HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/03/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 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 --- April 5 and April 12, 2010
2. 6:35 p.m. 2010 Emerald Ash Borer Plan
3. 7:05 p.m. 2010 Urban Forestation Planting Plan
4. 7:35 p.m. Turf Feasibility Report – High School Football Field
5. 8:20 p.m. 2010 Valuation Report
6. 9:05 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
7. February, 2010 Monthly Financial Report
8. GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project
9:10 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: March 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 – April 5 and April 12, 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the special study session on April 5 and the
regularly scheduled study session on April 12, 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 April 12, 2010. In addition, on occasion, special study
sessions are required as is the case for April 5. 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 April 5 and April 12, 2010
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Tentative Discussion Items
Special Study Session, Monday, April 5, 2010 – 6:00 p.m. – Box Lunches will be Available
1. Public Safety Dispatch – Police (80 minutes)
Staff will continue discussions with the City Council regarding public safety dispatch services
as a follow up to its discussions with Council at the February 8 and February 22 Study
Sessions.
End of Meeting: 7:20 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, April 12, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Parktacular Survey Results –Parks and Recreation (30 minutes)
Representatives of the 2010 Parktacular Board will present survey results regarding this
annual event in addition to updating the Council as to the operations of Parktacular.
3. Charitable Gambling– Administrative Services (45 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, the City Attorney and staff will present information and
answer questions regarding charitable gambling.
4. Contracting Relating to Women, Minority and Small Business Owners – Administrative
Services (30 minutes)
The City Council requested staff provide a report to the Council regarding this issue. Staff
has prepared some general information and will seek Council direction.
5. Louisiana Court – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will discuss with City Council the financial and operational status of Project for Pride
in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana Court Development as outlined in its report to Council on
March 1, 2010.
6. School Property Use Parameters – Community Development (45 minutes)
As requested by the Council on March 8, Staff will present to City Council proposed
property use parameters for the School District facilities that are closing - Cedar Manor
Intermediate Center and Eliot Community Center.
7. Communications – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
Ellipse Public Art
End of Meeting: 9:40 p.m.
Meeting Date: March 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:
2010 Emerald Ash Borer Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. Staff desires City Council feedback on the recommendations
provided in this report
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish staff to undertake the implementation of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
plan as noted in this report by using the proceeds of a grant from the Minnesota Department. of
Agriculture?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park faces an impending problem when Emerald Ash Borer is found within
our City. Emerald Ash Borer is an insect that infests ash trees and eventually kills the tree by cutting
off the trees circulation. The insect originally came from China, were found in Detroit, Michigan in
2001, and have rapidly spread. To date they has been found as close as St. Paul and Minneapolis.
Approximately 15% of our boulevard tree canopy consists of green ash trees. Staff recently
completed a boulevard ash tree survey and found a total of 2,343 boulevard ash trees. In addition,
there are approximately 450 ash trees in our parks.
It is important that the City of St. Louis Park be proactive in its approach to dealing with the disease
or we will be faced with a situation similar to what occurred in the 1970’s when Dutch Elm Disease
(DED) arrived in our area. When DED arrived, all cities, including St. Louis Park, were reacting to
large numbers of dead and diseased trees. The trees were removed in such large volume that it was
impossible to replace the trees on a one per one basis. In addition to the tree loss, the City incurred
great expenses for several years to remove the trees.
By being proactive against EAB we hope to slow the spread to a point where it can be managed. A
proactive approach will offer St. Louis Park the opportunity to stay on top of EAB, enhance our
reforestation, continue our prescribed street tree maintenance and support our comprehensive urban
forest management goals and policies.
PROPOSED EAB MANAGEMENT PLAN:
EAB is more attracted to trees in poor condition. The proposed program is to remove stressed trees
that are most susceptible to the insect infesting the tree. In anticipation of EAB spreading to the
City of St. Louis Park, staff has inventoried all boulevard ash trees and rated them by condition.
The rating scale is from one to five, with trees ranked #1 being in the worst condition. These trees
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
are stressed and, at a minimum, 25% dead, severely leaning, poorly pruned or stunted, and in a
general state of decline. Staff recommends removal of #1 rated trees as a top priority, and removal of
#5 rated trees at the lowest priority. The rating of the condition of the ash trees located in our parks
has not been completed and it is intended the City utilize the money supplied by a grant to complete
the process. The plan would be to remove all the #1 ranked trees in our parks and public lands.
The City received a grant from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture totaling $89,800 to
remove boulevard trees that are in poor condition (trees rated #1), undertake a rating of park and
other public trees, and plant a diverse type of trees in an effort to soften the loss of proposed ash tree
removals. In keeping with our Urban Reforestation Planting Plan, one tree will be planted for each
tree lost, with replacement planting to occur within one year of the tree removal. The grant also
provides money to coordinate and implement a public relations campaign aimed at St. Louis Park
constituents regarding EAB. This plan, when implemented, will allow the City of St. Louis Park to
proactively respond to predicted EAB infestation in an economically feasible way.
Given the nature of EAB infestation, we may only have one year to proactively remove trees. Staff
anticipates that the insect will be found in St. Louis Park within a year. Staff will then treat EAB
like Dutch Elm Disease and Oak Wilt where the property owner shares 50% of the cost to remove a
boulevard tree. Residents currently pay 100% of the removal of trees on private property. With the
expected arrival and infestation of EAB to occur in a similar pattern to earlier sites where EAB was
found (i.e. Detroit), the financial impact could far exceed our current forestry operations budget.
There are other cities who are removing ash trees prior to the tree being infested with EAB. Those
cities include Eagan, St. Paul, and Minneapolis. The City of Minnetonka, Falcon Heights and the
University of Minnesota are proposing to remove trees in a similar manner also using grant funds.
PROGRAM GOALS:
1. Finish condition rating for trees on park and other publicly owned land.
2. Remove all trees on the boulevard and in parks and public lands using grant funding to pay
100% of removal costs of highest risk ash trees (148 trees on the boulevard ) beginning October
1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. The Department of Agriculture recommends that
removal of EAB occurs during the dormant season for the insect which is October thru March.
3. Maintain a comprehensive EAB Management Plan that includes defining future tress that have
the disease, removing the trees, and replanting trees to replace those removed.
4. To work with the City’s communications staff to develop an educational outreach campaign.
5. Continue diversification of tree planting within the block.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed EAB plan for 2010 will be fully funded from a grant received in the amount of
$89,800 from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture rather than being paid for from the City
budget.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This plan supports and enhances our long-range forestry policy initiatives and the City’s Vision that
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Boulevard Ash Tree Locations
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Boulevard Ash Trees
3/15/2010tw
Legend
Additional Ash trees
Priority removal #1 rated trees 148/2343 ±
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 2)Page 4
Meeting Date: March 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:
2010 Urban Forestation Planting Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. Staff requests feedback on the recommendations made in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City Council adopted an Urban Reforestation Program and Policy in 2009 to identify how the
land sale proceeds should be used (see attached). Does the Council feel the proposed use of the land
sale funds is in keeping with the Council’s adopted policy?
BACKGROUND:
On October 5, 2009, the City Council adopted an Urban Reforestation Program and Policy. The
purpose of adopting the policy was to identify and direct how the excess land sale proceeds should be
used. The intent of the Urban Reforestation Program and Policy is to supplement funds for tree
planting on public property. The desire was to use the money obtained from the land sale proceeds
for something that had a lasting impact on the community.
In St. Louis Park we pride ourselves on being environmental stewards and have had an active tree
planting program for many years on City boulevards and parks. The rate of tree removal versus
replacement has not always been equal, with tree planting and replacement falling behind tree
removals, creating “empty tree spaces” in boulevards. Fortunately, we now have an opportunity, due
to the recently passed Urban Reforestation Program and Policy (URP), to increase our tree planting
efforts on public properties - primarily boulevards and park lands.
The URP dedicates over $500,000 to boulevard and park tree planting. This funding is derived from
the sale of land the City owned with the goal of planting additional City trees in parks and
boulevards to curb tree losses from Dutch Elm disease, Oak Wilt, drought, construction damage and
other factors. It will also help in future years to replant after Emerald Ash Borer infests our City.
For 2010 it is proposed that $25,000 be used from the land sale fund for tree planting and
supplement the $60,000 already in the City’s 2010 budget. This additional amount of money will
allow 100 more trees to be planted. For this plan, “tree planting” would equal purchasing tree stock,
wood mulch, and contracting for tree planting services, and only if the actions are involved with
planting and establishing new trees.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Through this policy, we would attempt to fill in “empty tree spaces” currently found on City
boulevard areas (estimated that half of boulevard tree spaces have a tree growing in them) and parks,
while simultaneously continuing to replace trees lost to insects (Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)), disease
(Dutch Elm), and other factors through our current operations budget. By planting 100 additional
trees from the Urban Reforestation Fund each year, we will be able to plant an additional 2,000 trees
over a period of 20 years. These tree planting costs are based upon our current cost of $250 per tree
(current bid). When EAB infests our City, we would likely need to increase this spending to cover
the loss of all the trees that need to be replanted.
As noted earlier, the tree planting plan will be in addition to the annual tree planting CIP allocation
of $60,000 (which is approximately 225 – 250 boulevard and parks trees). We will also plant 150-
200 smaller diameter trees at Westwood Hills Nature Center with the help of Tree Trust and
scouting groups. Those planting initiatives will continue.
REFORESTATION PLAN:
Staff will continue to promote and implement tree planting which consists of species diversification
within streets, neighborhoods and entire urban canopies with a one for one replacement upon tree
loss, with replacement occurring within one year of the loss. The plan promotes diversity rather
than standard street tree design for a single species planted per block (monoculture of trees). The
attached recommendation is a list of trees the City will plant on boulevards and other City owned
property, and includes recommendations for residential and commercial properties. This list is
promoted to the public for private tree planting efforts and used as a guide for public tree planting.
It is our goal to never plant more than 15% of each species of tree. We do not want to leave
ourselves susceptible to future infestations and diseases by planting a large number of just one type of
tree (similar to the past plantings of elms and ash trees).
MAINTENANCE PLAN:
Staff will continue pruning all boulevard trees on a nine year rotational pruning cycle (mature trees
over 4” diameter), with minimal maintenance performed to any/all ash on boulevards. Boulevard
pruning is performed by a private tree contractor using a $60,000 operations line-item budget
allotment. Parks and City-owned property trees will continue to be pruned on similar rotation using
city staff. All City owned trees 4” diameter and under are pruned on a four to five year rotation.
PUBLIC EDUCATION:
Staff will continue to emphasize the importance of trees, tree planting and the benefits of trees. We
will provide information to residents when boulevard trees are planted, stressing the importance of
the property owner taking care of the tree by watering it.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff is proposing to spend $25,000 from the Land Sale Proceeds to plant additional trees in 2010.
This will supplement our annual operating budget of $60,000 for tree planting.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 3
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Urban Reforestation Planting Plan is in alignment with the City Council’s adopted
Strategic Direction relating to environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Recommended Trees for St. Louis Park Streets and Boulevards
Recommended Trees for St. Louis Park Private Properties
Urban Reforestation Program and Policy
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Recommended Trees for St. Louis Park Streets and Boulevards
Deciduous trees – hardwoods or trees that lose their leaves in the fall
Common Name Scientific Name
Basswood Tilia americana
Elm Ulmus americana - ‘Accolade’
Elm Ulmus americana – ‘Princeton’
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba
Hackberry Celtis occidentalis
Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis ‘Skyline’
American Linden Tilia americana ‘Redmond’ or ‘Greenspire’
Littleleaf linden Tilia cordata
Freeman maple Acer x freemanii ‘Autumn Blaze’
Red maple Acer rubrum ‘Northwood’
Sugar maple Acer saccharum ‘Green Mountain’
Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa
Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor
White Oak Quercus alba
Smaller trees for under utility lines or confined spaces
Common Name Scientific Name
Blue Beech Carpinus caroliniana
Chokecherry Prunus virginiana
Crabapple Malus spp. ‘Prairifire’, ‘Coralburst’, ‘Spring Snow’ or ‘Red Splendor’
Hawthorn (thornless) Crataegus crusgalli var. inermis
Ironwood Ostrya virginiana
Japanese tree lilac Syringa reticulata ‘Ivory Silk’
Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica
Serviceberry Amelanchier spp. or grandiflora ‘Autumn Brilliance’
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Recommended Trees for St. Louis Park for Private Property
The list for streets / boulevards is also fine for yards. The following are additional trees, but the list is
not exhaustive. This should be a good start for native trees that do well in our climate.
Deciduous trees
Common Name Scientific Name
Apple Malus spp.
Aspen – Bigtooth Populus grandidentata ‘Bigtooth’
Aspen – Quaking Populus tremuloides
Paper birch Betula papyrifera
River Birch Betula nigra
Ohio buckeye Aesculus glabra
Catalpa Catalpa speciosa
Hawthorn Crataegus crusgalli var. inermis (thornless)
Kentucky coffee tree Gymnocladus dioicus
Northern red oak Quercus rubra
Tamarack Larix laricina
Coniferous trees -- “Evergreens”
Most are fine, not recommended is Colorado blue spruce – Picea pungens
Common Name Scientific Name
Balsam fir Abies balsamea
White fir Abies concolor
Eastern white pine Pinus strobus (needs room to grow)
Red / Norway pine Pinus resinosa
Black spruce Picea mariana
Norway spruce Picea abies
White spruce Picea glauca
Arborvitae/
Northern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 6
St. Louis Park
Urban Reforestation Program Policy
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Urban Reforestation Policy is to provide a healthy and diverse tree population
and support the City’s vision regarding environmental stewardship.
DEFINITION:
Urban Reforestation is the continuation of planting and maintaining trees in our city.
USE OF FUNDS:
The goal of the City’s Urban Reforestation Program is to provide a healthy and diverse tree
population and support the City’s Vision regarding environmental stewardship. The funds will be
used as follows:
a) To plant trees along boulevards, at the Nature Center and in parks to replace trees which
have been removed and not replaced due to past budget constraints.
b) To provide a one-for-one tree replacement which means that a tree is planted to replace
every public tree that is lost (if feasible and possible).
c) To fill the empty places along boulevards where trees had not been planted in the past.
d) To maximize diversity of our urban forest by planting no more than 15% of one tree species.
The greater the diversity of tree species, sizes and conditions, the healthier the community
forest. This will also prevent future large-scale losses in trees due to infestation of pests.
Species are typically rotated as much as possible per block trying to mix species so the same
species are not adjacent to one another.
e) To plant native trees where possible. This minimizes the detrimental effects of exotic species.
f) To optimize natural aesthetic and wild life habitat.
g) Primarily used for boulevard trees although trees in parks and public areas would qualify.
h) Replace trees lost due to imminent diseases such as Emerald Ash Borer.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
The money currently obtained from land sale proceeds and the money that is yet to come in as
future sites are sold, will be put in a reforestation fund. This fund will be located within the Park
Improvement Fund and will accrue interest on the amount not yet spent.
a) As trees are removed from boulevards, parks or other City owned properties, the City
Manager, or designee, may approve expending funds from this account for the purchase and
planting of new trees within the parameters of the budget set by the City Council.
b) If new programs aimed at providing funds for trees arise, the money from those programs
will be put into this fund with the same guidelines attached.
c) The use of these funds will supplement and not replace funds previously budgeted for tree
planting on public property
A reforestation plan and budget will be established each year and approved by the City Council
through the annual budget approval process.
Meeting Date: March 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:
Turf Feasibility Report – High School Football Field.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. Staff requests feedback on the information provided in this report and
the policy question noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire staff to undertake further efforts on partnering with the St. Louis Park
School District on the construction of an artificial turf field?
Is there additional information the City Council desires on this matter?
BACKGROUND:
At the November 23, 2009 City Council meeting, staff was directed to work in partnership with the
school district to generate a feasibility study on the installation of artificial turf at the high school
field. The report was developed by Andy Ewald, St. Louis Park High School Athletic Director,
Cindy Walsh, Rick Birno and Rick Beane.
Attached is the feasibility report outlining the estimated expenses and revenues associated with the
construction and operation of an artificial turf field on a full-size soccer/football/lacrosse field. These
estimates have been developed through research of similar organizations who have installed artificial
turf facilities. The information in this report should be considered as rough estimates. A more
detailed cost estimate will require soil testing, engineering analysis for storm water, and further
parking analysis. Outlined below is a summary of the findings in the attached report.
Estimated Expenses
The attached report includes a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with the construction
and installation of an artificial turf field. The total cost for artificial turf at the St. Louis Park High
School Field is estimated to be $1,500,000.
In addition to the installation and construction costs, there would be an annual operational expense
of $10,000. It costs the School District approximately $20,000 annually to maintain the current
outdoor stadium field for mowing, lining, fertilizer, seeding and staff time.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Estimated Revenues
There is the potential of generating revenue from the field from mid April through October. Most
local organizations surveyed generate revenue for the rental of an artificial turf facility during this six-
month period. The rates per hour vary based on a number of factors:
• City sponsored/Park & Rec/Youth athletic assoc.: $25 - $50 per hour
• 50/50 groups (resident/non-resident): $35 - $75 per hour
• Private groups/for profit: $50 - $120 per hour
In addition to the rental fees, Parks and Recreation could implement new programs and expand
existing adult leagues, tournaments, and athletic camps. The estimated total additional annual
revenue from all these activities is $25,000 per year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funding for all or a part of this possible project is currently not included in the Parks Capital
Improvement Plan.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Installing turf on the High School football field would increase the use of the site considerably and
provide an additional amenity in the community. As a result, such a project could be considered as
creating or enhancing a community gathering place which would be in alignment with the Strategic
Direction of being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Turf Feasibility Study
Turf Study Area Map
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3
St. Louis Park High School Field Turf Feasibility Study
Date: March 18, 2010
To: St. Louis Park City Council & School District #283 School Board
From: St. Louis Park Parks & Recreation Department
St. Louis Park High School Athletic Department
Subject: Feasibility Study for Installation of Artificial Turf on the High School Stadium Field
Listed below are estimates of the expenses associated with the construction and operation of an
artificial turf field on a full-size soccer/football/lacrosse field. These figures have been developed
through research of similar organizations who have installed artificial turf facilities. The information
in this report should be considered rough estimates. A more detailed cost estimate will require soil
testing, engineering analysis for storm water, further parking analysis, etc.
Estimated Construction Expenses
A. Design - engineering - testing - mobilization - demo - etc.
Estimate: $250,000
B. Soil preparation (import - export - grading - silt fence - etc.)
This is assuming that the soils do not contain contaminated material or poor soils. The
estimated cost will increase substantially if poor or contaminated soils are found on the site.
Estimate: $200,000
C. Storm water storage (difficult to estimate without appropriate engineering)
It is necessary to provide an area for the storm water to collect because artificial turf is
considered an impervious surface. State law and the local Watershed District require
stormwater management on a project of this type. Adding impervious area to a site causes
more stormwater to be shed from that site instead of soaking into the ground naturally.
Stormwater management, which can take the form of ponds, rain gardens, or even
underground storage, provides a number of benefits for the city. It helps reduce localized
flooding, which is common in St. Louis Park where we have stormwater pipes that are getting
older and were designed to provide a lower level of protection than current standards, and it
also helps meet water quality requirements.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 4
This estimate reflects the worse case scenario which would require underground storage
beneath the field area. Because there isn’t any open space nearby to create a storm water pond,
it is likely that underground storage may be the only option.
Estimate: $250,000
D. Synthetic turf (estimated lifespan is 13 years)
Since it has been suggested that there could be significant savings by purchasing and installing
an additional turf field at the same time as Benilde-St. Margaret’s constructs their field, staff
contacted their supplier, Field Turf. There would not be significant savings to install another
artificial turf field in the same time frame. Field Turf indicated that they may be able to
provide a maximum savings of $15,000 (about .15 per-square foot on a 100,000 square foot
facility).
Estimate: $750,000
E. General landscaping, field maintenance equipment, turf supplies
This figure reflects the landscaping that would need to be done around the field once the
artificial turf has been installed. It also reflects the purchase of three pieces of equipment to
maintain the turf: a groomer, which brushes and loosens the turf, a top dresser to fill in the
turf with rubber pellets, and a Vac/Seperator which is used to clean the artificial turf.
Estimate: $50,000
Total Cost for Artificial Turf at the St. Louis Park High School Field
Estimate: $1,500,000
Estimated Operational Maintenance Expenses
Although an artificial turf field is less costly to maintain than a natural grass turf field, there are costs
associated with cleaning the turf, striping, and lining, and adding rubber pellets.
Estimate: $10,000 annually (the cost is approximately $20,000 annually to maintain the current
outdoor stadium field for mowing, lining, fertilizer, seeding and staff time).
Condition of Existing School Facilities
The school district has reviewed the amenities that support the stadium field and determined that
the condition of the lights, press box, bleachers and scoreboard are in fair to good condition. The
lights, scoreboards and bleachers are expected to last 10 years. The school district may need to
consider upgrading the press box within the next 5 years. The concession stand does need to be
upgraded at some point in the near future. In addition, there are no indoor bathrooms. Portable
units are used for all events. The concession building could be upgraded and indoor bathrooms
added for $250,000.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Estimated Revenues
Potential revenue generation is from mid April through October. Most local organizations surveyed
generate revenue for the rental of an artificial turf facility during this six-month period. The rates
per hour vary based on a number of factors:
• City sponsored/Park & Rec/Youth athletic assoc.: $25 - $50 per hour
• 50/50 groups (resident/non-resident): $35 - $75 per hour
• Private groups/for profit: $50 - $120 per hour
In addition to the rental fees, Parks and Recreation could implement new programs and expand
existing adult leagues, tournaments, and athletic camps. The estimated total additional revenue
from all these activities is $25,000 per year.
Other Considerations
There are a number of variables in considering artificial turf on the high school field. The current
stadium field is located north of Central Community Center and south of Lake Street. This is
currently used by varsity athletics and for big events approximately 20 times per year. There is no
parking lot directly adjacent to this facility. Any significant additional use of this site could create
concerns with the neighbors for on-street parking.
The School District does have another field site in back of the high school that is used by high
school athletics and is the site of track and field activities. This area is close to a parking lot, but
does not have lights, bleachers, concessions or storage. If artificial turf is placed this field, parking is
close and could facilitate more events. However, other improvements would need to be added.
The earlier cost estimates and revenue projections are for an open air site with approximately six
months of use. To dome the facility, which would increase usage possibilities significantly, the
additional cost would be approximately $2 million. This includes an air supported dome, lighting,
entrance building, bathrooms and mechanicals. The life span of an air supported dome structure is
approximately 20 years. Zoning requirements would also need to be considered.
O
High school stadium field
High school practice field
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Page 6
Meeting Date: March 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:
2010 Valuation Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. Staff will update City Council on the 2010 Valuation
Report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time. This report is intended to assist the Council in making decisions as part
of the Local Board of Appeals and Equalization process.
BACKGROUND:
The Assessing Division annually renders an opinion of valuation and classification for all parcels of
real estate in St. Louis Park. The attached report summarizes the aggregate conclusions, and the
Assessor will present an overview during the study session. The presentation will include review of
the MN property tax system, the assessment process and the valuation picture for the community as
of January 2, 2010.
Related to the report, the presentation will also cover the appeal process in preparation for the St.
Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization scheduled for April 26, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Composition of the community’s real estate valuations and corresponding tax capacity has an impact
on the budget process.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: 2010 Valuation Report
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
2010 Valuation Report
(Payable 2011 Tax Period)
Assessing Staff
General Information – 952-924-2535
Cory Bultema – City Assessor – 952-924-2536
Marty Fechner – Assessment Technician/Appraiser – 952-924-2533
Mark Hoppe – Appraiser I – 952-924-2529
Deb Lynch – Appraiser II – 952-924-2532
Bridget Nathanson – Appraiser II – 952-924-2530
Kelley Schomer – Appraiser – 952-924-2638
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and time line for the entire property tax system,
including the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows:
1. All real property is valued at market value annually and classified according to usage. In
addition there are a multitude of sub-classifications and credits which are administratively
updated.
2. State law defines how the value and class rate are translated into tax capacity as well as
refinements for subsidies and credits (e.g. homestead, veteran exclusion, limited market value,
etc.).
3. Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction, which include decisions on the use of various funding
sources, are set annually. Tax funding sources include the property tax levy, voter approved
market value referendums, bonding, special assessments and other sources such as user fees.
4. The total property tax levy is divided by the total capacity of each jurisdiction (city, county,
school district and others) to determine the total levy extension multiplier. The respective
multiplier for each jurisdiction is applied to the individual property to calculate property taxes.
It is essential to understand that the property tax “rate” is a math equation as used in the
Minnesota system.
The Assessing function deals with the first step above as staff renders an opinion of market value and
classification annually for property tax purposes of 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park. The
conversion of value and class into tax capacity is also subject to refinements for the sub-classifications
and credits as set by the legislature. The assessment of all properties must be made in compliance
with standards established by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and Minnesota Statutes.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as:
The usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the
time of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is
determined by the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length
transaction. The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered (emphasis added).
Market value is well described as a moving target. Market supply/demand, interest rates, general
economic conditions and seasonal cycles all play a significant role over time. The Minnesota
property tax system accommodates these issues by requiring an annual opinion of value as of January
2nd. The assessing staff monitors the sales activity throughout the assessment period and adjusts the
valuation of each property in order to reflect market conditions.
Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this
requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in
determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The following table presents a summary of
the dominant property types and their associated class rates:
Base Homestead Non-Homestead e.g. Tax Capacity at Taxable Values
Property Type Values Base Over-Base Base Over-Base 250,000 500,000 1,000,000
Comm & Industrial 150,000 N/A N/A 1.50% 2.00% 4,250 9,250 19,250
Residential * 500,000 1.00% 1.25% 1.00% 1.25% 2,500 5,000 11,250
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 4
As can be seen above, the class system favors residential properties in terms of the base tax capacity
rate which is used in the tax calculation process. This difference widens further as commercial
properties are subject to additional state based levies for education while residential properties are
reduced by subsidy factors such as the market value homestead credit. Voter approved referenda are
market value based so all properties are taxed equally on each dollar of property value.
The Assessment Process
Parcel Review and Valuation
The purpose of the assessment process is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of
market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the properties
being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic market forces at work,
the individual property location, use and physical characteristics play a significant role in the
valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of every property in the city
including its size, location, physical characteristics and condition.
The Minnesota property tax system requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of inspection is
on a five year rotating schedule which may be altered due to physical change of the property
(renovations, remodeling, additions and damage). Approximately 20% (or a quintile) of all
properties are physically reviewed each year. This does not mean that all properties have an interior
inspection which may be precluded by scheduling difficulties or an owner’s preference. The goal of
periodic and interim inspections is to assess the characteristics and corresponding market value of
each property as closely as possible versus the property’s competitive position.
It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of Minnesota
is based on mass appraisal. In years past, St. Louis Park and other cities used trending factors to
revalue all the properties (approximately 80%) not in the quintile districts that are physically
reviewed each year. Today the valuations are modeled by the use of a computer assisted mass
appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for each property are
maintained in a large data base which calculates the individual valuations based upon the location,
style and physical characteristics for each property with annual adjustments made to the data tables
to mirror market performance based on competitive properties that have sold during the comparison
time period.
The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks, mortgage
companies and others. The mass appraisal system used in St. Louis Park involves the comparison of
thousands of properties with the actual residential market transactions from the same neighborhood,
and market sales of the same quality and type of property throughout the city. New houses,
additions and remodeling are valued based on their characteristics and the value impact of the
improvement.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Having the local assessment system operate effectively also requires as much information about the
local real estate market as possible. The Assessing division makes a record of all property sales using
the Certificate of Real Estate Value (CRV) filed at Hennepin County for each property sale. This
information is frequently augmented with sales information obtained regularly from the Multiple
Listing Service (MLS) and other sources, including follow-up re-inspections in the case where the
sale price indicates that we may have imperfect information.
In all cases, the sales information collected by the Assessing division is closely scrutinized. Evidence
suggesting anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative,
etc.) results in the sales information being excluded from the market value comparison. This is
important, because the real estate sales information constitutes the database for the statistical
comparisons necessary to make the property assessment.
Assessment Statistics
The two most common methods of measuring the quality and equity of assessed values are those of
the median ratio and coefficient of dispersion (COD). Simply put, the ratio is the measure of the
assessed value divided by the sale price of a closed arm’s length transaction. An example: a home
assessed at $380,000 sells for $400,000, the sales ratio is 95.0% (380,000 / 400,000).
The median ratio is the exact mid-point of all ratios where ½ of the sales are above and ½ below that
ratio. While the Minnesota Department of Revenue standard of acceptable performance ranges
from 90% to 105%, most jurisdictions are wary of approaching the 100% mark on a mass appraisal
basis. The target ratio has been around 95% for many years to accommodate the fact that the
median ratio, by its nature, is the mid-point. This is well illustrated by the bell curve chart below.
The COD reflects the quality and equity of the assessment as it measures the dispersion from the
midpoint, or median. The more closely the assessed values are grouped around the midpoint, the
more equitable the assessment. Lower COD’s indicate that the individual ratios are closely
distributed near the median. In terms of accepted standards, a COD for residential properties
around 10.0 is good. The COD standard for commercial, industrial and apartment properties is
higher at 15.0 as these properties are more unique in value attributes.
Median
100.0%
Median
95.0%
95 97.5 102.5 105 90 92.5 97.5 100
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 6
The 2010 assessment is statistically broken down as follows:
Property Classification Median Ratio Coefficient of Dispersion
Commercial-Industrial 95.4 8.1 13 Qualified Sales
Apartments 94.9 0.0 1 Qualified Sale
Residential (Single-Family) 95.2 6.5 320 Qualified Sales
Condominiums 93.1 10.2 74 Qualified Sales
Townhomes 94.3 4.5 26 Qualified Sales
As can be seen above, the ratio compliance is statistically sound. The sales period being referenced is
the state mandated sales study of October 2008 through September 2009. Our analysis has also
taken into account transactions in the period from October 2009 through December 2009 given the
current market forces at play. Slight variations around the target ratio have been made to reflect
market conditions as of the assessment date and the ratio time adjusted on a preliminary basis. The
MN Department of Revenue provides final time adjusted figures eighteen months after the
assessment is completed.
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2010 Assessment Roll
The 2010 Notice of Valuation and Classification is mailed to each property owner in mid March.
The notice reflects the property value as of January 2, 2010 and applies to the Pay 2011 tax period.
The total valuation of the city stands at $5,338,032,300. This reflects a 3.4% decline in total value
versus the 2009 assessment. A comparative review is made as follows:
Assessed market value change for dominant sectors (comparison 2010 assessment versus 2009)
Single-Family Residential - 4.6% Static Basis versus - 4.2% with Improvements
Condominium -10.4% Static Basis versus -10.4% with Improvements
Townhomes - 9.1% Static Basis versus - 9.1% with Improvements
Apartments - 1.9% Static Basis versus - 1.7% with Improvements
Commercial-Industrial - 5.0% Static Basis versus + 1.9% with Improvements
St. Louis Park Total - 5.1% Static Basis versus - 3.4% with Improvements
Value change on a static basis reflects the property types in a direct comparison from one year to the
next and does not include improvement values arising from renovations and new construction.
While the static basis comparison is interesting, the value change including improvements is much
more accurate in terms of understanding the economic activity for the community. While new
construction and renovations are down from past years, the commercial sector benefited from the
West End project continuing to proceed. More on that in a bit as we now turn to a general overview
of the dominant sectors.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 7
The assessment composition is summarized as follows:
Residential uses 69.6% total value in 2009 versus 68.3% of total value in 2010
Apartment uses 9.3% total value in 2009 versus 9.4% of total value in 2010
Commercial & Industrial 21.1% total value in 2009 versus 22.3% of total value in 2010
Historic Median Sale Price–includes Single-Family Homes, Condos, Townhomes, Twinhomes
% Change % Change
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 from 08 from 04
St. Louis Park 215,300 230,000 233,000 233,500 226,950 212,500 -6.4% -1.3%
Edina 322,700 357,000 389,500 378,000 387,500 324,950 -16.1% 0.7%
Golden Valley 249,450 262,000 267,900 272,400 257,450 220,000 -14.5% -11.8%
Hopkins 178,450 190,950 205,900 205,000 170,000 164,900 -3.0% -7.6%
Minnetonka 281,400 292,000 270,000 285,000 263,500 242,000 -8.2% -14.0%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data
We begin our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into two distinct sub-
categories… low density (single-family homes) and mid-to-high density (condo-townhome).
Single-family homes comprise over 50% of the community’s total value. Our contemplation
included the traditional sales review, on-market listings at multiple points throughout the year,
accessing the MLS sale info as well as statistics for the traditional and lender-mediated markets
(monthly and quarterly updating basis), quintile inspections which focused on the southwest
environs of the city and, of course, new construction and renovation permit reviews.
The single-family residential stock remains fairly durable, in the competitive sense, versus
immediately adjacent jurisdictions which play a role in our market. Our sale count continues to be
relatively high--second highest of the Hennepin County suburban communities which is remarkable
given our physical size. We are seeing a distinct market reaction where the quality properties are
retaining their value much better than those with lesser fundamental quality or unique attributes
(such as wooded lots and advantageous views). Review of the sale transactions from neighborhood
to neighborhood was reasonably tight with the dominant range at -3.5% to -6.0% and a total range
between -1.4% to -12.5%. To conclude our review of the 2010 market value assessment of the
single-family residential homes: a total of 98.1% of the properties were reduced in their assessed
market value; 1.2% were essentially unchanged; and 0.7% were increased.
In contemplating the overall residential sector, it is important to note the issue of the traditional
market versus the lender mediated market. From a valuation standpoint, assessing staff has been
monitoring both the traditional sales and those of the lender mediated (and “short”) sub-market.
The following table serves as a discussion topic.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 8
Traditional vs. Lender Mediated Market – Single-Family, Condos, Townhomes, Twinhomes
Median % Change Mkt Share Traditional % Change Lender % Change
Annual 2009 Sale Price from 2008 Mediated Mk Sale from 2007 Mediated from 2007
St. Louis Park $212,500 - 6.4% 17.7% $233,000 - 5.9% $158,950 -3.7%
Edina $324,950 -16.1% 8.0% $340,000 -17.1% $225,000 +19.7%
Golden Valley $220,000 -14.5% 16.7% $239,950 -14.3% $154,000 - 6.9%
Hopkins $164,900 - 3.0% 31.8% $205,000 - 6.8% $ 93,500 +17.5%
Minnetonka $242,000 - 8.2% 13.4% $263,500 - 4.1% $165,000 -17.5%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data
Lender mediated sales are defined as those where the property is coming out of a foreclosure and/or a
“short” sale where the financial institution is involved in the listing of the property due to the
owner’s equity being potentially negative. In 2008 the market share of these sales represented
31.7% of the total transactions in the 13 county Twin City metro area. In 2009 this market share
increased to 43.0%.
The essential factor in contemplating lender mediated sales and their effect on the traditional market
is reviewing their saturation of the total market activity. When the volume of on-market listings and
recent sales of lender mediated properties reaches saturation, these properties essentially become the
market as the traditional market sellers are unable to compete. There is no readily defined threshold.
In our perception the key indicators appear to be a market share over 25% and whether the
traditional market is receding in response to both the overall economy and the foreclosure market
dominance.
As can be seen above, the market share of lender mediated transactions in St. Louis Park was at
17.7% for the 2009 year. Comparatively speaking, this is positive. Of the 100 market areas defined
by the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, St. Louis Park is ranked 21st lowest for market
share of lender mediated sales and with a traditional sales market showing only a modest price
decline. Our assessment is tempered by these positive attributes in the knowledge that we do expect
the lender mediated market to continue into 2010 as the fundamental economic factor of jobs-jobs-
jobs has not improved.
There are forty-five (45) distinct condominium complexes in the community with a decidedly
diverse stock in terms of structural vintage, design format (apartment conversions, lo-rise, hi-rise,
row-house and most everything in between), and a wide pricing structure ranging from 75,000 per
unit to over 450,000 per unit. This sub-market exhibited very complex movements in 2009.
Highlights follow:
• Valuations were based on sales and on-market listings within each complex as well as between
competitively ranked complexes. The valuations were calculated on a unit basis and correlated
to the total complex valuations for study. Complexes moved in a range of -4% to in excess of -
21% with both market forces and intra-complex issues taken into consideration.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 9
• The low end stock (generally below $120,000 per unit) was in a state of distress with the general
economy, foreclosures, short sales and physical issues associated with an aging stock. This sub-
sector was adjusted on a significant percentage basis with individual unit movements as high as -
25% following the market. We tempered some valuation adjustments as it is our professional
take that a certain floor value can and should exist in this residential stock (generally set at
$70,000 minimum).
• The mid-range pricing stock (generally between $125,000 to 250,000) fared reasonably well
with many individual unit movements less than 3% to 10% down with the larger decreases seen
in complexes having a mix of the lower end stratifications.
• The upper stock (values over 250,000) came down in a general range from -2% to -8%.
• Quality matters a great deal in this residential niche. The strongest performers were the newer
(circa 2001-2005) projects which tend toward the mid-to-upper pricing brackets.
• There are four complexes in varying states of completion “caught” in the market turn. Sales
activity within them essentially went from healthy (into late 07) to minimal sales within a few
months and many have gone to rental for the short term which we contemplated relative to the
apartment markets. We have discounted most of these complexes to a value between a condo
and a high end apartment for the short term and do have concerns over market absorption.
There are eighteen (18) distinct townhome complexes in the community. About one-half of them
are relatively small with less than 20 units in the complex. The other half are predominantly in the
20-70 unit bracket with just a few larger complexes. In general, the same market forces are at play in
this niche as that of the condos with several mitigating factors. They include: a higher unit value to
begin with (appx 30,000 higher average values) which seems to be more economically durable; also it
is our perception that the physical designs tend to be less problematic albeit with some exceptions;
and the rate of lender mediated transactions and on-market offerings tends to be less dramatic.
Complex movements tended to be in the -4% to -7% range with the outliers up to -16% for a
couple of complexes.
To conclude our review of the 2010 market value assessment of the condominium and townhome
residential sectors: a total of 98.2% of the individual units were reduced in their assessed market
value; 0.3% were essentially unchanged and 1.5% were increased.
The Apartment sector has exhibited the least value change over the past few years. This is partially
due to one project coming on-line in both 2009 and 2010 which mitigated an otherwise slightly
declining market. Traditionally speaking, the apartment market normally performs in a reverse
image of the lower pricing brackets of the owner-occupied residential market. We note, however,
that this historic performance parameter has ceased to be reliable due to the pricing influence arising
from the foreclosure market forces in single-family homes, condos and townhomes. In terms of
value change, the smaller properties (under 10 units) were reduced by 8.5% as this niche is small
investor grade which is again heavily influenced by competition in the single-family, condo and
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 10
townhome foreclosure sub-markets. The remainder of the apartment stock came down in a typical
range of -1% to -3% for 2010.
The commercial and industrial properties were the strongest over the past three years in terms of
value growth albeit in contrast to relatively weak residential and apartment sectors. It is important
to realize that these properties comprise less than 5% of our total parcel count while accounting for
22.3% of the total value and, most importantly, 35.6% of the total tax capacity for the 2010
assessment. The following table gives some background on performance over time:
Commercial & Industrial Valuation Change: 2008-to-2009 & 2009-to-2010
2008 to 2009 2009 to 2010
Dominant Use Categories Static Gross Static Gross
Restaurant & Grocery -0.8% -0.8% -5.7% 12.8%
Hotel & Motel -2.8% -2.8% -16.8% 3.5%
Office (All Types) -5.0% -3.3% -2.1% -0.2%
Retail (Free Standing, Big Box and Multi-Tenant) 0.1% 3.0% -5.6% 17.2%
Industrial 0.6% 1.7% -3.3% -2.1%
Total Commercial & Industrial -1.2% 0.5% -5.0% 1.9%
As can be surmised in reviewing the trends above, raw statistics can be very misleading. As noted
previously, the static value change reflects the direct comparison of the existing properties from one
year to the next. The gross change includes the value of renovations and new construction. For
commercial and industrial use properties, especially in the case of “mature” communities, sustained
improvement and redevelopment are vital. In this regard, St. Louis Park has been remarkably
fortunate.
As can be seen above, the city’s commercial-industrial value actually increased for both the 2009 and
2010 assessment periods. These value increases are largely attributed to the West End development
project along with smaller developments interspersed throughout the community. When the
analysis turns to the existing stock, however, the picture is decidedly less optimistic.
The commercial-industrial markets clearly began a decline in late 2007 to mid 2008 throughout the
metro area. The fundamental economic forces leading to that decline can be summarized as jobs,
the availability of financing and slowing absorption of newer construction stock following years of
robust growth.
In terms of the dominant use categories, office buildings are a major value component of the total
stock. The trending has been for increasing vacant space throughout the west metro which is well
illustrated by recent reports showing rates of 9.9% vacant one year ago increasing to 14.6%
currently. Vacant and “shadow” space are forecasted to increase in the short term and likely to lead
to a reduction of rental rates across the class A and B stock while the Class C stock is already at
reduced rates in the past year.
Another dominant use category of significant note is that of retail. While retail has struggled in the
metro market, in this respect the west sector has a relatively low vacancy rate currently under 5%.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 11
Given the scale of the West End development, however, it has been noted that vacancies have
rippled throughout the community as many owners have contacted the assessing office to report that
existing tenants are requesting renegotiated leases in the middle of their terms. We do not expect
any significant positive movement in this sector and have set the assessment accordingly.
We close our review with the industrial market. We have reviewed the overall market and taken a
more conservative approach given the state of the economy. Industrial, as its own sub-market, was
reduced for the 2008 assessment by 0.8% and essentially flat for 2009 at 0.2% increase as we locally
equalized properties and very few valuations moved more than a few percentage points in either
direction.
The Appeal Process
We receive inquiries and questions about market value, the assessment process and how the property
tax system operates throughout the year. An open dialogue between staff and the property owner is
a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. We recognize that some properties receive statistic-based
adjustments to market value and the assessing staff welcomes an opportunity to individually re-verify
property attributes which are of public record. We also re-examine properties in cases where there is
doubt over the accuracy of our records. A very large majority of property owners’ concerns can be
resolved through this informal review.
Current Media Coverage - In portraying the ongoing real estate “crisis,” many major media outlets
fail to recognize that there are significant nuances to real estate submarkets. The benchmark that is
consistently cited by the media is that average sales prices are rapidly declining, and they make no
reference to the performance of the various submarkets whether it is nationally or locally.
For example, the residential foreclosure market occupied bold headlines for much of 2008 and 2009.
Yet when we closely review the sub-markets it is clear that our local market is performing at a much
more stable pace than is the norm. Also on the residential front, the applicability and accuracy of
sources such as Case-Shiller and Zillow have been found to be frequently inaccurate. Another
significant media coverage issue on the commercial side is the looming maturation of an extremely
high volume of commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS). While fascinating and definitely a
cause for alarm on a national scale, the majority of local commercial and industrial properties are not
of a caliber or value scale to fit into these portfolios. The local credit availability has been tightened
to be sure and staff will continue to review market sales and leasing activities as well as their
financing.
Following the difficult assessment period of 2008, we have revised our value notice to encourage
informal inquiry and discussion much more so than preceding years. Where there is evidence a
property has been incorrectly valued, we will review and adjust the assessed market value.
Where we cannot have a meeting of the minds with the property owner, the appeal process is well
defined and offers multiple opportunities for re-valuation. In addition to informal review, the
appeal process is summarized as follows:
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 12
1. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization – The Local Board is scheduled to convene on April 26
with a likely re-convene date of May 10, 2010. Staff serves as the respondent in this setting and will
again provide complete information regarding each property that is the subject of appeal. This
process is greatly improved if property owners contact the Assessing division in advance of the
meeting if they intend to make an appeal so that we may educate them on how to prepare their
appeal.
2. County Board of Review – Property owners may appeal the decision of the Local Board of Review
to the County Board of Review which meets on June 14, 2010. An application to appeal at the
County level is required and we routinely inform all Local Board appellants of these time frames.
3. State Tax Court – Property owners may appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court.
Petitions regarding the 2010 Assessment may be filed until April 30, 20
Meeting Date: March 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:
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: March 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:
February, 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 February, actual expenditures should generally run about 17% of the annual
budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 15.3% of the adopted budget and
the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 16.2%. Both are consistent when comparing the
prior year expenditures through February. 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 are at 36% of budget through the month of February. This 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. When looking at strictly building permit
revenue through February, it is at 12.3% of budget. This is consistent with prior year at this
point in time, and Staff will continue to monitor the permit revenues closely throughout the
year.
• The Human Resources budget shows that 93% 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.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Expenditures:
• The Human Resources budget for Services & Other Charges is at 29%. Consistent with
prior years, a payment was made in February to the School District in the amount of
$34,400 for the 2010 Volunteer Coordinator position.
• Public Works Operations has spent 25% of the Supplies budget through February, which
includes over $110,000 spent for road salt. This compares to approximately $77,000
expended for salt last year at this time. Staff will monitor this area closely for the remainder
of this winter season and revisiting this into the 4th quarter of 2010.
• 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 adjustment
will be reflected at the end of the 1st quarter.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation budget for Services and Other Charges is at 47% 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.
• The Environment budget for Services and Other Charges is at 24% of budget. The prior
year through February was at just 2% of budget. The City is using a new vendor for tree
pruning this year. Per the City’s request, this new vendor is billing on a more consistent
basis than the previous vendor. The actual expenses being incurred are comparable to last
year; however, we weren’t billed for the first time until March in 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:20:19R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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- 140,078.31- 820,795.59- 1,473,972.41- 35.77 |2,515,000.00-771,137.38- 30.66
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,750.00- 24,196.13- 49,223.69- 262,526.31- 15.79 |312,000.00-35,504.81- 11.38
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,598,787.00- 272,043.29- 341,485.54- 1,257,301.46- 21.36 |1,647,214.00-316,173.80- 19.19
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,138,018.00- 10,706.47- 74,944.33- 1,063,073.67-6.59 |1,201,900.00-81,698.91- 6.80
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-8,333.33- 22,939.44- 77,060.56- 22.94 |100,000.00-18,131.08- 18.13
4001 REVENUES 20,332,928.00-455,357.53-1,309,388.59-19,023,539.41-6.44 |20,429,389.00-1,222,645.98-5.98
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,132,004.00 1,414,124.38 2,929,713.46 15,202,290.54 16.16 |18,496,154.00 2,982,605.76 16.13
6210 SUPPLIES 846,535.00 37,236.90 139,350.46 707,184.54 16.46 |766,135.00 120,529.61 15.73
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 67,775.00 51.20 5,634.64 62,140.36 8.31 |70,775.00 5,909.19 8.35
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,922,858.00 278,111.01 438,570.58 3,484,287.42 11.18 |4,160,215.00 530,560.60 12.75
6001 EXPENDITURES 22,969,172.00 1,729,523.49 3,513,269.14 19,455,902.86 15.30 |23,493,279.00 3,639,605.16 15.49
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 430,637.48- 2,153,187.52- 16.67 |2,678,910.00-438,151.64- 16.36
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-4,322.28- 4,521.28-3,021.28 301.42 |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 175.00-275.00-275.00 |150.00-
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 100.00-100.00-|167.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,785,425.00-219,816.02-435,433.76-2,349,991.24-15.63 |3,030,910.00-362,581.34-11.96
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,181.00 181,181.00 |181,000.00 .59-
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 771.97 2,103.86 16,896.14 11.07 |19,000.00 2,858.65 15.05
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,181.00 771.97 2,103.86 198,077.14 1.05 |200,000.00 2,858.06 1.43
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 51,000.00 1,055,121.91 1,770,550.65 1,719,550.65-3,471.67 |232,980.00 2,057,235.90 883.01
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 1,055,121.91 1,770,550.65 1,719,550.65-3,471.67 |232,980.00 2,057,235.90 883.01
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 3
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:20:19R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 6,275.00-55.00-6,220.00-.88 |1,775.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 71,219.00-619.94- 2,449.09- 68,769.91-3.44 |55,702.00-999.44- 1.79
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,073,900.00- 14,549.22- 62,078.88- 1,011,821.12-5.78 |1,141,598.00-79,649.02- 6.98
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 906,900.00- 65,188.80- 219,171.28- 687,728.72- 24.17 |883,000.00-12,035.88- 1.36
4001 REVENUES 6,073,166.00-80,357.96-283,754.25-5,789,411.75-4.67 |6,153,418.00-94,459.34-1.54
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,440,416.00 243,682.83 501,025.64 2,939,390.36 14.56 |3,503,813.00 520,555.37 14.86
6210 SUPPLIES 906,881.00 30,988.79 76,349.64 830,531.36 8.42 |872,131.00 99,289.26 11.38
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00 3,909.36 94.89
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,712,749.00 110,290.94 405,715.84 1,307,033.16 23.69 |1,703,002.00 335,791.21 19.72
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |15,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,071,166.00 384,962.56 983,091.12 5,088,074.88 16.19 |6,098,418.00 959,545.20 15.73
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,000.00-100.00-700.00- 12,300.00-5.38 |12,000.00-1,500.00- 12.50
8200 MISC REVENUE 2,380.00- 5,100.00-5,100.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 13,000.00-2,480.00-5,800.00-7,200.00-44.62 |12,000.00-1,500.00-12.50
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |3.79
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,349.41 2,165.98 12,834.02 14.44 |1,758.58
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,349.41 2,165.98 12,834.02 14.44 |1,762.37
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 303,474.01 695,702.85 695,702.85-|67,000.00-865,348.23 1,291.56-
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 303,474.01 695,702.85 695,702.85-|67,000.00-865,348.23 1,291.56-
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 4
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 38.24-38.24-38.24 |31.29-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 14,320.33- 70,679.67- 16.85 |85,000.00-14,285.22- 16.81
4001 REVENUES 15,019,810.00-7,121.57-14,358.57-15,005,451.43-.10 |14,783,480.00-14,316.51-.10
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,800.00 3,600.00 3,600.00-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,800.00 3,600.00 3,600.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 430,637.48- 2,153,187.52- 16.67 |2,678,910.00-438,151.64- 16.36
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 4,322.28- 4,322.28-4,322.28 |
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-200,000.00-|350,000.00-76,285.95 21.80-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,783,825.00-219,641.02-434,959.76-2,348,865.24-15.62 |3,028,910.00-361,865.69-11.95
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 17,622,954.00-224,962.59-445,718.33-17,177,235.67-2.53 |17,632,390.00-376,182.20-2.13
100 GENERAL 17,622,954.00-224,962.59-445,718.33-17,177,235.67-2.53 |17,632,390.00-376,182.20-2.13
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 5
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 183,360.00-9,300.00- 177,765.00-5,595.00- 96.95 |215,500.00-148,085.00- 68.72
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |947.30-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 36.63-36.63-36.63 |97.00-
4001 REVENUES 191,360.00-9,336.63-177,801.63-13,558.37-92.91 |223,500.00-149,129.30-66.72
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 444,400.00 39,625.91 84,136.31 360,263.69 18.93 |531,500.00 97,666.97 18.38
6210 SUPPLIES 3,100.00 96.78 203.64 2,896.36 6.57 |3,700.00 448.86 12.13
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 476,972.00 37,708.12 58,519.40 418,452.60 12.27 |455,635.00 75,638.52 16.60
6001 EXPENDITURES 924,472.00 77,430.81 142,859.35 781,612.65 15.45 |990,835.00 173,754.35 17.54
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |167.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME |167.50-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 733,112.00 68,094.18 34,942.28-768,054.28 4.77-|767,335.00 24,457.55 3.19
110 ADMINISTRATION 733,112.00 68,094.18 34,942.28-768,054.28 4.77-|767,335.00 24,457.55 3.19
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 6
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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- 44,291.50-8.33 |50,000.00-3,909.25- 7.82
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-4,026.50-44,291.50-8.33 |50,000.00-3,909.25-7.82
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 920,800.00 79,529.65 163,591.91 757,208.09 17.77 |937,200.00 188,677.18 20.13
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 232.34 543.98 3,681.02 12.88 |4,225.00 388.48 9.19
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 152,905.00 9,033.32 18,721.81 134,183.19 12.24 |162,555.00 17,504.45 10.77
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,077,930.00 88,795.31 182,857.70 895,072.30 16.96 |1,103,980.00 206,570.11 18.71
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 175.00-275.00-275.00 |150.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 175.00-275.00-275.00 |150.00-
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 88,620.31 178,556.20 852,055.80 17.33 |1,054,980.00 202,510.27 19.20
120 FINANCE 1,030,612.00 88,620.31 178,556.20 852,055.80 17.33 |1,054,980.00 202,510.27 19.20
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 7
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 9,000.00-831.00- 8,403.00-597.00- 93.37 |9,000.00-5,139.00- 57.10
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-831.00-8,403.00-597.00-93.37 |9,000.00-5,139.00-57.10
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 482,400.00 37,401.73 76,874.57 405,525.43 15.94 |481,000.00 75,754.66 15.75
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 96.56 112.94 1,887.06 5.65 |2,000.00 396.19 19.81
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 40,269.53 46,081.38 114,468.62 28.70 |160,550.00 45,074.62 28.08
6001 EXPENDITURES 644,950.00 77,767.82 123,068.89 521,881.11 19.08 |643,550.00 121,225.47 18.84
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 635,950.00 76,936.82 114,665.89 521,284.11 18.03 |634,550.00 116,086.47 18.29
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 635,950.00 76,936.82 114,665.89 521,284.11 18.03 |634,550.00 116,086.47 18.29
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 8
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 9,000.00-660.00-960.00-8,040.00- 10.67 |12,000.00-1,250.00- 10.42
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 594,000.00-5,181.10- 53,648.46- 540,351.54-9.03 |585,000.00-62,837.77- 10.74
4001 REVENUES 603,000.00-5,841.10-54,608.46-548,391.54-9.06 |597,000.00-64,087.77-10.73
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,001,700.00 107,260.55 220,068.07 781,631.93 21.97 |1,023,000.00 215,474.35 21.06
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 15.32 1,684.68 .90 |3,000.00 79.50 2.65
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 47,750.00 266.10 266.10 47,483.90 .56 |56,750.00 1,275.97 2.25
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,051,150.00 107,526.65 220,349.49 830,800.51 20.96 |1,083,750.00 216,829.82 20.01
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 448,150.00 101,685.55 165,741.03 282,408.97 36.98 |486,750.00 152,742.05 31.38
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 448,150.00 101,685.55 165,741.03 282,408.97 36.98 |486,750.00 152,742.05 31.38
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 9
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 15,000.00-1,250.00- 3,750.00- 11,250.00- 25.00 |15,000.00-3,750.00- 25.00
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,250.00-3,750.00-54,250.00-6.47 |23,200.00-3,750.00-16.16
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 546,200.00 40,712.96 84,715.40 461,484.60 15.51 |534,000.00 78,256.85 14.65
6210 SUPPLIES 86,150.00 1,778.44 6,217.81 79,932.19 7.22 |90,500.00 3,963.68 4.38
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 26,000.00 |26,000.00 726.91 2.80
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 423,392.00 14,995.75 36,672.57 386,719.43 8.66 |502,942.00 75,739.73 15.06
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,081,742.00 57,487.15 127,605.78 954,136.22 11.80 |1,153,442.00 158,687.17 13.76
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |3.07
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |3.07
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,023,742.00 56,237.15 123,855.78 899,886.22 12.10 |1,130,242.00 154,940.24 13.71
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,023,742.00 56,237.15 123,855.78 899,886.22 12.10 |1,130,242.00 154,940.24 13.71
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 10
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 45,647.08 93,968.16 422,881.84 18.18 |562,500.00 104,961.16 18.66
6210 SUPPLIES 23,500.00 94.51 4,590.60 18,909.40 19.53 |30,800.00 253.89 .82
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |2,672.50
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,316.00 87,910.87 105,052.08 755,263.92 12.21 |877,970.00 33,991.79 3.87
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,400,666.00 133,652.46 203,610.84 1,197,055.16 14.54 |1,471,270.00 141,879.34 9.64
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 47.29 34.90 34.90-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 47.29 34.90 34.90-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,400,666.00 133,699.75 203,645.74 1,197,020.26 14.54 |1,471,270.00 141,879.34 9.64
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,400,666.00 133,699.75 203,645.74 1,197,020.26 14.54 |1,471,270.00 141,879.34 9.64
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 11
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 9,646.09 19,977.23 168,302.77 10.61 |184,980.00 16,858.45 9.11
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 93,525.00 5,920.00 5,920.00 87,605.00 6.33 |104,245.00 33,233.66 31.88
6001 EXPENDITURES 281,905.00 15,566.09 25,897.23 256,007.77 9.19 |289,225.00 50,092.11 17.32
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 278,905.00 15,566.09 25,897.23 253,007.77 9.29 |286,225.00 50,092.11 17.50
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 278,905.00 15,566.09 25,897.23 253,007.77 9.29 |286,225.00 50,092.11 17.50
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 12
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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- 24,196.13- 49,109.26- 254,390.74- 16.18 |303,500.00-35,504.81- 11.70
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 800,582.00- 31,130.29- 100,572.54- 700,009.46- 12.56 |809,009.00-86,893.50- 10.74
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-3,022.50- 6,909.50- 102,790.50-6.30 |109,700.00-8,719.60- 7.95
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 4,869.11-4,869.11 |
4001 REVENUES 1,213,782.00-58,348.92-161,460.41-1,052,321.59-13.30 |1,222,209.00-131,117.91-10.73
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,609,294.00 495,367.69 1,024,649.68 5,584,644.32 15.50 |6,546,794.00 1,030,915.31 15.75
6210 SUPPLIES 141,050.00 804.73 5,391.25 135,658.75 3.82 |150,900.00 12,025.51 7.97
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,775.00 51.20 5,634.64 28,140.36 16.68 |35,775.00 718.85 2.01
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 521,783.00 30,499.87 52,781.15 469,001.85 10.12 |547,053.00 71,189.40 13.01
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,305,902.00 526,723.49 1,088,456.72 6,217,445.28 14.90 |7,280,522.00 1,114,849.07 15.31
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-199.00-1,301.00- 13.27 |2,000.00-398.15- 19.91
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-199.00-1,301.00-13.27 |2,000.00-398.15-19.91
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 17.39 39.39 460.61 7.88 |500.00 38.44 7.69
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 500.00 17.39 39.39 460.61 7.88 |1,000.00 38.44 3.84
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,091,120.00 468,391.96 926,836.70 5,164,283.30 15.22 |6,057,313.00 983,371.45 16.23
160 POLICE 6,091,120.00 468,391.96 926,836.70 5,164,283.30 15.22 |6,057,313.00 983,371.45 16.23
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 13
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 5,950.48 12,198.26 64,501.74 15.90 |76,500.00 11,987.48 15.67
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 33.98 264.98 8,440.02 3.04 |8,705.00 318.96 3.66
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,255.00 5,984.46 12,463.24 73,791.76 14.45 |86,055.00 12,306.44 14.30
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,255.00 5,984.46 12,463.24 73,791.76 14.45 |86,055.00 12,306.44 14.30
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,255.00 5,984.46 12,463.24 73,791.76 14.45 |86,055.00 12,306.44 14.30
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 14
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 40,000.00-3,040.79- 4,965.67- 35,034.33- 12.41 |50,000.00-2,955.53- 5.91
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-300,000.00-|300,000.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-290.00-540.00-3,460.00- 13.50 |4,000.00-860.00- 21.50
4001 REVENUES 344,000.00-3,330.79-5,505.67-338,494.33-1.60 |354,000.00-3,815.53-1.08
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,826,180.00 207,603.73 435,618.49 2,390,561.51 15.41 |2,815,680.00 426,673.42 15.15
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 1,141.30 2,116.96 69,693.04 2.95 |71,810.00 4,306.18 6.00
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 5,000.00 |5,000.00 1,790.93 35.82
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 219,183.00 9,222.97 17,923.64 201,259.36 8.18 |224,183.00 28,306.58 12.63
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,122,173.00 217,968.00 455,659.09 2,666,513.91 14.59 |3,116,673.00 461,077.11 14.79
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,778,173.00 214,637.21 450,153.42 2,328,019.58 16.20 |2,762,673.00 457,261.58 16.55
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,778,173.00 214,637.21 450,153.42 2,328,019.58 16.20 |2,762,673.00 457,261.58 16.55
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 15
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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- 126,677.52- 627,004.92- 1,360,283.08- 31.55 |2,162,500.00-607,496.85- 28.09
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 7.00-42.00-42.00 |105.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |95.86-
4001 REVENUES 1,987,288.00-126,684.52-627,046.92-1,360,241.08-31.55 |2,162,500.00-607,697.71-28.10
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,713,100.00 124,966.45 256,490.40 1,456,609.60 14.97 |1,915,500.00 288,231.65 15.05
6210 SUPPLIES 21,500.00 50.57 223.46 21,276.54 1.04 |22,300.00 1,902.70 8.53
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 63,627.00 4,659.32 9,227.55 54,399.45 14.50 |71,627.00 7,320.57 10.22
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,798,227.00 129,676.34 265,941.41 1,532,285.59 14.79 |2,009,427.00 297,454.92 14.80
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 18,000.00 707.29 2,029.57 15,970.43 11.28 |18,000.00 2,817.14 15.65
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 707.29 2,029.57 15,970.43 11.28 |18,000.00 2,817.14 15.65
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 171,161.00-3,699.11 359,075.94-187,914.94 209.79 |135,073.00-307,425.65-227.60
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 171,161.00-3,699.11 359,075.94-187,914.94 209.79 |135,073.00-307,425.65-227.60
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 16
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 68,584.01 140,784.59 685,015.41 17.05 |826,500.00 133,055.24 16.10
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 202.71 268.27 3,731.73 6.71 |4,500.00 348.67 7.75
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 24,100.00 254.48 729.48 23,370.52 3.03 |22,950.00 1,747.00 7.61
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,900.00 69,041.20 141,782.34 713,117.66 16.58 |854,950.00 135,150.91 15.81
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,900.00 69,041.20 141,782.34 713,117.66 16.58 |854,950.00 135,150.91 15.81
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,900.00 69,041.20 141,782.34 713,117.66 16.58 |854,950.00 135,150.91 15.81
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 17
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 75,000.00-400.00- 10,100.00- 64,900.00- 13.47 |75,000.00-11,350.00- 15.13
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-1,300.00- 1,300.00- 328,700.00-.39 |436,000.00-
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-1,700.00-11,400.00-393,600.00-2.81 |511,000.00-11,350.00-2.22
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 750,000.00 53,706.65 110,088.85 639,911.15 14.68 |844,000.00 109,080.14 12.92
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 62.00 154.34 6,895.66 2.19 |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 2,497.72 4,202.72 66,547.28 5.94 |70,750.00 4,550.14 6.43
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,800.00 56,266.37 114,445.91 715,354.09 13.79 |923,800.00 113,683.65 12.31
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 424,800.00 54,566.37 103,045.91 321,754.09 24.26 |412,800.00 102,333.65 24.79
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 424,800.00 54,566.37 103,045.91 321,754.09 24.26 |412,800.00 102,333.65 24.79
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 18
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 250.00-114.43-135.57- 45.77 |500.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00- 240,913.00- 240,913.00- 209,087.00- 53.54 |490,000.00-228,333.00- 46.60
4001 REVENUES 450,370.00-240,913.00-241,027.43-209,342.57-53.52 |490,500.00-228,333.00-46.55
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,230,300.00 98,121.40 206,551.54 1,023,748.46 16.79 |1,217,000.00 205,012.90 16.85
6210 SUPPLIES 479,500.00 32,676.96 119,511.89 359,988.11 24.92 |374,500.00 96,362.58 25.73
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 799,300.00 33,038.98 78,607.72 720,692.28 9.83 |894,300.00 134,669.21 15.06
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,509,100.00 163,837.34 404,671.15 2,104,428.85 16.13 |2,485,800.00 436,044.69 17.54
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,058,730.00 77,075.66-163,643.72 1,895,086.28 7.95 |1,995,300.00 207,711.69 10.41
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,058,730.00 77,075.66-163,643.72 1,895,086.28 7.95 |1,995,300.00 207,711.69 10.41
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 1,055,121.91 1,770,550.65 1,719,550.65-3,471.67 |232,980.00 2,057,235.90 883.01
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 19
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 261,000.00-3,284.57- 35,767.06- 225,232.94- 13.70 |259,298.00-39,849.87- 15.37
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-817.50- 1,630.00- 29,770.00-5.19 |34,000.00-1,045.00 3.07-
4001 REVENUES 4,351,974.00-4,102.07-37,397.06-4,314,576.94-.86 |4,411,118.00-38,804.87-.88
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 715,280.00 50,349.59 105,666.41 609,613.59 14.77 |729,162.00 113,188.76 15.52
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 981.19 1,997.02 57,453.98 3.36 |59,451.00 4,765.72 8.02
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,677.00 13,433.80 213,717.41 241,959.59 46.90 |502,597.00 219,396.66 43.65
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,230,408.00 64,764.58 321,380.84 909,027.16 26.12 |1,291,210.00 337,351.14 26.13
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-350.00- 14,650.00-2.33 |14,000.00-1,500.00- 10.71
8200 MISC REVENUE 2,380.00- 5,100.00-5,100.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-2,380.00-5,450.00-9,550.00-36.33 |14,000.00-1,500.00-10.71
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |3.79
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,331.87 2,115.78 12,884.22 14.11 |1,681.04
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,331.87 2,115.78 12,884.22 14.11 |1,684.83
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,121,566.00-59,614.38 280,649.56 3,402,215.56-8.99-|3,133,908.00-298,731.10 9.53-
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,121,566.00-59,614.38 280,649.56 3,402,215.56-8.99-|3,133,908.00-298,731.10 9.53-
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 20
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 630,000.00-8,840.47- 19,407.56- 610,592.44-3.08 |679,000.00-25,252.40- 3.72
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 744,500.00- 55,610.88- 198,104.44- 546,395.56- 26.61 |722,000.00-14,053.95 1.95-
4001 REVENUES 1,374,500.00-64,451.35-217,512.00-1,156,988.00-15.82 |1,401,000.00-11,198.45-.80
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 785,638.00 43,912.24 91,370.55 694,267.45 11.63 |792,467.00 96,935.34 12.23
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 3,310.93 16,685.35 153,664.65 9.79 |170,350.00 17,915.24 10.52
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 480,870.00 45,798.89 69,745.47 411,124.53 14.50 |491,950.00 48,667.34 9.89
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,436,858.00 93,022.06 177,801.37 1,259,056.63 12.37 |1,454,767.00 163,517.92 11.24
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 62,358.00 28,570.71 39,710.63-102,068.63 63.68-|53,767.00 152,319.47 283.30
201 RECREATION CENTER 62,358.00 28,570.71 39,710.63-102,068.63 63.68-|53,767.00 152,319.47 283.30
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 21
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 6,275.00-55.00-6,220.00-.88 |1,775.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-10,500.00-|10,700.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30,000.00-2,000.00- 28,000.00-6.67 |26,000.00-9,225.99- 35.48
4001 REVENUES 46,775.00-2,055.00-44,720.00-4.39 |36,700.00-11,000.99-29.98
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 926,500.00 70,977.91 145,013.42 781,486.58 15.65 |969,400.00 146,725.97 15.14
6210 SUPPLIES 97,755.00 1,724.45 2,683.36 95,071.64 2.74 |93,555.00 5,004.53 5.35
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00 3,888.39 94.38
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 361,340.00 14,944.42 39,786.47 321,553.53 11.01 |369,510.00 47,784.70 12.93
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,396,715.00 87,646.78 187,483.25 1,209,231.75 13.42 |1,443,585.00 203,403.59 14.09
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,349,940.00 87,646.78 185,428.25 1,164,511.75 13.74 |1,406,885.00 192,402.60 13.68
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,349,940.00 87,646.78 185,428.25 1,164,511.75 13.74 |1,406,885.00 192,402.60 13.68
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 22
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 86,400.00-1,573.75- 5,361.75- 81,038.25-6.21 |82,600.00-5,360.65- 6.49
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 372.00-660.00-660.00 |82.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,400.00-1,945.75-6,021.75-80,378.25-6.97 |82,600.00-5,442.65-6.59
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 421,200.00 32,450.80 61,433.84 359,766.16 14.59 |420,586.00 65,581.41 15.59
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 325.50 952.98 26,047.02 3.53 |26,700.00 592.19 2.22
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 45,250.00 1,897.78 4,328.25 40,921.75 9.57 |44,500.00 5,477.30 12.31
6001 EXPENDITURES 493,450.00 34,674.08 66,715.07 426,734.93 13.52 |491,786.00 71,650.90 14.57
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 100.00-350.00-350.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-350.00-350.00 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17.54 50.20 50.20-|77.54
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17.54 50.20 50.20-|77.54
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,050.00 32,645.87 60,393.52 346,656.48 14.84 |409,186.00 66,285.79 16.20
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,050.00 32,645.87 60,393.52 346,656.48 14.84 |409,186.00 66,285.79 16.20
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 23
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 86,000.00-850.43- 1,542.51- 84,457.49-1.79 |110,000.00-385.00- .35
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |1,050.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,000.00-850.43-1,542.51-84,457.49-1.79 |110,000.00-1,435.00-1.30
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,648.00 8,383.25 17,183.44 91,464.56 15.82 |108,898.00 17,055.15 15.66
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 602.57 1,221.69 18,203.31 6.29 |19,425.00 1,001.89 5.16
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,470.00 18,016.92 52,735.66 170,734.34 23.60 |158,470.00 2,637.87 1.66
6001 EXPENDITURES 351,543.00 27,002.74 71,140.79 280,402.21 20.24 |286,793.00 20,694.91 7.22
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 26,152.31 69,598.28 197,944.72 26.01 |178,793.00 19,259.91 10.77
204 ENVIRONMENT 267,543.00 26,152.31 69,598.28 197,944.72 26.01 |178,793.00 19,259.91 10.77
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 24
3/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:27:33R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20102/28/2010 <==========================================>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 26,517.00-619.94- 2,449.09- 24,067.91-9.24 |11,000.00-999.44- 9.09
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |8,801.10-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 16,776.84- 84,223.16- 16.61 |101,000.00-16,776.84- 16.61
4001 REVENUES 127,517.00-9,008.36-19,225.93-108,291.07-15.08 |112,000.00-26,577.38-23.73
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,150.00 37,609.04 80,357.98 402,792.02 16.63 |483,300.00 81,068.74 16.77
6210 SUPPLIES 532,900.00 24,044.15 52,809.24 480,090.76 9.91 |502,650.00 70,009.69 13.93
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |20.97
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 146,142.00 16,199.13 25,402.58 120,739.42 17.38 |135,975.00 11,827.34 8.70
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |8,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,162,192.00 77,852.32 158,569.80 1,003,622.20 13.64 |1,130,277.00 162,926.74 14.41
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,034,675.00 68,843.96 139,343.87 895,331.13 13.47 |1,018,277.00 136,349.36 13.39
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,034,675.00 68,843.96 139,343.87 895,331.13 13.47 |1,018,277.00 136,349.36 13.39
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 303,474.01 695,702.85 695,702.85-|67,000.00-865,348.23 1,291.56-
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Page 25
Meeting Date: March 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:
GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required. This report is for informational purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City’s participation in the GreenStep Cities demonstration program is consistent with the City’s
Vision and current policy direction from the City Council. The purpose of this staff report is to
provide an update of the status of the City’s participation in the GreenStep demonstration program.
No further policy directions or considerations are requested at this time. Please let staff know if you
have any questions or comments.
BACKGROUND:
GreenStep Cities (“GS”) is a new action-oriented voluntary program that is sponsored by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”). It offers a cost-effective way for cities to
participate in the implementation of sustainable best practices that focus on greenhouse gas
reduction. The goal of this demonstration project is to develop a guide to help cities become
sustainable. GreenStep Cities include best practices in the areas of: buildings and facilities, land use,
transportation, environmental management, and community and economic development.
Development of the GreenStep Cities program began in 2008. Tom Harmening served on the
Advisory Committee that developed the framework for this effort. The Urban Land Institute (ULI
MN) is working with the Regional Council of Mayors (RCM) to implement a GreenStep Cities
demonstration project. St. Louis Park was chosen in October 2009 as one of five cities to participate
in the demonstration project as a pilot city.
As a city selected to participate in the GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project the City will receive
assistance in identifying, implementing and measuring outcomes (where possible) from GreenStep
Cities best practices. With support from the GreenStep Cities Project Manager, the five
demonstration cities will assess their current related practices and sustainability goals to identify areas
of opportunities and best practices to pursue.
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
ST. LOUIS PARK’S FOCUS AREAS:
St. Louis Park’s Environmental Group (E-Group) recently met, assessed the city’s current
sustainability practices, and selected the following best practices for the GreenStep Demonstration
project:
1. Buildings and Lighting
The City has recently adopted a Green Building Policy. GreenStep could help us develop an
action step related to monitoring and assisting with implementation of the policy. Greg Hunt,
Economic Development Coordinator, will be the lead this area.
2. Environmental Management
The goal is to manage solid waste by reducing waste and increasing recycling at multifamily
buildings. Public Works Coordinator Scott Merkley, will be the lead in this area.
3. Efficient and Healthy Development Patterns
Cities choosing this area will work on action steps to adopt an Active Living Resolution and
develop and adopt an Active Living Policy. Sean Walther, Senior Planner in the Community
Development Department is the staff lead.
NEXT STEPS:
The five demonstration cities have until June to provide feedback on their best management
practices and measurement techniques to the Urban Land Institute. After that time, a course of
action will be developed to assist cities who wish to continue and apply to be a Green Step City.
The GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project will provide a base of knowledge, project review, and
lessons learned through the implementation of GreenStep Cities best practices. Outcomes and
project examples will be documented and findings will be made readily available on the ULI MN
website. Besides the above Best Management Practices to pursue and report on, we would also
propose that this demonstration project be sure to incorporate actions and Best Management
Practices cities have already done well so others can learn.
The GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project activities include:
1. Selection of five demonstration RCM Cities (September 2009);
2. Peer communication and learning (October 2009 - July 2010);
3. Review of selected cities’ goals and policies that support the reduction of green house gas
emissions (October - December 2009);
4. In partnership with each city, identify and prioritize GreenStep Cities best practices
(November 2009 - February 2010);
5. Provide suggested action steps and access to experts to assist cities in the implementation of
desired best practices (January - April 2010);
6. Assessment of best practices planned for implementation and their potential to reduce
greenhouse gas reductions (April - May 2010);
7. Share and communicate results (June - July 2010).
Meeting of March 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 3
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Participation as a demonstration GreenStep City does not entail any financial reimbursement nor
will it require city funds. ULI and MPCA staff will work with city staff at no cost to St. Louis Park
on selected best practices. Minimal staff time will be required to attend monthly meetings from
October 2009 through June 2010.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Participation in the GreenStep Cities demonstration project is consistent with the City Council’s
adopted Strategic Direction that states “St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship and that we will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility
in all areas of city business”.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager