a particular concept? ƒ Does the City Council wish to continue with the project development and give consideration to starting Phase 3? ƒ In consideration of starting Phase 3, what additional information does the City Council require? BACKGROUND: History The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the Hwy 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project will provide for the construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Hwy 7. The project would also include pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Hwy 7 corridor and Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting the transportation and safety needs of both Mn/DOT and the City. In addition to high commuter usage (congestion) in the Hwy 7 corridor, the Hwy 7/Louisana intersection experiences many other traffic and safety related problems. Louisiana Avenue serves as a vital north-south corridor through the City, carrying anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day at this location and Hwy 7 carries 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day through this intersection. The close configuration of the frontage roads to Hwy 7 and the heavy traffic generation of properties in close proximity to the intersection (including Methodist Hospital and Sam’s Club) add to the intersection’s congestion. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2 This intersection has also been identified as a higher safety priority concern for Mn/DOT. Despite recent signal timing modifications by Mn/DOT to the Hwy 7 corridor, the Hwy 7/Louisiana intersection still experiences significant delays during the peak traffic periods. In addition, traffic studies for potential future redevelopment activities, a future LRT Station nearby, and hospital expansions have determined that this Hwy 7/Louisiana improvement is a critical element in meeting the future transportation needs in this area. Hwy 7 also creates a barrier for bicycles and pedestrians wishing to cross at Louisiana Avenue. A grade-separated interchange will provide opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to safely cross the Hwy 7 corridor in order to link with employment centers as well as destinations such as the SW regional trail, Louisiana Oaks Park, and a proposed future light rail station at Louisiana Avenue and Oxford Street. Because of the needed traffic and safety improvements listed above, staff submitted an application in July 2007 for Federal funds through the State’s Surface Transportation Program administered by the Metropolitan Council. In, February 2008, staff was successful in obtaining $7,630,000 in federal funds for this project. RECENT ACTIVITIES: Concept Designs The Project Management Team (PMT) has evaluated 10 concept designs, 7 grade separated interchange designs and 3 at-grade intersection designs. Based on feedback from the public and all the involved stakeholders, two concept designs (see attachments) remain as finalists for a preferred concept; Option 4, Button hook ramps with roundabouts and Option 6, the tight diamond design. The PMT considers Option 4, the button hook ramp design, as the “preferred concept.” However, Community Development staff has not yet been able to determine which concept of the final two is more favorable to area redevelopment needs or possibilities. Public Involvement and Stakeholder Engagement On January 26, 2010, staff and its consultant held a public informational open house in the City Council Chambers to present the two concepts considered finalists for a preferred design. At the open house, the City’s consultant (SEH, Inc.) made a presentation to provide an update on the project development. The presentation reviewed the project goals and process, discussed the two remaining alternatives for a preferred concept design, and summarized the next steps in the project development. A question and answer period concluded the presentation followed by a breakout session for attendees to review concept drawings and talk individually with staff and representatives from SEH. The meeting also provided information on modern roundabouts through handouts, viewing of the DVD, How about a Roundabout? The Minnesota Experience, and question answering from SEH’s traffic engineer. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting. Attendees were encouraged to provide feedback on comment cards. Nine people provided written comments (see attached Attendance Roster and Comment Cards). Based on conversations and comment card feedback, all in attendance were receptive to a new interchange at Hwy 7 and Louisiana Avenue. From the opinions gathered on the Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3 two remaining concept designs, the people showed a slight preference towards Option 4 with the button hook ramp design and roundabouts. In addition to the open house, staff and SEH have scheduled meetings in late February and early March to talk with property owners adjacent to the project area. They include meetings with Louisiana Oaks Apartments, Anderson Builders, and Methodist Hospital. Next Phase Two viable concept designs remain as finalists for a preferred design. Staff is recommending that both concepts be carried into Phase 3 of the project development. Further study of both options in Phase 3 will answer Community Development’s questions about right-of-way impacts and future development opportunities that differ between the two options. By completing this work, the consultant will then be able to quantify the right-of-way impacts and development opportunities to help finalize the decision on a preferred concept. It is expected that a preferred concept will be decided upon during Phase 3 and, at that time, remaining Phase 3 work would only be performed on that concept. Phase 3 work is best described as the preliminary detail design and environmental study/documentation phase of the project. The following is a list of tasks associated with this phase of the project: • An environmental assessment • Geometric layout development • A determination of right of way needs • Traffic Studies and Modeling • Public involvement activities • Project management activities The estimated time for completing Phase 3 is approximately one year. Upon authorization by Council, work on Phase 3 would likely start in April, 2010. SEH, Inc. earlier prepared a proposal for Phase 3 work which includes study of one preferred concept. The estimated cost for these services is $300,000. Staff recently requested a proposal for additional services to include study of a second preferred concept for Phase 3. The consultant has not completed their proposal for this work at this time, but indicates that it could add $150,000 or more to Phase 3 costs. Should the City Undertake Phase 3? Staff is recommending that Council give serious consideration to moving forward with the Phase 3 work. By completing work in Phase 3, the project will be in a stronger position to secure additional Federal funds should future stimulus funding become available or through the projects inclusion into the next federal multi-year transportation authorization bill as a High Priority Project. Staff has identified the following pros and cons for moving forward into Phase 3: Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Pros for completing Phase 3 work • Keeps project on schedule so that federal funds secured so far ($7,630,000) can be utilized. The Mn/DOT-Met Council sunset date of March 31, 2012, requires all final project plans, documents, and right-of-way activities to be concluded and submitted for Mn/DOT approval and Federal authorization on about January 1, 2012. • Places the City in a better position to compete for additional federal funding that may become available. • Allows for the rehabilitation and upgrading of the regional sanitary waste interceptor line that runs through the project area. • Allows area property owners to understand the impacts the project will have on their property and permit them to plan accordingly. • Allows area redevelopment to occur in a timely, orderly manner consistent with this eventual improvement. • Allows for LRT station area planning expected to begin in the near future. • Allows for the rehabilitation of the City’s storm lift station at South Oak Pond (Project No. 2007-2400) Cons for completing Phase 3 work • Additional upfront costs carried by the City. Next Steps Conclude Phase 2 upon completion of public outreach meetings with adjacent property owners. Report back to the City Council in March 2010 with final findings on remaining public outreach and to discuss/decide on proceeding into Phase 3. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated total project costs at this time are as follows: Total Project Cost (construction, ROW, agreements, design, etc.) Construction $22,000,000 Design $ 3,000,000 Right of Way $ 3,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $28,000,000 Funding Sources and Opportunities $7,630,000 in federal funds have been secured through the State Transportation Program Urban Grant solicitation. Staff has also made a request for $18,170,000 in TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Discretionary Grant funds to the Federal Transportation Department. Results of this grant application will likely be made available in late February 2010. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Also, staff resubmitted a request to Senator Klobuchar on February 19, 2010 for $1,140,000 to fund Phases 3 and 4 of this project. Staff plans on making this same request of Senator Franken and Representative Ellison in the near future. However, the timing for approval of this funding (if at all) is very unclear and could be months from now. As a result, the local source of funds to pay for Phase 3 would be HRA levy proceeds which have been designated to pay for infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas. VISION CONSIDERATION: The following Strategic Direction and focus area has been identified by Council. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: • Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT. Attachments: Preferred Concept Alternatives drawings (2 finalists) Open House Attendance Roster Open House Comment Cards Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)Page 6 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)Page 7 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)Page 8 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)Page 9 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)Page 10 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)Page 11 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)Page 12 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)Page 13 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)Page 14 Meeting Date: February 22, 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: Sidewalk Repair Pilot Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: For information purposes only. No formal action required. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council have concerns over trying this new sidewalk trip fault repair method? BACKGROUND: History Since about 2000 Public Works has budgeted and spent $85,000 annually on repair of sidewalk trip faults. Trip faults are defined as faults of ¾ inch or greater. Sidewalks are inspected annually and where faults are found temporary bituminous patches are placed to eliminate the trip hazard until permanent repairs can be made. Permanent repairs consist of the removal and replacement of the concrete sidewalk panels. Based on the current annual budget of $85,000, we are able to make permanent repairs to approximately 150 trip faults per year. There are currently 1165 known trip faults in the city that have temporary bituminous patches. The total number of trip faults that are temporarily patched appears to be increasing yearly. It appears that to prevent further long term deterioration of the sidewalks in the city, either a less costly repair method needs to be found or the annual budget will need to be increased. Pilot Project A new sidewalk trip fault repair method has recently been developed and during 2009 started to be used in the United States. It consists of saw cutting the sidewalk panel(s) horizontally (similar to grinding) to eliminate the trip fault. Staff has been investigating the possibility of using this repair method in our city. The following link is to the company’s website where the repair method is described where before and after photos are shown along with a video of the actual repair work being done. www.SidewalksPlus.com Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item 5) Page 2 The cost to repair trip faults utilizing this new method is estimated at 10 to 20 per cent of our current repair cost. At this cost, it appears it would be possible to repair all known trip faults in the city during 2010. At the rate of about 40 repairs daily, it would take approximately 30 days or 6 weeks to do this. Instead of repairing all faults with this new method, staff feels a pilot project consisting of two weeks of work which could repair about 400 trip faults is a more reasonable way to try this new repair technique. This pilot would cost about $20,000 with the remaining budget dollars being used to repair other sidewalk deficiencies (pole relocations, ped ramp relocations / renovations, barrier removals or construction, curved sidewalk realigning, etc.). Based on repair results and looks (aesthetics), this 2010 pilot project could be continued, expanded, or eliminated for 2011 or beyond. This work is only done by one vendor at this time. A contract for this project would be arranged for utilizing the quote process. Staff proposes to do this work immediately this spring so Council and the public have ample opportunity in 2010 to both see and comment on project results. This project would be set up as any other capital project so information regarding the progress of the work would be reported in the “Weekly Construction” updates to both the public and Council. VISION CONSIDERATION: The following Strategic Direction and focus areas have been identified by Council. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: • Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails. Attachments: None Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: February 22, 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: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the work plan and annual report prepared by the Human Rights Commission (HRC). POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Are the actions of the HRC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council? • Does the City Council wish to meet with the HRC to discuss the annual report and work plan? BACKGROUND: The Human Rights Commission advises the City Council on how to ensure equal opportunity and participation in housing, employment, public service, public accommodations and education. The Commission consists of eleven regular members, one of which is an attorney and another that is appointed by the School Board. The commission also may have two voting youth members. Meetings are held on the third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. The City Council has requested drafts of each commission’s work plan and annual report prior to the annual meeting with the commissioners. The 2010 HRC Work Plan and 2009 HRC Annual Report are attached for council’s review and discussion. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: 2009 Human Rights Commission Annual Report 2010 Human Rights Commission Work Plan Draft of Divestment Resolution Human Rights Commission Bylaws Diversity Lens Project Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Human Rights Commission 2009 Annual Report The Human Rights Commission Mission: The purpose of the Human Rights Commission shall be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens. Community Involvement: In 2009, the Human Rights Commission has actively participated in several events in the community. In May the HRC partnered with the Police Advisory Commission at the Children First Ice Cream Social. HRC brochures, posters, coloring sheets and buttons were available along with the Diversity Lens created by the HRC. The HRC also participated in the June Community Open House at the Rec Center/Aquatic Center. The HRC also participated in National Night Out at Meadowbrook for the second year in a row. These events were great opportunities to let the community know about the HRC and share the Diversity Lens Magnet. Vision: An ongoing project for the HRC has been to examine the Diversity section of Vision St. Louis Park and develop goals/recommendations for actions. The Diversity Lens, created with input from the HRC and city staff, is now available in magnet form. In 2009 and continuing into 2010, a subcommittee is working on creating a brochure that will accompany the Diversity Lens. The brochure will explain the purpose for the lens and how it can be used by the community. Human Rights Award: Each year the HRC sponsors a Human Rights Award and the 2009 recipient is Kathy McKay. Kathy McKay was nominated for her work with the Iraqi I& American Reconciliation Project (IARP). Kathy became involved in the IARP as a volunteer Executive Director in 2007. The mission of the IARP is to promote reconciliation between the people of the United States and Iraq. Kathy has been involved in a variety of ways to promote this mission. She has worked on letter writing projects between children of both countries; multiple exhibits of original art by current Iraqis including a two month art exhibit at Sabes Jewish Community Center and two nights of multi-faith programming at the JCC; initiation and successful establishment of the sister city relationship between Najaf and Minneapolis; and most recently planning and implementation of a delegation of 13 Iraqi professionals for a two-week visit to the Twin Cities including St. Louis Park. The overarching goal of the project and of Kathy’s involvement is to increase the awareness, sensitivity and appreciation of people from a centuries-old culture that has come to the attention of Americans. Kathy has lived in St Louis Park since 1982. Her son attended school in St. Louis Park and now her grandchildren are attending school here. Kathy has been an election judge in St. Louis Park and is a psychologist who works in the disability field. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Bias/Hate Crimes: The HRC reviews all Bias/Hate Crimes and responds to the victims with a letter and HRC brochure when appropriate. The HRC was notified of the following Bias/Hate Crimes in 2009. Divestment Resolution: Ms. Ellen Kennedy of the University of Minnesota Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Jan Kleinman, St. Louis Park resident, spoke at the September commission meeting regarding a creating a resolution regarding divestment from businesses that contribute to genocide in Darfur. Per the direction of the HRC, Ms. Olson and Lt. Dreier met with the City’s Finance Director and Deputy City Manager to discuss the divestment of these funds. The Finance Director stated that the City can no longer invest in commercial paper per our investment policy. Our investments are only with federal or local government agencies; therefore, we do not invest in companies that contribute to genocide. The commission had much discussion around this issue and voted at the January 19, 2010 meeting to send the resolution to council. The Human Rights Commission would like council to consider passing the attached resolution. Bylaw Revision: The HRC discussed reducing the number of meetings from 12 (meeting monthly) to 9 meetings per year. The commission would not meet in June, July or November. These months have typically had lower attendance and there are also opportunities for the HRC to participate in community events during these time frames. Offense Date Police Case # Summary Information 7/29/09 09004425 Burglary and Damage to Property including two swastikas – Jewish Community Center 5/22/09 09002964 Informational Report only – resident interpreted religious publication as anti-Semitic. 4/15/09 09002140 Harassment – religious harassment in the work place. 4/9/09 09002042 Road hazard – several boards formed a swastika in the middle of the road. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 4 Human Rights Commission 2010 Work Plan Draft Mission: The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens. • In 2010 the commission would like to evaluate the current mission statement and consider expanding the mission to include issues outside of the St. Louis Park community. HRC Participation in Community Events: • In 2010, the HRC plans to partner with and participate in many existing community events including: o Children First Ice Cream Social o Fire Department Open House o Meadowbrook National Night Out o Other events as appropriate • Identify human rights and diversity events that are available to the residents of St. Louis Park in the metro area. Rather than duplicating efforts that already exist, find ways to notify our residents of these events such as through the use of an HRC webpage. • Diversity Film – part of a multi year film series. Vision St. Louis Park – The Diversity Lens • Use the Diversity Lens as a tool to make connections with local agencies, organizations, etc. HRC members present the Diversity Lens which will give these organizations a tool and reminder to incorporate diversity into their events. o Create a brochure and web copy to accompany the Diversity Lens. o Compile a list of agencies/organizations to approach to share the Diversity Lens. o Create a list of activities that are going on in SLP that we could participate in or talk to the planning committee about the Diversity Lens Connecting with our community and surrounding communities • Continue to build a better connection with the Adult Education and ELL Programs. • Connect with local (metro & state) Human Rights Commissions Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 5 Ongoing Commission Work • Respond to bias crimes as they occur in partnership with the Police Department • Select annual Human Rights Award winner(s) for St. Louis Park • Sponsor a Human Rights Essay Contest and/or Poster Contest winner for the state competition. • Partner with other boards and commissions as appropriate. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 6 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 10-___ RESOLUTION CONDEMNING GENOCIDE AND CERTIFYING PRESENT AND FUTURE DIVESTMENT FROM ENTITIES THAT ARE COMPLICIT WITH GENOCIDE WHEREAS, on July 23, 2004, the United States Congress declared that "the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan are genocide"; and WHEREAS, on December 31, 2007, the President of the United States signed into law the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (S. 2271), which authorizes state and local governments to divest from Sudan and with companies that support the government of Sudan; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Louis Park does not presently invest in any entities other than United States governmental securities, and certainly does not invest in Sudan or other nations or companies that support the genocide in Sudan or elsewhere; and WHEREAS, the United States Constitution assigns the responsibility for formal relations with foreign nations with the Federal Government and not with State or Local government; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Louis Park is a diverse community and that diversity is highly valued by the City Council of Saint Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Saint Louis Park wants to do whatever it can to prevent genocide from occurring anywhere in the world; and WHEREAS, the Saint Louis Park Human Rights Commission has recommended that we adopt this Resolution; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Louis Park will continue to ensure its divestment in nations or companies whose operations are deemed to be complicit in aiding the government of Sudan or of the government of any nation that is supporting genocide. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Louis Park, if it is determined at a future date, to have invested in nations or companies whose operations are deemed to be complicit in aiding the government of Sudan or of the government of any nation that is supporting genocide, will divest in these nations or companies. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Louis Park encourages the Federal Government to take all possible actions, consistent with the United States Constitution, to safeguard the security of all innocent non-combatants in Darfur, or wherever genocide is occurring. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the judgment of the City of Saint Louis Park that this Resolution should remain in effect only insofar as it continues to be consistent with, and does not unduly interfere with, the foreign policy of the United States as determined by the Federal Government. Reviewed for St. Louis Park: Adopted by the City Council - Date Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 8 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BY-LAWS Revised February 16, 2010 and Approved by City Council________. The St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission was established May 20, 1968. Article I - The Commission 1.1 Name of Commission. The name of the Commission shall be the “St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission”, which is referred to herein from time to time as “The Commission”. 1.2 Powers. The powers of the commission shall be vested in the Commissioners thereof in office from time to time. 1.3 Mission, Vision, Values, and Goal Statements. The Commission shall operate under the tenets of these mission, vision, values and goal statements. 1.31 Mission • The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens. 1.32 Vision • The Commission adheres to the vision set forth by the City 1.33 Values • The Commission adheres to the values set forth by the City 1.34 Goals • Study and review programs and policies and advise and aid the city council in enlisting the cooperation of agencies, organizations and individuals in the city in an active program directed to create equal opportunity and eliminate discrimination. • Make recommendations to the city council regarding formulation and implementation of human rights programs for the city. The programs shall be directed toward increasing the effectiveness and direction of all individuals and agencies of the city through planning, policy-making and education in the area of human rights. • Advise the city council with respect to human rights issues arising out of or in connection with the plans or operations of any city department or agency and recommend the adoption of such specific policies or actions as may be needed to protect human rights in the city. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 9 • Advise and recommend to the city council programs or legislation to eliminate inequalities of opportunity in the area of human rights. • Publish and distribute to the public at large any materials necessary or advisable to carry out its functions, subject to requirements of the city council. • Make studies, surveys and investigations necessary or advisable to carry out its functions. • Sponsor such meetings, institutes, and forums and other educational activities as will lead to clearer understanding of local human rights issues and contribute to their proper resolution. Article II - Officers 2.1 Officers. The officers of the Commission shall be Chair, and Vice-Chair. 2.2 Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the commission. The chair shall also be responsible for appointing Commission members to task force committees. The Chair’s position rotates annually and the chair serves for one year. 2.3 Vice-Chair. The vice-chair shall perform the duties of the chair in the absence or incapacity of the chair; and in case of the resignation or death of the chair, the vice-chair shall perform such duties as imposed on the chair until such time as the commission shall select a new chair. The Vice-Chair serves for one year. 2.4 Secretary (if applicable). The secretary shall be responsible for ensuring proper notice of all meetings is given. The secretary shall also be responsible for the minutes of all meetings and for the recording of all official actions of the commission in accordance with MN Statute and City policy. The secretary shall perform other duties as the commission shall prescribe. 2.5 Staff Liaison. A staff liaison to the Human Rights Commission shall be appointed by the city manager and shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the city. The staff liaison may facilitate or assist in the meetings and shall be responsible for recording attendance of commission members. 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. 2.6 Delegation of Duties. Officers may delegate duties of their position to other personnel as deemed appropriate by the commission. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 10 Article III - Election of Officers 3.1 Elections and Terms of Office. The chair and vice-chair shall be elected from the commission membership by its members at the regular meeting in December of each year, or as shortly thereafter as possible. Terms of office shall be for one year and shall run from January 1st through December 31st of each year, or until a duly elected successor takes office. 3.2 Vacancies. Should the office of chair or vice-chair become vacant, the commission shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said office. Article IV - Meetings 4.1 Meetings. All meetings of the commission shall be conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. 4.2 Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the commission shall be the regular meeting in December at which time elections will be held and the schedule for the following year’s regular meeting schedule will be considered. 4.3 Regular Meetings. The regular meetings of the commission shall be held on the third Tuesday of the month at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. The commission will not meet during the months of June, July or November. 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. 4.4 Holidays. The Commission shall hold regular meetings as set forth in section 4.3. [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, Thanksgiving Day, President’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. 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 Tuesday 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. 4.5 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the chair or two commissioners, or by the city council, for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for special meeting shall be delivered in compliance with state law. The secretary must deliver to the commissioners at least three days prior to the meeting a notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the special meeting. 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 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 11 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. 4.5 Emergency Meetings. An emergency meeting may be called by the chair due to circumstances which require immediate consideration. The staff liaison may notify commissioners by any means available. A good faith effort shall be made to provide notice of the meeting to any news medium that has filed a written request for notice of meetings. The notice shall include the purpose of the meeting. 4.5 Quorum and Voting. The presence of a majority of all currently appointed members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes. In the event a quorum is not reached, a smaller number of members may meet to discuss the business of the commission and recommendations may be made, however, formal action must be reserved for such time as a quorum of the commission is reached. Article V - Agenda and Records of Proceedings 5.1 Agenda Preparation. The agenda for regular and special meetings of the commission shall be prepared by the staff liaison subject to approval by the chair. Items to be placed on the agenda may be proposed by the chair, a commission member, the staff liaison or at the request of the city council. Residents, businesses, or other interested parties may contact individual commission members or the staff liaison to request that an item be placed on the agenda for consideration. All agenda topics presented by the city council will be placed on an appropriate agenda, requests from other parties will be placed on an appropriate future agenda at the discretion of the chair. 5.2 Approval of the Agenda. The agenda shall be approved at each meeting prior to discussion of any item on the agenda. At the time of agenda approval, items may be removed and the order of business may be modified by a majority vote of members present at the meeting. Prior to adjournment, members present may communicate items recommended for inclusion on future agendas. 5.3 Record of Proceedings. All minutes and resolutions shall be in writing and shall be copied in the journal of the proceedings of the Authority. Records shall be kept in accordance with MN Statute and Rules regarding preservation of public records and the MN Data Privacy Act. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 12 Article VI - Attendance and Performance of Duties 6.1 Attendance. 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. 6.2 Reporting. 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. 6.3 Performance of Duties. 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 VII - Commission Activities 7.1 Annual Work Plan. The commission will adopt an annual work plan that details activities and projected timelines for the calendar year. • The chair may appoint commission members to be primarily responsible for each work plan activity. • The commission may establish task force committees to oversee work plan activities, chaired by members appointed by the chair. • Commission work plans will be submitted to the City Council by January 1st or as shortly thereafter as practicable. • Commission members will attend a study session to discuss the annual work plan with the City Council. A written mid-year progress report is due by July 31 of each year. 7.2 Task Forces. The commission may create task force committees to investigate and perform duties related to subjects of interest to the commission and to oversee work plan activities. • Task force committees will be chaired by commission members appointed by the commission chair. • A task force consists of at least two appointed commission members, one of whom will be designated committee chair or committee co-chair by the commission chair. A majority of the task force must be present to conduct business, including at least two commission members. • The commission may consolidate or dissolve existing task forces at any time. • The task force chair may appoint other commission members and representatives from the broader community to the task force. • The task force chair shall report about task force activities as an agenda item at regular commission meetings. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 13 7.3 City Council Annual Report. The commission will submit an annual report to the City Council summarizing the past year's activities. The report may highlight issues of concern and other information the commission feels appropriate to convey to the city council. • The commission chair or designee will prepare the report for approval by the commission. Commission members may submit signed addenda presenting alternative conclusions or perspectives. • The report and addenda are submitted with the current year work plan by January 1 or as soon thereafter as possible. Article VIII - By-Laws and Rules 8.1 Amendments. These By-Laws may be amended by a majority of all voting member of the commission. Commission members must be given one month's advance notice regarding proposed amendments prior to formal commission action. Amendments to these procedures can only be considered at a regular meeting of the commission. 8.2 City Council’s Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions. 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. Diversity  Lens    2009      Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6)Page 14 2 | Diversity Lens St. Louis Park, MN Diversity Lens Project      Project Objectives / Description:         The Diversity Lens initiative was created to facilitate respect for diversity and the various world views  represented by the citizens of St. Louis Park. Through open education, information dissemination and  community interaction the initiative encourages each resident, business, city officials and staff member,  and visitor to appreciate that each person has developed a unique lens through which they view the  world.     Tools / References:  • The 10 Lenses: Your Guide to Living and Working in a Multicultural World   Mark A. Williams  • Census information  • New Resident Packet Update/Insert    Diversity Lens Roll Out:  • Adopt following definition of diversity:  o Diversity :  The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect.  It means  understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences.   These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio‐ economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other  ideologies.  It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment.   It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing  and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.  • Request each city department include verbiage about inclusiveness and respect for diversity  (Ex.: Community Development)  • Develop education / training tools for Diversity Lens to educate city staff, officials, etc. about  diversity in general and the St. Louis Park Diversity Lens initiative specifically.   • Create literature, website copy, and new resident information to support the diversity lens.                                Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6)Page 15 3 | Diversity Lens           St. Louis Park, MN Diversity Lens Project    St. Louis Park ‐ Diversity Lens Campaign Outline:    Vision Statement:     WE cultivate understanding and educate US to inspire inclusiveness within our community!    Audiences:     City Officials and Staff / Organizations: PARTICIPANT    • Goals / Recommendations:     o Educate department staff about the “Diversity Lens”  o Include statement of value for diversity in mission statement of each department.   ƒ Ex: Community Development  o Internal education sessions about diversity     Residents:    RECIEVERS: EDUCATE                                  PARTICIPANT        • Goals / Recommendations:  o Educate community / citizenry about SLP vision & mission  o Educate residents about the “Diversity Lens”  o Promote participation in SLP events to foster inclusiveness.   o Neighborhood Association involvement to re‐enforce community.   o Active outreach in schools / by School District    Visitors:                              RECEIVERS: UNDERSTANDING    • Goals / Recommendations:   o City and Citizens should understand the Diversity Lens vision statement  o Clearly and visually support diversity mission with marketing collateral.  o Inspire all organization (civic & business) to engage and welcome visitors.     Businesses:                           PARTICIPANT    • Goals / Recommendations:  o Educate employees about SLP diversity vision & mission.  o Educate employees about “Diversity Lens”.  o Promote participation in communicating to the broader community, their employees,  and clients  Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6)Page 16 4 | Diversity Lens               St. Louis Park, MN Diversity Lens Project      Preliminary Timeline:    • December 2009:  Present to Human Rights Committee  • February/March 2010: Present recommendations to St. Louis Park City Council  • April 2010:  Initiate Program     Partners: How do we roll this out?  • Human Rights Commission members  • Communications Department – help in developing communications material (creative,  website, media, etc.)  • Directors – “buy in” to the program          Definitions:    Participant: will participate in the active roll out of the Diversity Lens (Involved and Active role)  Receivers: audience that received the information    Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 6)Page 17 Meeting Date: February 22, 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: 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: February 22, 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: January, 2010 Monthly Financial Report. 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. For the month of January, actual expenditures should generally run about 8.3% of the annual budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 7.5% of the adopted budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 9.6%. Both are consistent when comparing the prior year expenditures through January. Certain revenues tend to be slightly harder to gauge in this same way due to the timing of when they are received. Significant variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion of reasons for the variance. General Fund Revenues: • License and permit revenues exceed budget by nearly 30% for the month of January. This is consistent with the prior year and is primarily due to the full receipt of most 2010 liquor license and business license payments. Many of these payments were received late in 2009 and are deferred to 2010 to accurately reflect the year that the license revenue is earned. • The Human Resources budget shows that 84% of the training revenue has been received for the year under Charges for Services. This reflects that the 2010 University of Park program fees were billed out in January for all external participants. Expenditures: • Public Works Operations has spent 18% of the Supplies budget through January, which reflects over $80,000 spent for road salt. This is running slightly higher than last year, and Staff will continue to monitor this closely for the remainder of the winter season. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2 • Personal Services expenditures appear to slightly exceed budget in a few General Fund departments. These departments, such as Administration, Community Development, and Finance have portions of staff time that is allocated to the EDA. This allocation will be reflected when the February report is presented to Council. Parks and Recreation Expenditures: • The Organized Recreation budget for Services and Other Charges is at 44% of budget. This is because the full 2010 Community Education contribution in the amount of $187,000 was paid to the School District in January, which is consistent with prior years. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Staff and Council regularly review the adopted budget and compare it to actual revenues and expenditures to ensure that adequate resources are available to provide essential services to the Community while maintaining the financial health of the City. Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 14,889,605.00-14,889,605.00-|14,653,275.00- 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,294,768.00- 680,717.28- 680,717.28- 1,614,050.72- 29.66 |2,515,000.00-582,132.61- 23.15 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,750.00- 25,027.56- 25,027.56- 286,722.44-8.03 |312,000.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,598,787.00- 69,442.25- 69,442.25- 1,529,344.75-4.34 |1,647,214.00-51,413.17- 3.12 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,138,018.00- 64,237.86- 64,237.86- 1,073,780.14-5.64 |1,201,900.00-2,374.14- .20 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00- 14,606.11- 14,606.11- 85,393.89- 14.61 |100,000.00-9,679.19- 9.68 4001 REVENUES 20,332,928.00-854,031.06-854,031.06-19,478,896.94-4.20 |20,429,389.00-645,599.11-3.16 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,132,004.00 1,514,660.03 1,514,660.03 16,617,343.97 8.35 |18,496,154.00 1,528,225.09 8.26 6210 SUPPLIES 846,535.00 98,910.12 98,910.12 747,624.88 11.68 |766,135.00 69,907.07 9.12 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 67,775.00 1,609.35 1,609.35 66,165.65 2.37 |70,775.00 2,752.38 3.89 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,922,858.00 119,247.53 119,247.53 3,803,610.47 3.04 |4,160,215.00 251,979.12 6.06 6001 EXPENDITURES 22,969,172.00 1,734,427.03 1,734,427.03 21,234,744.97 7.55 |23,493,279.00 1,852,863.66 7.89 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 215,318.74- 2,368,506.26-8.33 |2,678,910.00-219,075.82- 8.18 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-199.00-199.00-1,301.00- 13.27 |2,000.00-398.15- 19.91 8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-200,000.00-|350,000.00-76,285.95 21.80- 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 100.00-100.00-100.00 |50.00- 8200 MISC RECEIPTS 100.00-100.00-|93.75- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,785,425.00-215,617.74-215,617.74-2,569,807.26-7.74 |3,030,910.00-143,331.77-4.73 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,181.00 181,181.00 |181,000.00 .59- 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,324.80 1,324.80 17,675.20 6.97 |19,000.00 999.64 5.26 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,181.00 1,324.80 1,324.80 198,856.20 .66 |200,000.00 999.05 .50 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 51,000.00 666,103.03 666,103.03 615,103.03-1,306.08 |232,980.00 1,064,931.83 457.09 01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 666,103.03 666,103.03 615,103.03-1,306.08 |232,980.00 1,064,931.83 457.09 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 3 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 4,014,872.00-4,014,872.00-|4,073,118.00- 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-55.00-55.00-6,220.00-.88 |850.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 71,219.00-1,829.15- 1,829.15- 69,389.85-2.57 |55,702.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,073,900.00- 47,756.49- 47,756.49- 1,026,143.51-4.45 |1,141,598.00-54,113.74- 4.74 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 906,900.00- 156,103.29- 156,103.29- 750,796.71- 17.21 |883,000.00-52,771.35 5.98- 4001 REVENUES 6,073,166.00-205,743.93-205,743.93-5,867,422.07-3.39 |6,153,418.00-2,192.39-.04 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,440,416.00 257,138.47 257,138.47 3,183,277.53 7.47 |3,503,813.00 273,370.45 7.80 6210 SUPPLIES 906,881.00 43,625.96 43,625.96 863,255.04 4.81 |872,131.00 39,900.86 4.58 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,712,749.00 282,587.02 282,587.02 1,430,161.98 16.50 |1,703,002.00 258,030.30 15.15 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |15,352.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 6,071,166.00 583,351.45 583,351.45 5,487,814.55 9.61 |6,098,418.00 571,301.61 9.37 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,000.00-600.00-600.00- 12,400.00-4.62 |12,000.00-1,500.00- 12.50 8200 MISC REVENUE 2,720.00- 2,720.00-2,720.00 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 13,000.00-3,320.00-3,320.00-9,680.00-25.54 |12,000.00-1,500.00-12.50 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 816.57 816.57 14,183.43 5.44 |520.72 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 816.57 816.57 14,183.43 5.44 |520.72 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 375,104.09 375,104.09 375,104.09-|67,000.00-568,129.94 847.96- 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 375,104.09 375,104.09 375,104.09-|67,000.00-568,129.94 847.96- Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 4 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 14,889,605.00-14,889,605.00-|14,653,275.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-45,205.00-|45,205.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |17.26- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,237.00- 7,237.00- 77,763.00-8.51 |85,000.00-7,083.33- 8.33 4001 REVENUES 15,019,810.00-7,237.00-7,237.00-15,012,573.00-.05 |14,783,480.00-7,100.59-.05 6001 EXPENDITURES 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00-| 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 215,318.74- 2,368,506.26-8.33 |2,678,910.00-219,075.82- 8.18 8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-200,000.00-|350,000.00-76,285.95 21.80- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,783,825.00-215,318.74-215,318.74-2,568,506.26-7.73 |3,028,910.00-142,789.87-4.71 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 17,622,954.00-220,755.74-220,755.74-17,402,198.26-1.25 |17,632,390.00-149,890.46-.85 100 GENERAL 17,622,954.00-220,755.74-220,755.74-17,402,198.26-1.25 |17,632,390.00-149,890.46-.85 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 5 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 183,360.00- 168,465.00- 168,465.00- 14,895.00- 91.88 |215,500.00-148,135.00- 68.74 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |947.30- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |97.00- 4001 REVENUES 191,360.00-168,465.00-168,465.00-22,895.00-88.04 |223,500.00-149,179.30-66.75 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 444,400.00 44,456.34 44,456.34 399,943.66 10.00 |531,500.00 50,451.13 9.49 6210 SUPPLIES 3,100.00 106.86 106.86 2,993.14 3.45 |3,700.00 266.03 7.19 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 476,972.00 20,728.57 20,728.57 456,243.43 4.35 |455,635.00 38,796.64 8.51 6001 EXPENDITURES 924,472.00 65,291.77 65,291.77 859,180.23 7.06 |990,835.00 89,513.80 9.03 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE |93.75- 8001 OTHER INCOME |93.75- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 733,112.00 103,173.23-103,173.23-836,285.23 14.07-|767,335.00 59,759.25-7.79- 110 ADMINISTRATION 733,112.00 103,173.23-103,173.23-836,285.23 14.07-|767,335.00 59,759.25-7.79- Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 6 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 48,318.00-4,026.50- 4,026.50- 44,291.50-8.33 |50,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-4,026.50-4,026.50-44,291.50-8.33 |50,000.00- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 920,800.00 83,973.01 83,973.01 836,826.99 9.12 |937,200.00 94,939.28 10.13 6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 311.64 311.64 3,913.36 7.38 |4,225.00 383.15 9.07 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 152,905.00 9,658.79 9,658.79 143,246.21 6.32 |162,555.00 9,051.55 5.57 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,077,930.00 93,943.44 93,943.44 983,986.56 8.72 |1,103,980.00 104,373.98 9.45 8001 OTHER INCOME 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 100.00-100.00-100.00 |50.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-100.00-100.00 |50.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00 .59- .12- 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 500.00 |500.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 .59-.06- 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,030,612.00 89,816.94 89,816.94 940,795.06 8.71 |1,054,980.00 104,323.39 9.89 120 FINANCE 1,030,612.00 89,816.94 89,816.94 940,795.06 8.71 |1,054,980.00 104,323.39 9.89 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 7 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 9,000.00-7,572.00- 7,572.00-1,428.00- 84.13 |9,000.00-2,500.00 27.78- 4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-7,572.00-7,572.00-1,428.00-84.13 |9,000.00-2,500.00 27.78- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 482,400.00 39,404.16 39,404.16 442,995.84 8.17 |481,000.00 38,549.10 8.01 6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 16.38 16.38 1,983.62 .82 |2,000.00 259.85 12.99 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 5,811.85 5,811.85 154,738.15 3.62 |160,550.00 39,260.07 24.45 6001 EXPENDITURES 644,950.00 45,232.39 45,232.39 599,717.61 7.01 |643,550.00 78,069.02 12.13 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 635,950.00 37,660.39 37,660.39 598,289.61 5.92 |634,550.00 80,569.02 12.70 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 635,950.00 37,660.39 37,660.39 598,289.61 5.92 |634,550.00 80,569.02 12.70 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 8 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 9,000.00-300.00-300.00-8,700.00-3.33 |12,000.00-530.00- 4.42 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 594,000.00- 48,467.36- 48,467.36- 545,532.64-8.16 |585,000.00-197.13- .03 4001 REVENUES 603,000.00-48,767.36-48,767.36-554,232.64-8.09 |597,000.00-727.13-.12 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,001,700.00 112,663.19 112,663.19 889,036.81 11.25 |1,023,000.00 110,574.76 10.81 6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 15.32 15.32 1,684.68 .90 |3,000.00 49.65 1.66 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 47,750.00 47,750.00 |56,750.00 1,024.00 1.80 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,051,150.00 112,678.51 112,678.51 938,471.49 10.72 |1,083,750.00 111,648.41 10.30 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 448,150.00 63,911.15 63,911.15 384,238.85 14.26 |486,750.00 110,921.28 22.79 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 448,150.00 63,911.15 63,911.15 384,238.85 14.26 |486,750.00 110,921.28 22.79 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 9 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 43,000.00-43,000.00-|8,200.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-2,500.00- 2,500.00- 12,500.00- 16.67 |15,000.00-2,500.00- 16.67 4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-2,500.00-2,500.00-55,500.00-4.31 |23,200.00-2,500.00-10.78 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 546,200.00 43,987.82 43,987.82 502,212.18 8.05 |534,000.00 41,090.15 7.69 6210 SUPPLIES 86,150.00 3,978.22 3,978.22 82,171.78 4.62 |90,500.00 748.41 .83 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 26,000.00 |26,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 423,392.00 16,288.74 16,288.74 407,103.26 3.85 |502,942.00 27,620.50 5.49 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,081,742.00 64,254.78 64,254.78 1,017,487.22 5.94 |1,153,442.00 69,459.06 6.02 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,023,742.00 61,754.78 61,754.78 961,987.22 6.03 |1,130,242.00 66,959.06 5.92 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,023,742.00 61,754.78 61,754.78 961,987.22 6.03 |1,130,242.00 66,959.06 5.92 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 10 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 516,850.00 48,267.19 48,267.19 468,582.81 9.34 |562,500.00 53,286.84 9.47 6210 SUPPLIES 23,500.00 1,877.94 1,877.94 21,622.06 7.99 |30,800.00 167.91 .55 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |2,672.50 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,316.00 12,301.44 12,301.44 848,014.56 1.43 |877,970.00 6,937.43 .79 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,400,666.00 62,446.57 62,446.57 1,338,219.43 4.46 |1,471,270.00 63,064.68 4.29 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19.48-19.48-19.48 | 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 19.48-19.48-19.48 | 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,400,666.00 62,427.09 62,427.09 1,338,238.91 4.46 |1,471,270.00 63,064.68 4.29 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,400,666.00 62,427.09 62,427.09 1,338,238.91 4.46 |1,471,270.00 63,064.68 4.29 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 11 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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-|3,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-3,000.00-|3,000.00- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 188,280.00 10,311.08 10,311.08 177,968.92 5.48 |184,980.00 8,916.10 4.82 6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 | 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 93,525.00 93,525.00 |104,245.00 19,363.47 18.57 6001 EXPENDITURES 281,905.00 10,311.08 10,311.08 271,593.92 3.66 |289,225.00 28,279.57 9.78 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 278,905.00 10,311.08 10,311.08 268,593.92 3.70 |286,225.00 28,279.57 9.88 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 278,905.00 10,311.08 10,311.08 268,593.92 3.70 |286,225.00 28,279.57 9.88 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 12 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 24,913.13- 24,913.13- 278,586.87-8.21 |303,500.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 800,582.00- 69,442.25- 69,442.25- 731,139.75-8.67 |809,009.00-50,465.87- 6.24 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-3,887.00- 3,887.00- 105,813.00-3.54 |109,700.00-4,159.75- 3.79 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 4,869.11- 4,869.11-4,869.11 | 4001 REVENUES 1,213,782.00-103,111.49-103,111.49-1,110,670.51-8.50 |1,222,209.00-54,625.62-4.47 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,609,294.00 529,126.27 529,126.27 6,080,167.73 8.01 |6,546,794.00 523,072.95 7.99 6210 SUPPLIES 141,050.00 4,541.74 4,541.74 136,508.26 3.22 |150,900.00 4,945.78 3.28 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,775.00 1,609.35 1,609.35 32,165.65 4.76 |35,775.00 79.88 .22 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 521,783.00 20,019.68 20,019.68 501,763.32 3.84 |547,053.00 35,084.05 6.41 6001 EXPENDITURES 7,305,902.00 555,297.04 555,297.04 6,750,604.96 7.60 |7,280,522.00 563,182.66 7.74 8001 OTHER INCOME 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-199.00-199.00-1,301.00- 13.27 |2,000.00-398.15- 19.91 8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-199.00-199.00-1,301.00-13.27 |2,000.00-398.15-19.91 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE |500.00 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 22.00 22.00 478.00 4.40 |500.00 20.33 4.07 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 500.00 22.00 22.00 478.00 4.40 |1,000.00 20.33 2.03 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,091,120.00 452,008.55 452,008.55 5,639,111.45 7.42 |6,057,313.00 508,179.22 8.39 160 POLICE 6,091,120.00 452,008.55 452,008.55 5,639,111.45 7.42 |6,057,313.00 508,179.22 8.39 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 13 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 76,700.00 6,247.78 6,247.78 70,452.22 8.15 |76,500.00 6,095.35 7.97 6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 231.00 231.00 8,474.00 2.65 |8,705.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 86,255.00 6,478.78 6,478.78 79,776.22 7.51 |86,055.00 6,095.35 7.08 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,255.00 6,478.78 6,478.78 79,776.22 7.51 |86,055.00 6,095.35 7.08 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,255.00 6,478.78 6,478.78 79,776.22 7.51 |86,055.00 6,095.35 7.08 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 14 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 165 FIRE PROTECTION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-1,924.88- 1,924.88- 38,075.12-4.81 |50,000.00-1,116.58- 2.23 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-300,000.00-|300,000.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-250.00-250.00-3,750.00-6.25 |4,000.00-375.00- 9.38 4001 REVENUES 344,000.00-2,174.88-2,174.88-341,825.12-.63 |354,000.00-1,491.58-.42 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,826,180.00 227,915.99 227,915.99 2,598,264.01 8.06 |2,815,680.00 217,808.53 7.74 6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 958.82 958.82 70,851.18 1.34 |71,810.00 2,144.18 2.99 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 5,000.00 |5,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 219,183.00 7,622.56 7,622.56 211,560.44 3.48 |224,183.00 12,092.79 5.39 6001 EXPENDITURES 3,122,173.00 236,497.37 236,497.37 2,885,675.63 7.57 |3,116,673.00 232,045.50 7.45 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,778,173.00 234,322.49 234,322.49 2,543,850.51 8.43 |2,762,673.00 230,553.92 8.35 165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,778,173.00 234,322.49 234,322.49 2,543,850.51 8.43 |2,762,673.00 230,553.92 8.35 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 15 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,987,288.00- 500,327.40- 500,327.40- 1,486,960.60- 25.18 |2,162,500.00-422,051.03- 19.52 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 35.00-35.00-35.00 |28.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS |95.86- 4001 REVENUES 1,987,288.00-500,362.40-500,362.40-1,486,925.60-25.18 |2,162,500.00-422,174.89-19.52 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,713,100.00 131,449.49 131,449.49 1,581,650.51 7.67 |1,915,500.00 147,756.40 7.71 6210 SUPPLIES 21,500.00 172.89 172.89 21,327.11 .80 |22,300.00 1,090.10 4.89 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 63,627.00 4,568.23 4,568.23 59,058.77 7.18 |71,627.00 4,523.49 6.32 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,798,227.00 136,190.61 136,190.61 1,662,036.39 7.57 |2,009,427.00 153,369.99 7.63 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC RECEIPTS 100.00-100.00-| 8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-100.00-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,322.28 1,322.28 16,677.72 7.35 |18,000.00 979.31 5.44 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,322.28 1,322.28 16,677.72 7.35 |18,000.00 979.31 5.44 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 171,161.00-362,849.51-362,849.51-191,688.51 211.99 |135,073.00-267,825.59-198.28 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 171,161.00-362,849.51-362,849.51-191,688.51 211.99 |135,073.00-267,825.59-198.28 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 16 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 825,800.00 72,144.31 72,144.31 753,655.69 8.74 |826,500.00 65,581.94 7.93 6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 65.56 65.56 3,934.44 1.64 |4,500.00 42.37 .94 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 24,100.00 475.00 475.00 23,625.00 1.97 |22,950.00 985.00 4.29 6001 EXPENDITURES 854,900.00 72,684.87 72,684.87 782,215.13 8.50 |854,950.00 66,609.31 7.79 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,900.00 72,684.87 72,684.87 782,215.13 8.50 |854,950.00 66,609.31 7.79 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,900.00 72,684.87 72,684.87 782,215.13 8.50 |854,950.00 66,609.31 7.79 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 17 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 75,000.00-9,700.00- 9,700.00- 65,300.00- 12.93 |75,000.00-10,300.00- 13.73 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-330,000.00-|436,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-9,700.00-9,700.00-395,300.00-2.40 |511,000.00-10,300.00-2.02 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 750,000.00 56,309.44 56,309.44 693,690.56 7.51 |844,000.00 55,775.46 6.61 6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 92.34 92.34 6,957.66 1.31 |7,050.00 53.37 .76 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 1,705.00 1,705.00 69,045.00 2.41 |70,750.00 1,664.52 2.35 6001 EXPENDITURES 829,800.00 58,106.78 58,106.78 771,693.22 7.00 |923,800.00 57,493.35 6.22 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 424,800.00 48,406.78 48,406.78 376,393.22 11.40 |412,800.00 47,193.35 11.43 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 424,800.00 48,406.78 48,406.78 376,393.22 11.40 |412,800.00 47,193.35 11.43 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 18 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 120.00-120.00-| 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 250.00-114.43-114.43-135.57- 45.77 |500.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-450,000.00-|490,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 450,370.00-114.43-114.43-450,255.57-.03 |490,500.00- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,230,300.00 108,403.96 108,403.96 1,121,896.04 8.81 |1,217,000.00 114,327.10 9.39 6210 SUPPLIES 479,500.00 86,772.41 86,772.41 392,727.59 18.10 |374,500.00 59,756.27 15.96 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 799,300.00 18,036.67 18,036.67 781,263.33 2.26 |894,300.00 55,575.61 6.21 6001 EXPENDITURES 2,509,100.00 213,213.04 213,213.04 2,295,886.96 8.50 |2,485,800.00 229,658.98 9.24 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,058,730.00 213,098.61 213,098.61 1,845,631.39 10.35 |1,995,300.00 229,658.98 11.51 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,058,730.00 213,098.61 213,098.61 1,845,631.39 10.35 |1,995,300.00 229,658.98 11.51 01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 666,103.03 666,103.03 615,103.03-1,306.08 |232,980.00 1,064,931.83 457.09 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 19 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 4,014,872.00-4,014,872.00-|4,073,118.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-44,702.00-|44,702.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 261,000.00- 32,482.49- 32,482.49- 228,517.51- 12.45 |259,298.00-33,327.87- 12.85 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-812.50-812.50- 30,587.50-2.59 |34,000.00-2,387.50- 7.02 4001 REVENUES 4,351,974.00-33,294.99-33,294.99-4,318,679.01-.77 |4,411,118.00-35,715.37-.81 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 715,280.00 55,228.25 55,228.25 660,051.75 7.72 |729,162.00 58,975.65 8.09 6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 1,015.83 1,015.83 58,435.17 1.71 |59,451.00 537.91 .90 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,677.00 200,021.30 200,021.30 255,655.70 43.90 |502,597.00 199,661.23 39.73 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,230,408.00 256,265.38 256,265.38 974,142.62 20.83 |1,291,210.00 259,174.79 20.07 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-350.00-350.00- 14,650.00-2.33 |14,000.00-1,500.00- 10.71 8200 MISC REVENUE 2,720.00- 2,720.00-2,720.00 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-3,070.00-3,070.00-11,930.00-20.47 |14,000.00-1,500.00-10.71 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 783.91 783.91 14,216.09 5.23 |481.38 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 783.91 783.91 14,216.09 5.23 |481.38 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,121,566.00-220,684.30 220,684.30 3,342,250.30-7.07-|3,133,908.00-222,440.80 7.10- 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,121,566.00-220,684.30 220,684.30 3,342,250.30-7.07-|3,133,908.00-222,440.80 7.10- Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 20 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 630,000.00- 10,793.92- 10,793.92- 619,206.08-1.71 |679,000.00-11,281.02- 1.66 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 744,500.00- 144,614.37- 144,614.37- 599,885.63- 19.42 |722,000.00-73,171.26 10.13- 4001 REVENUES 1,374,500.00-155,408.29-155,408.29-1,219,091.71-11.31 |1,401,000.00-61,890.24 4.42- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 785,638.00 47,435.19 47,435.19 738,202.81 6.04 |792,467.00 48,167.75 6.08 6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 11,733.89 11,733.89 158,616.11 6.89 |170,350.00 9,768.76 5.73 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 480,870.00 22,595.52 22,595.52 458,274.48 4.70 |491,950.00 19,213.18 3.91 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,436,858.00 81,764.60 81,764.60 1,355,093.40 5.69 |1,454,767.00 77,149.69 5.30 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 62,358.00 73,643.69-73,643.69-136,001.69 118.10-|53,767.00 139,039.93 258.60 201 RECREATION CENTER 62,358.00 73,643.69-73,643.69-136,001.69 118.10-|53,767.00 139,039.93 258.60 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 21 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-55.00-55.00-6,220.00-.88 |850.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-10,500.00-|10,700.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30,000.00-2,000.00- 2,000.00- 28,000.00-6.67 |26,000.00-8,505.99- 32.72 4001 REVENUES 46,775.00-2,055.00-2,055.00-44,720.00-4.39 |36,700.00-9,355.99-25.49 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 926,500.00 74,009.33 74,009.33 852,490.67 7.99 |969,400.00 80,682.38 8.32 6210 SUPPLIES 97,755.00 891.55 891.55 96,863.45 .91 |93,555.00 3,025.58 3.23 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 361,340.00 15,527.09 15,527.09 345,812.91 4.30 |369,510.00 26,775.72 7.25 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,396,715.00 90,427.97 90,427.97 1,306,287.03 6.47 |1,443,585.00 110,483.68 7.65 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,349,940.00 88,372.97 88,372.97 1,261,567.03 6.55 |1,406,885.00 101,127.69 7.19 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,349,940.00 88,372.97 88,372.97 1,261,567.03 6.55 |1,406,885.00 101,127.69 7.19 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 22 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 86,400.00-3,788.00- 3,788.00- 82,612.00-4.38 |82,600.00-2,438.25- 2.95 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 288.00-288.00-288.00 |68.00- 4001 REVENUES 86,400.00-4,076.00-4,076.00-82,324.00-4.72 |82,600.00-2,506.25-3.03 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 421,200.00 28,961.11 28,961.11 392,238.89 6.88 |420,586.00 33,492.15 7.96 6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 600.48 600.48 26,399.52 2.22 |26,700.00 373.46 1.40 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 45,250.00 1,633.70 1,633.70 43,616.30 3.61 |44,500.00 2,826.36 6.35 6001 EXPENDITURES 493,450.00 31,195.29 31,195.29 462,254.71 6.32 |491,786.00 36,691.97 7.46 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 250.00-250.00-250.00 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 250.00-250.00-250.00 | 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 32.66 32.66 32.66-|39.34 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 32.66 32.66 32.66-|39.34 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,050.00 26,901.95 26,901.95 380,148.05 6.61 |409,186.00 34,225.06 8.36 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,050.00 26,901.95 26,901.95 380,148.05 6.61 |409,186.00 34,225.06 8.36 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 23 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,000.00-692.08-692.08- 85,307.92-.80 |110,000.00-65.00 .06- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS |1,050.00- 4001 REVENUES 86,000.00-692.08-692.08-85,307.92-.80 |110,000.00-985.00-.90 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,648.00 8,778.26 8,778.26 99,869.74 8.08 |108,898.00 8,762.70 8.05 6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 619.12 619.12 18,805.88 3.19 |19,425.00 819.00 4.22 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,470.00 34,468.74 34,468.74 189,001.26 15.42 |158,470.00 1,856.79 1.17 6001 EXPENDITURES 351,543.00 43,866.12 43,866.12 307,676.88 12.48 |286,793.00 11,438.49 3.99 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 267,543.00 43,174.04 43,174.04 224,368.96 16.14 |178,793.00 10,453.49 5.85 204 ENVIRONMENT 267,543.00 43,174.04 43,174.04 224,368.96 16.14 |178,793.00 10,453.49 5.85 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 24 2/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:13R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20101/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 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 26,517.00-1,829.15- 1,829.15- 24,687.85-6.90 |11,000.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |7,131.60- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 8,388.42- 92,611.58-8.31 |101,000.00-8,388.42- 8.31 4001 REVENUES 127,517.00-10,217.57-10,217.57-117,299.43-8.01 |112,000.00-15,520.02-13.86 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,150.00 42,726.33 42,726.33 440,423.67 8.84 |483,300.00 43,289.82 8.96 6210 SUPPLIES 532,900.00 28,765.09 28,765.09 504,134.91 5.40 |502,650.00 25,376.15 5.05 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 146,142.00 8,340.67 8,340.67 137,801.33 5.71 |135,975.00 7,697.02 5.66 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |8,352.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,162,192.00 79,832.09 79,832.09 1,082,359.91 6.87 |1,130,277.00 76,362.99 6.76 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,034,675.00 69,614.52 69,614.52 965,060.48 6.73 |1,018,277.00 60,842.97 5.98 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,034,675.00 69,614.52 69,614.52 965,060.48 6.73 |1,018,277.00 60,842.97 5.98 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 375,104.09 375,104.09 375,104.09-|67,000.00-568,129.94 847.96- Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 25 Meeting Date: February 22, 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: 2009 Annual Housing Programs Report and Housing Matrix. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable, the attached report is informational. Please let staff know if you have any questions. BACKGROUND: The Housing Summit of 2003-05 resulted in a strategy to provide policy makers with a table, referred to as the Housing Matrix, enumerating St. Louis Park’s housing types and tenure. This report provides semi-annual updates on the City’s housing programs and includes the Housing Matrix. The Housing Report, Housing Matrix and City’s Housing Goals are attached. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: City housing programs are funded from the Housing Rehabilitation Fund, Mn Housing Finance Agency and Community Development Block Grant funds. VISION CONSIDERATION: The City’s housing programs are consistent with the City’s Vision to provide a well maintained and diverse housing stock with specific focus areas identified: • Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes. • Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics. • Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city. Attachments: 2009 Annual Housing Report 2009 Housing Matrix St. Louis Park Housing Goals Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 2 2009 City of St. Louis Park Housing Programs Report The purpose of this report is to apprise City policy makers of 2009 housing program activity including the Move Up in the Park activity. The Housing Matrix has also been updated with 2009 activity. 1. MOVE UP IN THE PARK ACTIVITY SUMMARY The comprehensive package of City sponsored services and loans resulted from the Housing Summit and Vision’s focus of facilitating and promoting the expansion of existing homes as the most effective tool to achieve more family sized homes in the city. The Move Up in the Park program successfully kicked off in 2005. A synergy between the marketing of the Move up in the Park programs and services, with strong remodeling interest, resulted in a peak in residential additions in 2007. In 2008 the amount of loan activity for expansions began to decline while the basic remodeling loans were consistent with 2007. In 2009 the impact of the volatile housing and credit market slowed major expansions, 54 compared to 89 in 2008, and home repairs from the severe storm in early 2008 also slowed. Impact of Recession on Residential Remodeling St. Louis Park is fortunate to have residents willing and able to invest in their properties. Again in 2009, despite the current recession, residents continued to invest in their homes. With the exception of a decrease in major additions, the city’s move up loans, discount loans and remodeling advisor services were at a pace consistent with last year. The attendance at the Home Remodeling Fair and Tour was strong. Stimulus incentives of tax credits and energy saver rebates along with the city’s programs continue to assist residents in ensuring the preservation of the city’s single family housing stock. An evaluation of this year’s use of home improvement loans and services, residential remodeling permit valuations, and the numbers and types of permits issued substantiate that the general home improvement activity in St. Louis Park remains strong. • Permit Types Based on the types of permits issued in 2009, it becomes apparent that home addition activity has slowed while major remodels remained constant and general maintenance increased. The increase in general maintenance permits does include some siding and roofing projects coupled with other improvements, so the significant increase may still be an after effect of the storm damage from 2008. The number of siding and roofing permits are a carry over from the 2008 hail storm, and though less than in 2008, the number of roofing and siding permits issued exceeded pre-storm years. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 3 Remodeling Permit Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Addition Residential 55 86 102 89 55 Major Remodels 45 50 50 46 50 Alteration Residential (general maintenance) 471 517 785 797 971 Reroof Only 202 216 355 4828 845 Reside Only 85 66 84 573 332 • Building Permit Activity 2005 Through 2009 Residential permit activity measures remodeling activity that includes more than the city incented projects. The 2009 activity measured by valuations shows continued investment by residents as illustrated in the following chart, with this year’s valuations exceeding valuations in 2005, 06 and 07, although not reaching the unusually high activity of 2008. Permitted Residential Remodeling Improvements: 2005 to 2009 • Home Improvement Services The use of remodeling advisor visits was consistent with 2008 while the use of the architectural design service decreased twenty-five percent. Both the Home Remodeling Fair and Tour attracted more residents than ever before – an average of 475 residents visited each of the six tour homes, and fair attendance exceeded 2,000. Residential Remodeling Permit Valuation by Year $22,500,000 $26,603,000 $68,495,908 $15,200,000 $13,900,000$0 $40,000,000 $80,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 YearPermit Valuation $ 2009 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 4 Move Up Services 2005-2009 68 102 62 48 32 221 157 179 130 126 0 50 100 150 200 250 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 YearNumber of VisitsArchitect Services Remodeling Advisor • Loans The following chart shows that discount and move up loans in 2009 were consistent with 2008 activity. We are anticipating a surge in use of the discount loan, which in late 2009 was coupled with the Federal Stimulus state administered Energy Saver Rebate. Move Up Loans 2005-2009 7 27 27 18 17 76 88 50 55 52 0 25 50 75 100 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 YearNumber of LoansMove up loans Discount loans Move Up Activity Loan and Service Costs 2005-2009 Generally, for every dollar the city has invested in move-up and discount loans, technical and design services, and administrative costs, residents have been investing five dollars. This pattern of one-to- five has been consistent since the city began implementing loan programs and services for residents. Again in 2009, this pattern is reflected in that the city’s investment of $459,230 generated $2,377,729 worth of private improvement. Of the city’s investment, $329,600, is deferred loans that will be repaid when most resident/borrowers move before the expiration of the 30-year deferral period. The following table shows program costs from 2005 through the 2009. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 5 Table: Move Up Services and Costs 2005 through 12009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Service # City Cost # City Cost # City Cost # City Cost # City Cost Move Up Transformation Loan (Revolving Loan Pool) 7 $182,806 27 $591,264 27 $620,000 18 $330,937 17 $329,650 Discount Loans 76 $45,636 88 $186,205 50 $74,000 55 $114,129 52 $106,000 Architectural Design Service 68 $15,300 102 $22,950 62 $12,400 49 $11,025 12 $7,200 Remodeling Advisor 221 $28,730 157 $20,410 179 $23,270 130 $16,900 126 $16,380 MOVE UP IN THE PARK PROGRAMS & LOANS DESCRIPTIONS • Move – Up Transformation Loan The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area income ($100,680 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost. Loan repayment at 0% interest is deferred until the home is sold - if the resident remains in the home for 30 years, the loan will be forgiven. This in effect establishes a revolving loan pool which will continue to fund future expansions. This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the project to selecting contractors. o Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must exceed $35,000. o The maximum loan amount is $25,000. o The City has established a revolving loan pool, administered by a third party. o The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower. • Architectural Design Service This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions. Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the American Institute of Architects and local architects. All homeowners considering renovations would be eligible for this service regardless of income, however to ensure committed participants, residents make a $25 co-pay. Resident surveys not only provided ideas to refine the program, but indicated a high level of satisfaction with the service. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 6 • Remodeling/Rehab Advisor The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service. • Discount Loan Program This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (Mn Housing) home improvement loans. The Mn Housing’s Community Fix-up Fund is restricted to Minnesota residents residing in cities that elect to participate in the program. Residents with incomes of $67,120 or less qualify for a greater discount than those with incomes of $96,500 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools and spas. The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Fund is the funding source for the discount loan program, and CEE is the loan administrator. St. Louis Park implemented the discounting of MHFA loans in late 1999 as a pilot project. Successful marketing efforts have led the City to be third among all Minnesota cities to use the MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis and St. Paul. • Home Remodeling Tour The 5th annual Home Remodeling Tour of five recently remodeled homes and one new “green certified home” proved very popular with an average 475 residents visiting each of the six tour homes. The Tour’s goal is to provide residents hands-on examples of remodeling and expansion projects of typical St. Louis Park housing, to motivate and encourage residents to enlarge and enhance their homes. • Annual Home Remodeling Fair The cities and community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Golden Valley co-sponsored the 2009 Fair. The 2009 Fair had a “green theme” and over 2,000 residents from the four cities attended the one day event, with over half of the attendees living in St. Louis Park. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is now a self-sustaining event where vendor registration fees more than cover the costs of the event. • Pilot Green Remodeling Program The green remodeling program helps residents remodel green by providing technical and financial assistance. We use Minnesota GreenStar®, a green building standard and certification program that promotes healthy, high performance homes. It provides standards for designing and building better homes and promotes a healthier environment. The city is partnering with MN Housing, MN Pollution Control Agency, MN GreenStar and CEE on this pilot program. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 7 Technical Assistance. Participating residents are offered the following technical services: Green Remodeling Advisor, Green Remodeling & Sustainable Landscape Workshops and Home Performance Analysis. Five workshops have been held, twelve green remodeling advisor visits have been conducted and six home performance analyses have been conducted. Financial incentives include a city match of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water heaters and air conditioners. Reduced interest rate loans for “certified” green remodeling projects are available to homeowners of any income level. So far, two residents have used the green discount loan and twenty-two residents have received rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water heaters and air conditioners. Pilot Revision. Due to the low participation rate in this pilot, revisions were made in late 2009 to extend the “green” incentive to any residents using the state’s Energy Saver Rebate. Mn Housing granted the city an extension of their funding to further write down our discounted loans for any residents making improvements that qualify for the Energy Saver Rebate. The rebate program which provides a 35% cash rebate, up to $10,000, for energy conservation improvements is proving very attractive to our residents. • Vacant Public Land Homes have been constructed on the parcels at 4515 and 4525 West 42nd Street and a certified green home on the 2600 Natchez Ave parcel is complete. Construction is planned for homes on the 2005 Louisiana Ave S and 2715 Monterey Ave sites in 2010. 2. OTHER HOUSING PROGRAM ACTIVITY Other city housing activity is below: • Live Where You Work The Live Where You Work Homebuyer Assistance Program began in spring 2009. The goal is to promote home ownership within the City among employees of St. Louis Park businesses. The program provides homebuyer assistance to eligible employees in the form of a deferred loan that aid the employee in purchasing a home in the city. The city will provide a cash deferred loan of $2,500 to an eligible employee. An additional $1,000 would be provided to empoyees purchasing vacant lender owned foreclosed properties. Employers are invited to contribute a matching or lesser amount to the City’s contribution. The deferred loan will be forgiven after 3 years if the employee continues to work for the employer and meets other qualification requirements. The City contracts with CEE to assist residents/employees in applying for a deferred loan. CEE is a non-profit organization that has administered a number of housing programs and City initiatives. The City is also partnering with five participating banks, the Associated Bank, Bremer Bank, Citizens Independent Bank, UsBank Home Mortgage and Wells Fargo to offer considerable choice in 1st mortgage options. Lenders that are approved lenders to administer Minnesota Housing Finance Agencg mortgage loans are also eligible. To date four participants have used this program. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 8 • Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The Wolfe Lake Association HIA (130 units) finished construction in 2009, completing $1,268,000 worth of common area improvements. Construction at the Westmoreland Hills Association HIA (72 units) of $1,026,000 improvements was completed this summer. The Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA was established in October 2009. Approximately $4,000,000 worth of improvements is scheduled to begin in March 2010. The HIA statute which was scheduled to expire in June 2009 was extended by the State Legislature. . • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2009 activity completed as of June 2009 includes activities that were funded with 2008 Grant Year funds. Projects included improvements to the SLP Housing Authority homes, improvements to Community Involvement Program’s properties, Wayside’s treatment facility, and the single family low-income homeowner’s emergency repair and loan programs. The city completed $100,000 worth of improvement to Aquila Park with a special CDBG allocation of $100,000 in 2009. An additional $120,000 of CDBG stimulus funds has been allocated directly by Hennepin County to Project for Pride in Living to make energy improvements at the Louisiana Court Apartments; these improvements are scheduled to occur in spring 2010. • Housing Trust Affordable Homeownership. The Housing Trust purchased two homes in 2009, one of which was a vacant foreclosed home. The closing with buyers, both residents of St. Louis Park occurred in August and September. • Foreclosures. The city has established an active Foreclosure Work Group that continues to monitor foreclosures and address vacant house situations on a case-by-case basis. St. Louis Park has been experiencing a relatively low level of foreclosures compared to many other metropolitan cities. As in 2008, the story of 2009 is the impact associated with foreclosures/lender mediated sales is modest. We had 133 sheriff sale actions in 2008 and 92 through November 2009. The County has not yet provided year end numbers due to staffing cuts; staff will apprise Council when the data is available. While it appears that most of the problem mortgages of the recent past are moving out of the market, reportedly the nationally percentage of homeowners late with mortgage payments hit another record high during the last three months of 2009. (Star Tribune, February 17, 2010). The percentage of St. Louis Park homeowners delinquent on their mortgages is unknown. The current activity for new mortgages is very tight as most lenders are much more conservative than in past years. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 9 Chart: Single Family Home Foreclosures by Year St. Louis Park Single Family Home Foreclosures by Year 133 927687 0 50 100 150 2006 2007 2008 2009 YearNumber of Foreclosures Note: The 2009 number reflects foreclosures through November 2009. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 10 ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY The Housing Authority administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing program, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, Shelter Plus Care rental assistance program, and TRAILS family self-sufficiency program. The Authority currently serves over 500 eligible, low-income households through their housing programs. Public Housing The HA owns a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2 two-bedroom caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5 bedrooms) acquired and constructed between 1974 and 1996. Although the low-rise building is designated for general occupancy, priority is given to elderly and disabled. The single-family scattered units house larger families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located at Louisiana Court. These units are owned and managed by Project for Pride in Living. The units and occupancy rates are noted in the table. Public Housing Total Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy 2009 Hamilton House 108 108 99.1% Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 96.6% Louisiana Court, Metropolitan Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 98.7% Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3 Total 157 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program The HA administers 265 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The rent assistance program provides rent subsidies for low-income individuals and families in privately owned, existing market rate housing units. The rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the rental property by the HA with funds provided by HUD. The HA offers both tenant-based and project-based vouchers. Forty-five vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for use in three privately owned developments (Excelsior & Grand, Vail Place and Wayside) and are referred to as project-based vouchers. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 11 Shelter Plus Care The Shelter Plus Care Program is designed to link rental assistance with supportive services for hard- to-reach homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both) and their families. Grants are provided to be used for permanent housing which must be matched with supportive services that are equal in value to the amount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of population to be served. St. Louis Park is the grant recipient and we partner to two sponsor organizations that administer supportive housing programs. Rental Assistance Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HUD Approved) Units Utilization YTD 2009 Tenant-Based 211 100% Tenant-Based Portability Units* 68 Avg./month Project-Based: 45 Wayside House 20 100% Excelsior & Grand 18 100% Vail Place 7 100% Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 38 Perspectives Inc. 11 99% Community Involvement Program (CIP) – Scattered Site Homes 11 73% CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 81% Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 98% Total 361 Waiting Lists Assisted Housing Waiting List as of December 2009 Public Housing 1-BR 1-BR Handicap 2-BR 3-BR 3-BR Handica p 4-BR 5-BR Total 342 52 110 140 34 32 39 749 Section 8 1166 Excelsior & Grand 97 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 12 Housing Matrix: Housing Types, Numbers & Percentages 2009 In 2009 the City Council adopted into the City’s Comprehensive Plan its housing goals that evolved from the 2003-05 Housing Summit. One of the strategies is to provide a matrix showing existing housing by type including detached/attached, owner/rental, family/senior, and affordable/market rate and goals. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. The attached matrix is updated semi-annually and presented to the City Council, Housing Authority and Planning Commission. It shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of: housing types, tenure (owner or rental), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family homes. While the matrix provides a snapshot of housing each year, it is helpful to take a further analysis by showing changes in housing units since we began tracking in such detail, specifically the large single family homes and affordable housing. • In 2009, ten permits were issued for new single family homes and permits were issued for 132 apartment units at Ellipse on Excelsior. Another 55 permits were issued for single family home expansions that transformed those homes into large single family homes. Large Single Family Homes The chart below illustrates the number of large homes that have been added to the City’s housing stock since we began tracking data in 2005. In the 2009, ten new large homes have been added and 55 existing homes were significantly expanded. Of the ten new homes, seven were “teardowns”. In 2005 there was one teardown, in both 2006 & 2007 there were three each and in 2008 there were eleven teardowns. Chart. Large Homes Added Through Expansions and New Construction Large Single Family Homes Added 5 4 9 11 10 57 86 102 79 55 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 YearNumber New Single Family Lg Homes Major Expansions Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 13 The new homes and expansions noted above have resulted in an increase of large homes within the city. Beginning in 2005, over 400 large homes have been added to the City’s housing stock: 39 of these through new construction and 379 through significant expansions. An attached map illustrates the locations of major remodeling, additions and new homes that occurred in 2009. The following chart illustrates this change. Chart. Large Homes Added from 2005 - 2009 Number Large Single Family Homes 12821217 11151004 914 0 500 1000 1500 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 YearNumber Affordable Housing Units Affordable housing in St. Louis Park is a mix of public housing units, subsidized units and moderately priced private housing. Over time the number of affordable housing units has been a moving target based on the following variables: • Estimated market values of owner occupied homes increase or decrease based on market. • Annually adjusted definitions of affordability. The Met Council had established annual affordable guidelines for rental and ownership based on percentages of the annual median area income (MAI) and a households’ percentage of income devoted to housing. The Met Council affordable housing definition through 2009 was: o Rental housing affordable to households with incomes at 50% or less of MAI o Owner occupied housing affordable to households with incomes of 80% of less of the MAI. • In 2010 the Met Council is refining its affordable guideline and affordable housing will be defined as housing affordable to households with incomes of 60% of the MAI or less. 2009 Affordable Housing Units in SLP • Public Subsidized Affordable Housing The most basic of affordable housing, subsidized housing, is not subject to the same market fluctuations and the number of subsidized units has not changed significantly since 2003. There are 862 publically subsidized units in the city. The SLPHA owns and manages 147 of the total subsidized units, approximately 17% of the units. In addition to the SLPHA units, the HA oversees administration of 12 MHOP public housing units at Louisiana Court. The HA manages the Section 8 voucher programs that provides vouchers to between 268 and 363 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 14 renters. Since the vouchers are rental assistance they are not considered in the unit count, yet they do provide affordable housing for low income renters. • Affordable Rental Housing In 2009 rental housing was defined as affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% MAI ($41,950 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. Monthly rent of $943 or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four was considered affordable. The 2008 SLPHA rental study indicates that for reporting units the median rent for a 2 BR apartment was $1,100. The number of affordable rental, market rate units is unavailable. The SLPHA rental study does not provide a comprehensive counting of all city rental units, as 55% of the city's rental owners respond with rental information which results in an undercounting of units. • Affordable Owner Occupied Housing In 2009 owner occupied housing was defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% MAI ($64,000 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. The 2009 affordable purchase price was $233,000 or less. Based on 2009 Estimated Market Values, there are 7,538 affordable single family, owner occupied units in the city; 5,328 are single family detached homes and 2,210 are condos and townhomes. Approximately, 55% of the total owner occupied single family homes were considered affordable in 2009, or 33% of the total housing units. • The table below outlines the household income levels based on the metropolitan median area incomes and family size as provided by HUD. The limits are adjusted annually. INCOME LIMITS FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAMS EXTREMELY LOW VERY LOW LOW FAMILY SIZE 30% OF MEDIAN AREA INCOME 50% OF MEDIAN AREA INCOME 80% OF MEDIAN AREA INCOME 1 $17,600 $29,350 $44,800 2 $20,100 $33,550 $51,200 3 $22,650 $37,750 $57,600 4 $25,150 $41,950 $64,000 5 $27,150 $45,300 $69,100 6 $29,150 $48,650 $74,250 7 $31,200 $52,000 $79,350 8 $33,200 $55,350 $84,500 EFFECTIVE 3/19/09 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 15 Housing Goals - City of St. Louis Park The Housing Goals and strategies developed through Vision St. Louis Park and the Housing Summit process have been adopted into the 2009 City Comprehensive Plan. Following is a description of the evolution of the City housing goals. • Vision St. Louis Park Based on the visioning process undertaken in 2006, Housing was one of the four Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council - “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well- maintained and diverse housing stock”. Specific focus areas identified were: • Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes. • Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics. • Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city. • Housing Summit 2003-2005 As a means to educate, revisit and consider any necessary changes to St. Louis Park’s current housing policies, strategies and goals, a series of meetings were held between the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board, County Commissioner and a business representative regarding the status of housing in St. Louis Park. The discussions that were held at these meetings and subsequent changes made to the City’s goals, policies and strategies reflect what is best for the collective good of the entire St. Louis Park community. The meetings provided an opportunity to: • Review the status of housing in St. Louis Park (rental and owner occupied), • Examine historical, current and future housing trends in the city, and metro, state • Evaluate current and future community needs using 2000 Census data/other available info. • Examine the effectiveness of current policy/strategies in meeting the community’s needs, • Allow the Planning Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board and Business Community to provide input to the City Council. • Process All members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Authority, School Board, the Hennepin County Commissioner, and a business representative attended an initial meeting to review general statistical and housing data. A Steering Committee met 6 times to examine specific housing topics and report back to the entire group at “check-in/progress” meetings. The 4 check-in/progress review meetings provided an opportunity to review findings and discuss possible policy changes/initiatives with the entire group. The public input process included conducting a Housing Survey, a Moving Survey and ten focus groups with resident groups to garner input regarding housing issues and response to drafted goals. The public input was presented at a final meeting of the entire group along with a review of the recommended changes to the City’s current housing policies and goals. The City Council considered and approved housing goals at the March 7, 2005 Council Meeting. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 16 Housing Goals The following goals and strategies have been adopted into the 2009 City Comprehensive Plan and will serve as guides to direct officials, staff, and advisory boards now and into the future. Housing Production • Promote & facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today and in the future. • The City should establish target numbers of units by housing types needed to ensure life cycle housing options, with housing types disbursed throughout the city. • The City acknowledges that there is demand for different types and sizes of housing units, but due to limitations of available space and other resources, all demands cannot be fully satisfied. At the present time, the greatest deficit and need is for the creation and maintenance of detached, owner-occupied single family housing which are large enough to accommodate families. City housing efforts and resources should primarily address this need. Housing Condition and Preservation • Ensure housing is safe and well maintained. • Preserve and enhance housing quality through proactive promotional and educational activities and housing programs related to home rehab, code, and design and safety issues. Owner / Rental Ratio • The ratio of owner/rental housing should be approximately 60% owner occupied and 40% rental. • Explore traditional and non-traditional owner occupied housing options such as, but not limited to: row houses, courtyard housing, alternative housing, cluster housing, hi-rises, 3- story homes, multi-generational housing, etc. Affordable, Workforce and Supportive Housing • Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Future affordability goals with the Met Council should be negotiated to reflect the average percentages for other first ring suburbs in Hennepin County. • Mixed income units should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one area of the City or any one development. Large Homes for Families • Promote and facilitate expansion of existing homes through remodeling which adds more bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities. • Promote and facilitate construction of large family-size homes with more bedrooms and more bathrooms, (e.g. minimum 3+ bedrooms and 2+ bathrooms, 2+ car garage and additional amenities such as den/fourth bedroom or porch or superior architecture) suitable for families with children. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 17 Senior Housing • Promote and facilitate more housing options for seniors. Land Use • Planning Goals: o Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals. o Promote higher density housing near transit corridors & employment centers. o Encourage housing density in commercial mixed use districts. • Explore and, if appropriate promote ordinances to allow development of non-traditional housing types and increased density in single family neighborhood that is compatible with surrounding neighborhood. • Explore and promote reclassification of non-residential properties and designate for housing and other purposes. St. Louis Park Housing Types, Numbers and PercentagesHOUSING MATRIXDecember, 2009Housing TypeUnits added 1/1/09 - 12/31/09# Units % Units # UnitsSingle Family Detached11,605 51% 35,328Duplex424 2% 0Condos and townhomes 3332 15% 02,210Apartments 7432 32% 132COOPs121 1% 0Total*22,914 100% 135 14,045 61% 8869 39% 1,282 6% 7,538 33% 862 4% 914 4%* Percentages are based on the percentage of the total number of all housing units. Data source: SLP Community Development, Development Activity in St. Louis Park, 10/2009, SLP Inspections and Assessing.0Large Family Homes, Affordable and Senior Housing0Large Family Home - 1,500 sq ft., 3+Bedrooms, 2+ Bath & 2+ Car Garage#1,282Senior Designated00Housing UnitsPublic Subsidized Affordable UnitsOwner Occupied Rental0##Affordable Market Rate Single Family 8012683687432Housing Production by Type##813#4910,8041562964Affordable Owner Occupied Housing in 2009 was defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% MAI ($64,000 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. The 2009 affordable purchase price was $233,000 or less. The numbers provided for sf homes is based on 2009 estimated market values.1218081060Affordable Rental Housing in 2009 was defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% MAI ($41,950 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. Monthly rent of $943, or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is considered affordable. (2009 data). The number of affordable rental, market rate units is unavailable. The SLPHA rental study is not an accurate count of affordable units, as only 55% of the city's rental owners respond to the survey, and the number is likely undercounted. In the 2008 SLPHA rental study, the median rent for a 2 BR apartment was $1,100. 002/18/2010Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9)Page 18 3 394 394 100 7 100 7 100 7 169 169 3 25 5 20 5 Location 2009 Major Remodeling, Additions & New Homes Major Remodeling / Addition Activity Created: February 1, 2010 Prepared By: Information Resources Department Type Additions (55) Major Remodels (50) New Construction (10) 0 0.5 1 Miles Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 9)Page 19 Meeting Date: February 22, 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: Proposed Common Driveway between Ellipse on Excelsior and former American Inn properties. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action at this time. This report is intended to apprise the EDA and City Council on a proposal for a common driveway between Ellipse on Excelsior and the former American Inn properties. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any comments or questions that you might have. BACKGROUND: On November 12, 2009 the EDA purchased the property at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (“former American Inn property” and now “EDA Property”) with the intent to redevelop the property. This property is adjacent to the Ellipse on Excelsior mixed use development, which is currently under construction. Bader Development (owner of the Ellipse on Excelsior) has requested the EDA/City consider the creation of a single common driveway to serve both sites. Bader has proposed a realigned driveway entrance at the southwest side of the Ellipse development and shifting the opening in the Excelsior Boulevard median approximately 40 feet to the northeast (please see attached aerial photo and concept drawing). Two existing accesses on the EDA property would be eliminated, and the existing driveway on the Ellipse property would be moved approximately 15 feet south of the current proposed location. A 30-foot cross- easement for a shared driveway would be required. In order for the proposed common driveway to have full access to Excelsior Boulevard the existing median opening (turn lane) on Excelsior Boulevard would have to be moved 30-40 feet closer to the Excelsior Blvd./France Avenue intersection. Hennepin County has been contacted about moving the median opening and has provided its preliminary approval. The proposed common driveway would be temporary so as to avoid the need to disturb the contaminated soils on the former motel site. A permanent joint driveway would be constructed in the future as part of the cleanup and redevelopment of the EDA property. Staff is currently in discussion with Bader Development regarding the costs of constructing the temporary and permanent driveways as well as the relocated median opening and how those costs could be allocated. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 2 A single driveway serving both sites has the following benefits: 1. Consolidation of three curb cuts into one full access intersection will provide greater traffic and pedestrian safety and full vehicle access to both sites. 2. A shared access would enhance the pedestrian access and site design on the Ellipse property. Less space would be needed for the driveway and there would be room to add a sidewalk and green space on the southwest side of the building. 3. The concept improves the development opportunity for the EDA’s property. The common drive leaves more space for development on the site as less of the property would be consumed for a full driveway. More space provides more options for building placement as well as parking. A shared access would also allow for internal circulation between the EDA property and the Ellipse on Excelsior which is recommended in France Ave and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 3 4. The France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines call for a full access drive for the two sites on Excelsior Boulevard. The Guidelines state that a full common access is the best solution to handle the traffic on Excelsior Boulevard and to protect the neighborhood from development traffic. Next Steps If the shared driveway proves to be physically and financially feasible, the topic would be placed on a future agenda for formal consideration. To implement the proposal would require an agreement with Bader Development, cross-easements, and plans to be approved by the City. Prior to formal EDA and City Council action, staff would share the plans with the neighborhood to gain its comments too. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The precise financial obligation for the EDA of the proposed common driveway has yet to be determined. VISION CONSIDERATION: This proposal is consistent with the Strategic Direction of making a connected and engaged community. Attachments: Common driveway concept 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 and City Manager Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 10)Page 4 Meeting Date: February 22, 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: Composting Ordinance Revision. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the proposed revisions to the City’s composting ordinance. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns about the proposed composting ordinance revisions or the proposed process / timeline to be utilized? BACKGROUND: History Residential Composting is currently addressed in Sec. 22-121, Chapter 22 (Solid Waste Management) of the City Code. The current compost ordinance allows for composing of yard waste items (e.g. grass, leaves, straw, twigs, and dead plants). Proposed Changes The purpose of the revision is to accomplish the following: to modify the language to include more definitions, to update the language based on current best practices, to better define conditions of composting, and to add items that can be composted. Conditions of composting include: what materials are allowed and which are not, acceptable type and location of compost structure, and proper maintenance of the actual compost material. The proposed change allows for adding kitchen scraps (e.g. raw fruits and vegetable scraps, coffee grounds, tea bags, etc.) to the compost along with the yard waste materials. This change provides for a more nutrient-rich compost material. Over the past several year’s staff has had numerous resident requests to allow kitchen scraps to added to the compost, as is allowed in other communities throughout the metro area. It should be noted that there are some kitchen items that will continue to not be allowed in the compost mix. Examples of these items include: meat, bones, grease, eggs, and dairy products, as they tend to attract vermin. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 2 Staff Review When drafting the revisions, Public Works staff solicited input from other departments that could possibly be affected by the changes. The changes were also discussed by the E-Group and DRC (these are interdepartmental staff teams that meet to discuss environmental and development/code related matters) Public Input Staff did not solicit public input for the following reasons: • Residential composting is currently allowed and the proposed revisions are only intended to update the ordinance based on current industry best management practices. • The proposed changes make composting less restrictive than currently allowed. • Staff believes that the changes are non-controversial. It is possible there could be some public concern that this change to the compost ordinance could create odor problems. This should not be the case, as long as ordinance requirements are followed. Proposed Schedule Study Session report Feb. 22 Public Hearing Notice Publication Mar. 4 First Reading Mar. 15 Second Reading Apr. 5 Summary Publication Apr. 15 Effective Date May 3 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the City Council: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Focus areas: • Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices. • Working in areas such as…environmental innovations. Attachments: Ordinance (redline copy showing proposed changes) Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Shannon Hansen, Public Works Administrative Specialist Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 11)Page 3 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 11)Page 4 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 11)Page 5 Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 11)Page 6 Meeting Date: February 22, 2010 Agenda Item #: 12 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: MCES Golden Valley and Hopkins Interceptor Projects Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: For information purposes only. No formal action required. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns about these two projects? BACKGROUND: History All wastewater collected by metropolitan communities eventually discharges into larger interceptor pipes owned and operated by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). These interceptors ultimately carry all flow to the metropolitan treatment facility in St. Paul. Two of the interceptor pipes serving St. Louis Park are more commonly referred to as the Golden Valley Interceptor (1-GV-461), and the Hopkins Force Main (MSB-7026). The Golden Valley Interceptor commences at the St. Louis Park/Golden Valley boundary just behind the Sabes Jewish Community Center (JCC) and flows northward into Golden Valley. The Hopkins Interceptor commences at a lift station in the City of Hopkins (near Blake Road) and traverses into and across St. Louis Park, mostly along the south side of Highway 7 and CSAH 25, and into the City of Minneapolis. Both of these pipes are aging and have condition and/or capacity issues. As a result, MCES has programmed both facilities for upgrades. MCES recently began a public process for these projects. Public informational meetings followed by formal public hearings were recently conducted for both. Facility Plans and Environmental Documents have also been prepared and made available for public review. A detailed design for both projects is not expected to commence until later this year, with no actual construction in St. Louis Park expected until late 2011 or early 2012. Following is a brief description and further information for each project, both which will be funded entirely by MCES. Golden Valley Interceptor The existing Golden Valley Interceptor (1-GV-461) serves the northern portion of the City of St. Louis Park, or an area of over one-third of the City. The majority of the City’s flow from this area is collected by a large City interceptor which discharges into 1-GV-461 behind the JCC. From the juncture, 1-GV-461 (a gravity line) traverses northward through Golden Valley and collects additional flow before it connects to a larger MCES interceptor along Highway 55, referred to as the Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 12) Page 2 Plymouth Interceptor (Figure ES-1). The condition of 1-GV-461 warrants rehabilitation and the capacity of this pipe is reaching its limit as further development and redevelopment activity occurs in both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. As a result, MCES evaluated alternatives to either upsizing the existing pipe, or constructing an additional interceptor to divert a portion of the flow. Due to significant bury depths and physical restrictions surrounding the existing pipe, MCES has determined that replacing the pipe with a larger pipe is not feasible. Alternative routes were evaluated and a new pipe on an alignment shown per Figure 6-1 has been chosen as the preferred alternative. The new pipe would commence at a location somewhere within or near the West End Area, cross beneath I-394, and run straight north through Golden Valley to Highway 55 to connect with the Plymouth Interceptor. A new lift station would also be constructed somewhere on or near the West End property. The existing interceptor (1-GV-461) through Golden Valley is proposed to remain in service and be lined or rehabilitated as needed through underground trenchless technologies. Essentially, flow from St. Louis Park will still discharge to the Plymouth Interceptor, but would be split between two different routes through Golden Valley (the existing pipe and a new pipe). A public informational meeting was held at the City of Golden Valley on January 6, 2010, and a formal public hearing conducted in Golden Valley on January 27. Attendance at both meetings was light. Affected property owners in St. Louis Park were notified of the meetings and a representative of the West End (Duke Development) did attend the meeting on January 6. MCES will now be moving into the design portion of the project, with construction scheduled in 2012. Staff will continue to apprise the Council and affected property owners as the project is developed and MCES updates become available. Hopkins Interceptor The Hopkins Interceptor (MSB-7026) commences at Lift Station L-27 in the City of Hopkins near the intersection of Blake Road and Lake Street. The pipe is a pressurized force main ranging in size from 24 to 30 inches in diameter as it traverses across the entire length of St. Louis Park along Lake Street and Highway 7 and into Minneapolis (Figure X). Along its route, the force main also collects additional flow from sizable portions within the City of St. Louis Park. Similar to the Golden Valley interceptor, the Hopkins interceptor/forcemain is aging and in need of repair or replacement. To assure safety and capacity for future flows, MCES is proposing to rehabilitate the existing force main and construct a parallel main of similar size adjacent to the existing pipe. Construction of two parallel lines will not only allow for redundancy and safety in the event of emergency repairs, it will also provide additional flow capacity for future needs. Because all construction is expected to be located within the current alignment and roadway right of way, direct impacts to property owners are expected to be minimal. In addition, the project will include rehabilitation of the lift station in Hopkins (L-27 per Figure X). Public informational meetings were held recently in St. Louis Park (January 13th), Minneapolis (January 20th), and Hopkins (January 21st). In addition, a public hearing was held in St. Louis Park on January 28. Attendance at all of these meetings was relatively light, with the highest attendance in Minneapolis where over one dozen people attended. Some comments were received from businesses along Highway 7 in St. Louis Park which had questions regarding access to their properties during construction. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 12) Page 3 MCES will now be moving into the design phase for this project as well. Unlike the Golden Valley Interceptor project however, the Hopkins force main work will be performed in pieces or phases as specific needs and construction opportunities dictate. For example, more severely deteriorated portions of the pipe in Minneapolis will likely be rehabilitated as early as the end of this year or next year. Other portions such as near Louisiana Avenue and Highway 100, will likely occur later. Reconstruction plans for these roadways must be known before more detailed design work for the force-main can move ahead much further. Of note, the segment of force main pipe near Wooddale Avenue is currently being replaced as part of the Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange project. Again, staff will continue to apprise the Council and affected property owners as the project is developed and MCES updates become available. VISION CONSIDERATION: None Attachments: Figure ES-1 Figure 6-1 Figure X Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 12)Page 4 #* 18" Forcemain Tunnel under I-394 New Lift Station 5.0 MGD (Location TBD During Design) Tunnel under Hwy 55 ?ØA@ ?úA@ ?úA@ %&e()n ?ËA@ Tunnel under Canadian Pacific RR Plymouth Forcemains Alternate Route 7027-1 8655-384 1-GV-461GLENWOOD AVE WAYZATA BLVD LAUREL AVE XENIA AVE SPARK PLACE BLVD STURNERS CROSSROADS N16TH ST W UTICA AVE STURNERS CROSSROADS SGAMBLE DRYOSEMITE AVE NWOODSTOCK AVE GOLDEN HILLS DRGolden Valley St. Louis Park C a n a d ia n P a c ific R a ilw a y \\HRGSPNAS\Data\CAD\825840J\GIS\GoldenValleyFacPlan\Fac_Plan\figures\2009_11_19\Figure_6-1_1-GV-461_FacilityPlan.mxd Proposed 18" Forcemain Alternate Route#*Proposed Lift Station Existing Forcemain Existing Gravity Municipal Boundaries O 0500250 Feet Blue Lake and Metro Plant Service Area Planning Project FIGURE 6-1 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE & ALTERNATE ROUTE 1-GV-461 FACILITY PLAN Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 12)Page 5 !.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")EEEEEEEE33333333"T4"T4"T4#####L5LS1LS2L27LS19M123M132M12670261-MN-3307026UV100UV7UV7UV100UV10042ND38THTEXASIRVINGZENITHFRANCE27THMINNETONKAIDAHOWALKERLAKE43RDL O U I S I A N A BLAKEHUMBOLDTALABAMAHENNEPINABBOTT28THJERSEYC A L H O U N 41STSUMTERFLORIDABEARDGEORGIAXERXESKIPLINGLYNNOXFORD37THYORKHOLMES35TH32ND34THHAMPSHIREQUEENKENTUCKYJAMESRHODE ISLAND1STYOSEMITE39THBOYCEHIGHWAY 7LIBRARYEXCELSIORSHERIDANEDGEWOODJOPPAOTTAWANEVADAGRIMESQUENTINQUEBECOREGONUPTONG O R H A M BELT LINESUNSET36TH26TH31STINGLEWOODW O O D D A L E HIGHWAY 100UTICA36 1/2ZARTHANPARK GLENLAGOONBRUNSWICKHUNTINGTONVINCENTMARYLANDCEDAR LAKETOLEDOGOODRICHNORTH40THGLENHURSTCAMBRIDGEXENWOODWEBSTER25THDIVISIONLAKE HARRIETDAKOTAPOWELLHAMILTONIVYSALEMEDGEBROOK30 1/2LINDEN HILLS WASHBURNPRESTON34 1/2BURNHAMSCOTTALDENMONTEREY25 1/2THE MALL29THVALLACHER2ND33RDMEADOWBROOKRALEIGHLAKE OF THE ISLESDREWBROOKSIDEP A R K XYLON35 1/2T A F T A Q U IL A VERNONB UR D UTAHEWINGDEAN32 1/2BROW NLOW CROCKERCOLORADOPRINCETONKNOXWOLFERICHFIELDSERVICECHOWENSOUTHW IL L IA M B E R R Y PENNSYLVANIATHOMASHOSPITAL SERVICEEUCLIDWYOMINGBLACKSTONEPARK COMMONSYUKONRANDALLBROWNDALEMONITORSAINT PAULBENTONREPUBLICASHLEYCOLGATENATCHEZ42 1/2HOMEDALEPARK CENTEROAK LEAFVIRGINIAHAWTHORNEVICTORIAOAKDALEKENILWORTHCEDAR SHORELISTB R O O K VI EWNB HWY100 S TO CORD25ROSE26 1/2T E X A T O NK A MURPHYMOTORWAVELANDPARK NICOLLETOAK PARK VILLAGEMINIKAHDAMARKETG R A N D M E R ID IA N HILLDRAGONFLYCONIARISTHOMAS29THCOLORADODAKOTAXENWOODJOPPACAMBRIDGE26THINGLEWOOD36THLAKES A L E M 26THUPTONPENNSYLVANIAVIRGINIAWYOMINGWALKERCHOWENMEADOWBROOKBRUNSWICKYORKQUEBECNATCHEZ26TH32NDP R IN C E T O N28TH 32NDC ALHO UN 31STBRUNSWICKAQUILA42NDOXFORDYUKON27TH36TH30 1/2MEADOWBROOK39THPRINCETONWEBSTER31ST29TH39THHIGHWAY 7DREW31STXENWOOD41STBRUNSWICKCEDAR LAKEXYLON40TH32NDOXFORD31ST34THUTAHH A M P S H I R EABBOTTJAMESRALEIGH CEDAR LAKEVERNONGEORGIAUTICAVIRGINIA33RD27THUPTONOTTAWASUMTERLAKE HARRIETXERXES36TH33RDLYNNQUEBECYOSEMITEHIGHWAY 733RDEDGEWOOD34THZARTHANUTICATOLEDO41ST40THQ U E N T IN SALEMRALEIGHGLENHURST28TH29TH28TH2NDLAKEQUEBECTHOMASPENNSYLVANIAZARTHANWEBSTER29THALABAMAIDAHOHIGHWAY 7ZENITHFRANCEJOPPAMONTEREY37TH28THLYNNVIRGINIAWYOMINGBLACKSTONEWASHBURNHIGHWAY 7VINCENTR A L E IG H ALABAMAHIGHWAY 100M O N TER EY29THEDGEWOOD33RDXYLONXENWOOD41ST26THUPTON28THWEBSTER31STHIGHWAY 10027THCOLORADOJOPPADAKOTA33RDXYLONLAKE31STDREW28THKIPLING42ND28THLYNN36THLOUISIANALYNNOREGON42NDOTTAWAUTAH36THYOSEMITEDREWSUMTER35THHUNTINGTONNATCHEZKNOXSALEM31STVIRGINIA27THD E A N YOSEMITEWEBSTERL A K E O F T H E I S L E S YOSEMITE35THPRINCETON 37THEWINGEWING32NDC A L H O U N 28TH26THMONTEREY28TH32NDOTTAWA ZARTHANW O O DD ALE33RD35TH34THTOLEDO26THFIGURE X7026 FORCEMAIN AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCESHopkins Lift Station and Forcemain Project Hopkins/St. Louis Park/Minneapolis$0 1,000 2,000FeetInterstateRailroadHighwayCounty RoadStreet#Lift Stations"T4MeterInterceptorsSYMBOLGravityForcemainSiphon337062_GatevalvesEDamages / Repairs / Improvements ")Air Release Valve!.CleanoutLakesNWI WetlandsMeeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 12)Page 6 Meeting Date: February 22, 2010 Agenda Item #: 13 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: Broadband Funding Opportunities. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report is being written to inform Council of two opportunities staff is exploring which would allow the City to expand broad band internet services in the community. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have any comments or concerns regarding the two opportunities staff is exploring? BACKGROUND: Google and the Federal Government have both announced very brief windows to apply to programs designed to enhance the broadband infrastructure or use of broadband in communities. Each program just opened opportunities to submit applications and those opportunities close in mid to late March. The City Council has historically been interested in considering ways to enhance broadband options and opportunities in the City. These two opportunities happen to occur simultaneously and applying to either requires a significant amount of time (an estimated 30 – 60 hours each to do a reasonably adequate job). Briefly, here is s description of these two opportunities: Google Fiber for Communities Google is planning to build and test ultra-high speed broadband networks in a small number of trial locations across the country. Google plans to deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today with 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. They also plan to offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000, and potentially up to 500,000 people. Thus, it appears Google may deploy to one large community or a number of smaller ones. Google has issued a Request for Information (RFI) to help identify interested communities. They welcome responses from local government, as well as members of the public. Staff has heard that the City of St. Louis Park has already been nominated by the public. Staff has also received emails and social media messages (e.g., Twitter) encouraging the City to apply given its long-standing interest and investment in attempting to expand broadband opportunities. Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 13) Page 2 Google says its goal is to experiment with new ways to help make Internet access better, and faster for everyone. Here are some specific things they have in mind as program outcomes: • Next Generation Applications: Google wants to see what developers and users can do with ultra high-speeds, whether it's creating new bandwidth-intensive "killer apps" and services, or other uses we can't yet imagine. • New Deployment Techniques: Google will test new ways to build fiber networks; to help inform, and support deployments elsewhere, Google will share key lessons learned with the world. • Openness and Choice: Google will operate an "open access" network, giving users the choice of multiple service providers. Consistent with Google’s past advocacy, Google will manage the network in an open, non-discriminatory, and transparent way. These outcomes are consistent with Google’s historical approach. For more information, visit: http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi/ NTIA Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) Grant. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced a Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) and solicitation of applications describing the availability of funds and application requirements for the second round of funding for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). This program was established pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Funded at $4.7 billion, BTOP provides grants to support the deployment of broadband infrastructure, to enhance broadband capacity at public computer centers, and to encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service. With these grants, BTOP advances the Recovery Act’s objectives to spur job creation and stimulate long‐term economic growth and opportunity. According to the announcement, approximately $2.6 billion in BTOP funds is available to be awarded under this NOFA and is allocated as follows. • The Comprehensive Community Infrastructure (CCI) category (approximately $2.35 billion) will focus on Middle Mile broadband infrastructure projects that: 1. offer new or substantially upgraded service to community anchor institutions; 2. incorporate a public‐private partnership among government, non‐profit and for‐profit entities, and other key community stakeholders; 3. bolster growth in economically distressed areas; 4. commit to serve community colleges; 5. commit to serve public safety entities; 6. include a Last Mile infrastructure component in unserved or underserved areas or, alternatively, commitment letters from one or more Last Mile broadband service providers; 7. propose to contribute a non‐federal cost match that equals or exceeds 20 percent of the total eligible costs of the project Meeting of February 22, 2010 (Item No. 13) Page 3 • The Public Computer Center (PCC) category (at least $150 million) will fund projects that help expand public access to broadband service and enhance broadband capacity at entities that permit the public to use these computer centers, such as community colleges and public libraries. • The Sustainable Broadband Adoption (SBA) category (at least $100 million) will fund innovative projects that promote broadband demand, such as projects focused on broadband education, awareness, training, access, equipment, or support, particularly among vulnerable populations. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS: Applying to one or both of these programs would require significant staff time and some time of the Telecommunications Advisory Commission. The TAC was advised of these opportunities at its February 11 meeting and encouraged to provide input to Council via staff by Friday, February 19. However, at the February 11 meeting the TAC expressed support for staff and the City Council to consider applying for one or both of these initiatives after further research. That further research has revealed several things to staff. The Google initiative requires no hard money match. As described above, BTOP is requiring a match. While a 20% match is required, NTIA has made it clear that it will provide more points to applications that provide a 30% or greater match. In addition, BTOP requires review and comment of City applications by local Internet Service Providers (e.g., Qwest, Comcast). These local Internet Service Providers are requested to indicate support for or objection to the City’s application. Cities are then allowed to respond to the Internet Service Providers’ comments prior to the next phase of the application process. In addition to no matching requirement, the information Google requests on its application shows a very good fit with the City of St. Louis Park. Google is interested in applications from communities that can demonstrate a clear history of commitment to expanding and experimenting with broadband, interest from citizens, and existing infrastructure with which to build a citywide, fiber- to-the-home network. Our history can be well documented, we have already been encouraged and nominated by citizens, and the approximately 27 miles of fiber infrastructure is one of the City’s competitive advantages in the Google program. Both initiatives hold merit. It is for the above reasons that staff is planning to respond to the Google RFI first, then to the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program only if time and resources allow. It is very likely that the City would need to engage a consulting Project Manager should it be successful in either of the applications. VISION CONSIDERATION: Making St. Louis Park a well-connected and engaged community. Attachments: None Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager