HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/04/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
APRIL 26, 2010
Mayor Jacobs Absent
6:15 p.m. LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION – Council Chambers
6:25 p.m. SPECIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. New Business
3a. TIF Note Series 2006 Extension -- Hoigaard Village Project.
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving an amendment to certain
terms of the authority’s taxable tax increment revenue note (Hoigaard Village Project),
Series 2006 (St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Union Land II LLC,
KAN & Associates, LLC, Webster Group, LLC and Camerata LLC).
4. Adjournment
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning --- May 10, 2010
2. 6:35 p.m. Ranked Choice Voting
3. 7:35 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
4. March, 2010 Monthly Financial Report
5. First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2010)
6. Fire Station Project Update
7. The West End Redevelopment Contract Update
8. Minority-owned, Women’s Business Enterprises and Small Business
9. Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2010
7:40 p.m. Adjourn
A uxiliary 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.
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.
2010 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
April 26, 2010
City Council Chambers
6:15 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Convene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
2. Roll Call – Declaration of Quorum
3. Appoint Chair
4. Acknowledgement of Trained Members
5. Accept Roster of Appellants and Call for Any Additions
6. Determination of Date and Time for Continued Proceedings (Reconvene)
… Suggested as May 10, 2010 prior to Study Session …
7. Instruct Assessor to:
a. Inform Appellants of Reconvene Date via Telephone and Certified Mail
b. Re-Inspect and Re-Appraise Parcels Under Appeal
8. Completion of the Local Board Certification Form
9. Recess
Meeting of April 26, 2010 Page 2
Subject: 2010 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Staff Report - 2010 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
All property owners are entitled to the right of appeal regarding their classification and market value.
The City is required by statute to conduct a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting to hear
appeals. The property classification is determined by the actual use of the property. The market
value is based on a) records maintained for every property and b) market conditions as of the date of
the assessment which is January 2, 2010. Minnesota statute requires that all properties are to be
valued at full market value.
Recommended Action: Undertake actions on Agenda as indicated on cover sheet
BACKGROUND:
In most jurisdictions and our historic practice, the Local Board is accomplished in two meetings.
The first meeting is used to convene the Board, set the Board process, note that appeals are taken
under advisement for further consideration at the reconvene meeting and to determine the date/time
for continuation of the proceedings. The second meeting (reconvene) is used to hear and decide the
merit of each appeal. The Local Board process depends on active participation from all parties
involved including the board members, the property owner and assessing staff. The Board must
conclude its business within 20 days of convening, this year by May 15, 2010.
The Assessor’s Office has compiled a roster of parcels under appeal. All parcels under appeal will be
re-appraised by the assessing staff. All property owners are requested to complete a form stating
their basis of appeal, their estimate of the market value and informed that they are expected to
present information supporting their opinion of value and/or classification.
As part of the Local Board process, A Local Board of Appeal Certification Form must be signed –at
each Board meeting– by all Board members present. One trained and certified Board member
(either Paul Omodt or Sue Santa) must be present at each meeting of the board.
For 2010, it is suggested that the Board reconvene prior to the May 10, 2010 study session to hear
the appeals. All cases can be decided the same night they are heard or, if additional time is needed, a
second reconvene date can be set. Following a decision by the Local Board, the property owner is
notified of the decision with sufficient time allowed for the owner appeal at the County Board of
Appeal and Equalization. The Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization begins June 14,
2010. An application is required no later than May 26, 2010. To appear before the County Board,
all appellants must first have appealed before the St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Property owners may also appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court.
Attachment: Summary of Duties and Responsibilities
Memo from the Department of Revenue (2008)
Sample – St. Louis Park Application to Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Sample – Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Certification Form for 2010
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 26, 2010 Page 3
Subject: 2010 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION
SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Most of the responsibilities listed under the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization are statutory,
primarily found in Minnesota Statutes 274.01.
• The first responsibility is attendance. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an official
public meeting similar to a City Council meeting and can not convene without a quorum. In
addition, the local assessor, the county assessor, or one of his/her assistants is required to attend.
• At least one member, present at each meeting of the Local Board of Appeals and Equalization
(beginning in 2006), must have attended and be certified in an appeals and equalization course
as developed and approved by the Commissioner of Revenue.
• The valuation notices shall be in writing and be sent by ordinary mail at least ten calendar days
before the meeting of the board. The valuation notice will include the dates, places and times set
for the meetings of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization as well as the Hennepin County
Board of Appeal and Equalization.
• The meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31 each year. The County Assessor shall
fix a day and time when the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization shall meet. The board
must complete its work and adjourn within 20 days from the time of convening stated in the
notice of the clerk, i.e., calendar days -- original night is day one.
• The clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meeting at least ten days before the date
of the meeting.
• Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization must see that all taxable property is properly assessed,
valued, and classified for all current assessments. The board may consider both real and personal
property.
• If any property has been omitted, the board must correct the assessment by adding it to the list
of assessments along with its market value.
• The board may not increase or decrease by percentage all assessments in a district of a given class
of property. Changes in the aggregate to assessments are by class and are made by the county
board of equalization.
• Although the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or decrease
individual assessments, the total of such adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment
by more than one percent. If the total reductions would lower the aggregate assessments by more
than one percent, none of the adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical
Meeting of April 26, 2010 Page 4
Subject: 2010 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
errors or double assessments discovered by the board without regard to the one percent
limitation.
• The local board does not have the authority to reopen former assessments on which taxes are due
and payable. The board only considers assessments in the current year.
• The board may find instances of undervalued properties. The board must notify the owner of
the property that the value is going to be raised. The property owner may then appear before the
board if they so wish.
• It is the primary duty of each local board to examine the assessment record to see that all taxable
property in the assessment district has been properly placed upon the list and valued by the
assessor. The local boards do not have the authority to address exemption issues. Only the
county assessor has the authority to exempt property.
• A taxpayer may appear in person, by council, or written communication to present his or her
objection to the board. The focus of the appeal must center on the factors influencing the
estimated market value or classification placed on the property.
• All changes will be entered into the assessment books by the county assessor’s office.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 Page 5
Subject: 2010 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Memo
Date: March 20, 2008
To: All County Assessors, Local Assessors, and
Members of Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization
From: Andrea Fish, State Program Administrator
Information and Education Section
Subject: New Law Affecting 2008 Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization
Important Information Regarding Changes in Minnesota Statutes for Local and County Boards of Appeal and
Equalization
Minnesota Statutes, section 274.01, subdivision 1(b) has been amended to include the following concerning
local boards of appeal and equalization:
“A board member shall not participate in any actions of the board which result in market value
adjustments or classification changes to property owned by the board member, the spouse, parent,
stepparent, child, stepchild, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of
a board member, or property in which a board member has a financial interest. The relationship may
be by blood or marriage.”
We recommend that if a local board is faced with this scenario, the decision to continue with the appeal shall
be made by the remaining members of the board (assuming there is still a quorum). If there is not a quorum,
or the remaining board members feel that there may otherwise be a conflict of interest, “No Change” should
be marked on the record form and the property owner shall be able to appeal to the county board.
Minnesota Statutes, section 274.13, subdivision 1 has been amended to include the following concerning
county boards of appeal and equalization:
“Members shall not participate in any actions of the board which result in market value adjustments
or classification changes to property owned by the board member, the spouse, parent, stepparent,
child, stepchild, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of a board
member, or property in which a board member has a financial interest. The relationship may be by
blood or marriage.”
The appeal shall be handled solely by the remaining members of the board who have no such interest in the
property.
These changes were effective the day following enactment. Consequently, they are effective for 2008 local
and county boards of appeal and equalization. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our
division.
Property Tax Division 651-556-6091
Mail Station 3340 Fax: 651-556-3128
St. Paul, MN 55146-3340 proptax.questions@state.mn.us
Meeting of April 26, 2010 Page 6
Subject: 2010 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Dear St. Louis Park Property Owner:
This letter is sent in reply to your recent inquiry regarding your valuation and/or classification.
Overview of the Assessment Process:
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and time line for the entire property tax system, including the
assessment of property. We are required to render an opinion of market value and classification (use)
annually for property tax purposes. The 2010 Notice of Valuation and Classification reflects our conclusion
as of January 2, 2010 and serves as the benchmark for the Payable 2011 tax period.
The assessing staff updates our records and reviews market information for St. Louis Park, nearby cities and
the metro area throughout the year. The physical characteristics for each property in the city are maintained
in a data base which is used to calculate the individual valuations based upon the location, style and physical
characteristics relative to the actual real estate market performance during the comparison time period. We
have found that condition is often a significant variable and note that the Minnesota system of assessment
requires periodic inspections. Regarding foreclosures, the traditional market remains the basis of valuation
with very few exceptions (5-of-every-6 residential sales were traditional market transactions in 2009).
The Appeal Process – Informal Review:
The Assessing staff welcomes your questions and we stress that appeals can often be resolved informally.
When contacting the assessing office about your property valuation, we recommend: a) verifying the physical
characteristics of your home; and, b) keeping an open mind that the market determines the valuation of each
parcel of real estate. If requested, we will informally review your valuation directly versus locally competitive
sales. This may include re-inspection if we have not had interior access within the last year.
The Appeal Process – Local Board of Appeal and Equalization:
The notice of valuation includes a summary of the formal appeal options which begin with the local board. It
is important to recognize that value or classification can be appealed--taxes may not be appealed. The appeal
focus is on the classification (use) and the current valuation which may be decreased, sustained or increased as
the board deems appropriate. The St. Louis Park board uses a two meeting format… the first meeting enters
the appeal into the record and schedules the reconvene meeting where the appeal is heard.
The assessing staff is required to reassess each property under formal appeal which includes an interior
inspection to re-verify physical condition and characteristics. The conclusion of the assessing staff will be
reported to you prior to the formal board meeting in an attempt to resolve each case informally, amicably and
by mutual agreement. If you and the assessing staff can reach agreement, it is reported to the board which
then decides whether to accept that agreement.
In the event that the question cannot be resolved, that is the purpose of the board. You will be allowed to
make a brief presentation of your position and the reasons for it. Assessing staff will then have their turn to
present their position. And the board decides the matter. The best scenario for a successful appeal is
generally to have a professional appraisal; -or- market based documentation (competitive open-market sales)
from a real estate agent/broker; -or- using the enclosed assessment review sheet. The board appreciates
receiving written documentation before hearing the appeal. If you would like the assessing staff to copy your
information for you, please submit the information no later than May 4th, 2010. Otherwise please bring ten
(10) copies of your information to the reconvene meeting where the board hears the appeal.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 Page 7
Subject: 2010 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
APPLICATION TO LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL & EQUALIZATION
Name: ___________________________________ Home Phone: _________________________
Address: __________________________________________ Day-Time Phone: ______________________
City: ___________________________________ State & Zip Code: ______________________
Address of Property to Appeal: _____________________________________________________________
Property ID # ________________________________ Owner Occupied _______ or Rental *_______
2010 Assessed Market Value as it appears on the Notice: _____________________________________
Date of Purchase: _________ Purchase Price: ________ Owner’s Opinion of Value: _______________
Additions, Renovations or Improvements since Purchase: __________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Cost of Addition, Renovations or Improvements since Purchase: ____________________________________
What are the reasons or documentation supporting the owner’s opinion of market value? __________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
* If a rental property, please submit: a building floorplan showing gross and net rentable area square footage; rent roll as
of the assessment date; and, annual income/expense statements for the past and projected current year. This information
will be reviewed for valuation via the Income Approach. The information submitted will be held confidential and not
released to the public.
I Do ____, Do not ____, wish to make a personal appearance. ____________________________________
Signature of Owner/Petitioner
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes at 6:15 pm on April 26, 2010 in the Council
Chambers of City Hall. By submitting this application, your appeal will be entered into the record and it is
not required to attend the first Board meeting. You will be notified via phone and letter of the reconvene
meeting where the Board will hear your appeal. This application must be received prior to the meeting.
The appeal process depends on you to present information supporting your opinion of value and/or
classification. This includes locally competitive sales and related data. Inspection access must be
granted for Assessing staff or the Board to make a change benefitting the property owner.
We strongly encourage you to contact the Assessor’s Office at 952-924-2535 well before the Board
meeting. Appeals can often be resolved at the informal discussion level and you may not need to
appear before the Board. For informal discussion, re-inspection scheduling and review of your
valuation please return this application to the Assessor’s Office on or before Friday, April 16, 2010.
Rev. 02/02/2010
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Certification Form for 2010
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization (LBAE) must complete and sign the LBAE Certification Form for each meeting of the local board.
Since all local boards are required to comply with the training and quorum requirements, this form must be completed even if no appeals are
heard. At the end of each LBAE meeting, the county assessor or authorized city assessor takes possession of the completed form.
Section 1 – The following information must be completed at the beginning of the meeting.
County name
Jurisdiction name (indicate city or town)
Meeting (circle one): convened or reconvened Date
Time
a.m.
p.m.
Township/City Board Members
Please list all voting members of the LBAE. For each voting member, check “Present” or “Absent” to indicate which members were in attendance. For each
voting member present, check "Yes" or "No" indicating if the member has completed the training required under Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.014 within the
last four years. All voting members present at the meeting must sign this form. By signing this form, you certify that you attended the LBAE meeting. You are
also certifying that no board member participated in actions concerning the valuation or classification of a property owned by the board member, the board
member’s spouse, parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle aunt, nephew, or niece of a board member, or any property
in which the board member has a financial interest (the relationships may be by blood or marriage).
Print names of all voting members Title Attendance Training certified Signature (for those in attendance only)
Present Absent Yes No X
Present Absent Yes No X
Present Absent Yes No X
Present Absent Yes No X
Present Absent Yes No X
Present Absent Yes No X
Present Absent Yes No X
Assessment Personnel
This section must be completed by the county assessor (or an assistant delegated by the county assessor) or authorized city assessor present at the meeting.
Local assessor information County assessor (or delegate) / authorized city assessor information
Does this jurisdiction have a local assessor? Yes No
If yes, was the local assessor present? Yes No
Name
Title
License no.
Local assessor name
License no.
Other assessment personnel present
Please list additional names on back of this form.
County assessor (or delegate) / authorized city assessor certification
By signing below, I certify I was present at the meeting and (please check one):
A quorum was present and a training certified member was present; or
I took over the meeting and changed it to an open book format because:
A quorum was not present and/or
A trained member was not present.
Name
Title
County assessor (or delegate) / authorized city assessor signature x Name
Title
Name
Title
Board member acknowledges loss of LBAE for this and following assessment
year (due to reason checked above).
x
Section 2 – The following information must be completed at the end of the meeting.
Meeting (circle one): recessed or adjourned Time
a.m.
p.m.
Scheduling for Reconvene Meeting (if needed)
The LBAE must resolve all issues before the meeting is adjourned. If issues are unresolved, the board should recess until the next meeting.
The LBAE must complete and sign a LBAE Certification Form for each reconvene meeting. The date and time for the reconvene meeting must be
determined before the initial meeting is recessed. Once the LBAE has adjourned it cannot reconvene.
Date for reconvene meeting
Time
a.m.
p.m.
Meeting Date: April 26, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
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:
TIF Note Series 2006 Extension -- Hoigaard Village Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving an amendment to certain terms of the authority’s taxable tax
increment revenue note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2006 (St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority and Union Land II LLC, KAN & Associates, LLC, Webster Group, LLC
and Camerata LLC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support extending the Hoigaard Village TIF Note Series 2006 from May 1 to July 1,
2010?
BACKGROUND:
On February 1st of this year the EDA extended the maturity date on the TIF Note Series 2006 for
the Hoigaard Village project. The maturity date was extended 3 months from 2/1/10 to 5/1/10 to
aid in the refinancing of the Hoigaard Village project.
The developer, Union Land II LLC, has asked that we extend the maturity date on the TIF notes for
an additional 60 days, to July 1st 2010. While significant progress has been made, the developer
needs additional time to complete the refinancing prior to the maturity of the TIF notes. To
provide that additional time the TIF notes need to be extended before May 1st. Attached is a
resolution prepared by the city’s bond counsel approving extending the maturity dates on the TIF
notes from May 1, 2010 to July1, 2010.
The extension will have no other effect than to provide an additional 60 days for the developer to
complete refinancing of the Hoigaard Village project. The extension would not alter the
redeveloper’s obligations under its Redevelopment Contract with the EDA and all other terms of the
previously approved TIF Note would remain the same
Following the extension of the TIF note maturity dates, the intent is to schedule a study session
discussion for the developer to update the EDA on the Hoigaard Village project and its refinancing.
The target date for the study session discussion is May 10th.
EDA Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: TIF Note Series 2006 Extension -- Hoigaard Village Project
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Extending the maturity date of the TIF Note Series 2006 by three months does not materially
change the Note and all other terms and conditions of the Note remain unchanged.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution of Approval
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: TIF Note Series 2006 Extension -- Hoigaard Village Project
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-________
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
CERTAIN TERMS OF THE AUTHORITY’S TAXABLE TAX
INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE (HOIGAARD VILLAGE
PROJECT), SERIES 2006
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City, and has approved a modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood
Village Tax Increment Financing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to
469.1791 (the “TIF Act”), made up of the area to be developed by Union Land II LLC, KAN &
Associates, LLC, Webster Group, LLC, and Camerata, LLC (collectively, the “Redeveloper”) and
certain other property within the Project (the “Redevelopment Property”).
1.02. The Authority and the Redeveloper executed a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of July
10, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third Amendment thereto dated
as of April 28, 2008, and a Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of August 17, 2009 (collectively, the
“Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, the Authority issued its Taxable Tax Increment
Revenue Note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2006 (the “Series 2006 Note”) on August 30, 2006, to
reimburse the Redeveloper for certain costs of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property.
1.03. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Redeveloper may request that the Authority refinance
the outstanding principal amount of any of its initial taxable tax increment revenue notes, including the
Series 2006 Note, by issuing tax-exempt tax increment revenue notes or bonds, provided that the
Redeveloper is responsible for securing a purchaser for any such notes or bonds.
1.04. The Redeveloper has identified a purchaser for a tax-exempt note to refund the Series
2006 Note. In order to successfully complete negotiations with such purchaser and proceed to the
Authority and City approvals required for such refunding, the Redeveloper has requested that the
Authority extend the Maturity Date (as defined in the Agreement) of the Series 2006 Note from
May 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010.
1.05. Dougherty Funding LLC, as Registered Owner and placement agent of the Series
2006 Note, has requested consent to extension of the Maturity Date from its participating investor
(the “Participating Bank”).
EDA Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: TIF Note Series 2006 Extension -- Hoigaard Village Project
Section 2. Extension of Maturity Date Approved.
2.01. The extension of the Maturity Date of the Series 2006 Note to July 1, 2010, as
presented to the Board, is hereby approved, subject to receipt by the Authority of consent to such
extension by the Participating Bank.
2.02. Subject to the above-referenced consent, Authority staff and officials are authorized to
take all actions necessary to extend the Maturity Date of the Series 2006 Note, including without
limitation preparation and execution of a substitute Note and any other documents necessary for this
purpose.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
April 26, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting Date: April 26, 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 – May 10.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on May
10, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the regularly scheduled study session on May 10, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for May 10, 2010
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session
Tentative Discussion Items
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting - May 10 at 6:15 p.m. held prior to the
Study Session.
Study Session, Monday, May 10, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Hoigaard Village Update – Community Development ( 30 minutes)
Staff and the developer will provide an update on the status of the Hoigaard Village Project
and its refinancing for council discussion.
3. 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:
Groves Academy Refinancing Private Activity Revenue Bond
Housekeeping Amendments – Charter/City Code Staff Titles, Primary Date, Candidate Filing
Dates, Election Signs
End of Meeting: 7:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: April 26, 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:
Ranked Choice Voting
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with basic information regarding Ranked Choice
Voting (RCV), also known as Instant Run Off Voting (IRV), and an update on the outcome of the
2009 RCV Election held in Minneapolis.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council feel Rank Choice Voting would be a beneficial method of voting for St.
Louis Park Municipal Elections?
Does the City Council wish to further pursue the method of a Ranked Choice Voting for the St.
Louis Park Municipal Elections?
BACKGROUND:
On May 22, 2006 a Joint Meeting was held with the Charter Commission and the City Council to
discuss Instant Run-off Voting. At that meeting a presentation was given by Tony Solgaard from
Fair Vote Minnesota. City Attorney Roger Knutson provided information regarding possible legal
challenges and legal costs involved. The consensus of the Council was to postpone further
discussion pending the outcome of future legislative changes or legal action regarding statutory
authority. Council has recently requested updated information regarding the legislative status of this
method of voting, particularly since the Minneapolis Ranked Choice Voting Election was
implemented and recently held in November of 2009. For purposes of this report all references to
Instant Run off Voting will be referred to as Rank Choice Voting.
City of Minneapolis Interim Director of Elections Virginia Gelms will be in attendance to answer
questions regarding the Minneapolis 2009 RCV Election and City Attorney Roger Knutson will be
in attendance to answer legality questions.
What is Ranked Choice Voting?
Ranked Choice Voting is a system by which voters rank candidates in order of preference on a single
ballot, ensuring that the winning candidate receives a majority of the votes where there are more
than two candidates on the ballot. Using this method, winners are determined by counting first
choices and determining if any candidates received a minimum number of votes needed to win. In
single-seat races for mayor and city council, the minimum number of votes needed to win is 50
percent of the total votes cast plus one vote. If there is no candidate with a majority of first choices,
a process of eliminating candidates and considering subsequent choices begins. The candidate with
the fewest votes is defeated and those votes then go to the second choices on each ballot. The votes
are recounted in rounds until one candidate achieves the required majority of votes cast.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
For multiple seat offices (vote for 3) such as in School Board Elections, the voting and counting
method results in proportional representation. The Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method was used in
Minneapolis to count multiple seat offices. In a three seat office, one more than 25% of the number
of votes for that office would be needed to win.
Provisions regarding the conduct of elections are mandated by Federal Law, State Law, and City
Ordinances. Ranked Choice Voting was introduced in the State Legislature this year but never
made it out of committee. Currently there are no state standards for a Ranked Choice Method of
voting. Charter Cities in Minnesota have authority to adopt the method of voting for municipal
elections. Without uniform standards, cities that choose to adopt RCV may adopt different “rules”
in their individual ordinances.
School Board Elections are administered by the City of St. Louis Park and would not be affected by
any voting method changes to the city’s municipal elections. This means if the city approved a
ranked choice voting method, the ballot would have two different voting methods on the same ballot
(ranking city offices on multiple columns and voting in one column for multiple seats for School
Board). Political considerations regarding budgets, contracts, approvals and timelines impose
additional requirements for jurisdictions considering implementation of RCV.
City Primary Elections
Minnesota law allows cities to choose whether they hold municipal primary elections. City Charter
Section 4.03 states a city primary is required in St. Louis Park whenever three or more candidates
have filed for any elective city office. Currently, 10 cities in Hennepin County require municipal
primaries and the other 36 hold general elections only with no primaries. Attached to this report is a
chart showing which Hennepin County cities hold primaries and which cities hold elections in the
odd years.
Election Voting Equipment
Minnesota Election law requires both Federal and State certification of all electronic voting systems.
Currently, there is no certified voting equipment capable of counting ranked choices. In Minnesota
voting equipment systems are generally owned and operated by counties. System replacement is
typically managed through a normal replacement schedule that may or may not coincide with an
RCV implementation schedule. The lack of consistent standards and rules between jurisdictions
using the RCV method of voting results in the need to create customized programs for each
jurisdiction causing higher development costs for equipment vendors. In addition, different election
rules adopted by cities within the same county-wide system may complicate the certification process.
The current state certified voting equipment is the M-100 Vote Tabulator Ballot Counter which
would be able to count the first column of an RCV ballot, but a hand-counting sorting process
would be required if no candidate received over 50% of the votes. The AutoMARK is a ballot
marking device certified by the State and required by Federal law which assists voters with disabilities
to mark their ballots privately and independently. Both the AutoMARK and M-100 Ballot
Counters cannot prevent or recognize voter errors specific to Ranked Choice Voting. Voters would
need to pay special attention to avoid making some mistakes specific to RCV that the machines
cannot detect. Those errors include:
• Marking the same candidate in more than one column of an office.
• Skipping a column between ranked candidates.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
Minneapolis 2009 Rank Choice Voting Election
In 2006 the Minneapolis City Council gave final approval by a 12-1 vote to put the Instant Runoff
Voting charter amendment on the November ballot. Minneapolis officially adopted Ranked Choice
Voting as the name of the voting method to more accurately reflect the process voters use to rank
candidates. In addition, “ranked choice” did not imply “instant” results from the process.
Attached to this report is the Minneapolis timeline of events from implementation through final
certified results, citywide statistics, staffing, and method of rules used for RCV.
Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling
In June 2009 the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the new voting method brought
by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, which questioned the constitutionality of having voters rank
candidates in the order they prefer them. In its ruling, the Court explained that, “Every voter has
the same opportunity to rank candidates when she casts her ballot, and in each round every voter’s
vote carries the same value” under the Minneapolis RCV ordinance. Chief Justice Magnuson
stressed in the opinion, “The voters of Minneapolis chose to adopt the IRV method.” The Court
held that Minneapolis’s ordinance was not unconstitutional on its face. There has not been a court
challenge to the ordinance as applied.
Previous St. Louis Park Municipal Election Results
Staff conducted research of the past 30 years of election results. Attached to this report is a chart
showing Municipal Primary and General Election winning candidate vote percentages and total
candidates running for that office. Statistics from this research are as follows:
• 6 Municipal Primary Elections were required since 1979
9 5 of the Primary Elections involved voters in one ward (total of 4 precincts)
9 1 Primary Election involved voters in two wards (8 precincts)
9 City Primary Elections cost approximately $1,000 per precinct
• Since 1979 only 1 Primary Election candidate won with less than 50% (actual was 48%)
• Since 1979 Mayoral candidates ran unopposed 7 out of 11 elections
• Since 1979 - out of 56 elected City Council candidates, 27 ran unopposed
Using RCV voting for St. Louis Park would require the following:
• Charter amendment
• Determination of specific rules
• Ordinance adoption
• Education to voters, election judges, and city election staff
• Additional staff including possible consultant
• Additional Election judges for hand counting and additional Healthcare Absentee Judges for
the 5 St. Louis Park Healthcare facilities voters.
• Additional staff time including the days after the election inspecting & duplicating ballots,
counting all write ins from each column, and hand counting all offices where there is no 1st
round winner
• Additional costs to implement including voting equipment, programming, special ballot
layout and additional staff.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
Other RCV Jurisdictions
The Ranked Choice Voting method has been adopted in a number of U.S. cities, with several of
these adoptions pending implementation. Examples of jurisdictions involved with RCV include,
but are not limited to, the following:
• St. Paul, Minnesota – Voters submitted petition in 2008. In 2009 voters passed a charter
amendment with 52% of the vote to adopt for future elections for mayor and city council.
St. Paul/Ramsey County is currently testing different ways to implement and due to the
need to start focusing on this year’s elections, everything is on hold until next spring.
• Duluth, Minnesota – citizens are working to put RCV on the ballot for municipal
elections
• San Francisco, California - since 2002.
• Berkeley, California passed in 2004; still pending, plan to use November 2010
• Cary, North Carolina - in 2007 used pilot program, never put to a vote.
• Hendersonville, North Carolina - in 2009 used pilot program but election results did not
require runoff method.
• Takoma Park, Maryland - since 2007 but provisions never used because candidate won in
first round in 2007 and candidate ran unopposed in 2009.
• Aspen, Colorado since May 2009, implementation pending voters’ decision in November
2010.
• Burlington, Vermont - since 2005, repealed by voters March 2010.
• Pierce County, Washington - since 2006, repealed by voters November 2009.
Various Supporting and Opposing Opinions on Ranked Choice Voting
The following statements supporting or opposing Ranked Choice Voting are from a variety of
sources including but not limited to the following: League of Women Voters 2004 Alternative
Voting Systems Facts and Issues, Star Tribune articles, FairVote Minnesota, MinnPost articles,
TwinCities.com, Twin Cities Daily Planet, St. Paul Pioneer Press articles, Ranked Choice Voting
Issues Group Legislative and Rules Committee 2008 Report, Instant Runoff Voting - Facts vs
Fiction website, Hamline University IRV in a Nutshell 2009 Report, and MN House of
Representatives Research Department 2007 Information Brief.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
14 Opinions Supporting RCV:
1. Maximizes voter participation and available choices of candidates.
2. Brings the most voters together with the most candidates to choose from at the same
election.
3. Eliminates the cost of the Primary Elections.
4. Eliminates low-turnout Primaries.
5. Provides results that better reflect the voters’ intent.
6. Produces a majority winner.
7. Ensures that candidates will not be disqualified in primary elections who may otherwise
win in a high turnout general election.
8. Votes cast for the least popular candidate are not "wasted", but rather redistributed to
more popular candidates, based on the voters' other ranked choices.
9. Assures fairer and more accurate representation of the voters.
10. Empowers voters to vote sincerely without being concerned about wasting their vote.
11. Allows candidates to run on their issues and get an accurate tally of support.
12. Reduces influence of money in politics and campaigns.
13. Could lead to more informative and positive campaigns.
14. More democratic because more candidates have a chance to run.
14 Opinions Opposing RCV:
1. Benefit of a Primary is that voters gain the choice between quality candidates in the
general election rather than merely multiple candidates.
2. Statistics indicate the disadvantaged may be disenfranchised by the complexity of the
process.
3. Produces a “false majority” when each runoff round tends to have a slightly smaller pool
of votes, and the majority of the votes counted in the final round are not the majority of
all votes cast.
4. Appellants argue that the RCV methodology violates their right to vote, right to political
association, and right to equal protection under one-person, one-vote principles.
5. With no certified equipment there is more chance for human error with hand counting
ballots multiple times for each round.
6. Additional costs involved with hand-counting, programming, special ballot layout.
7. Additional election staff needed, additional staff time involved.
8. Difficulty of administration.
9. A system that is confusing and adds more problems than it solves.
10. More spoiled ballots and voter errors.
11. Complexity may cause lower voter turnout.
12. More likely to make a tie or near-tie election recount extremely complex.
13. Making elections more susceptible to fraud since it cannot be sub-totaled at the precinct
level and must be centrally tabulated.
14. Does not meet mathematical requirement for monotonicity where voting for one’s
choice will help one’s candidate. Nonmonotonicity is the voting characteristic in which
voting for one’s choice may hurt one’s candidate’s chances of winning and may
encourage tactical voting.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City would save costs of a Primary Election (approximately $1,000 per precinct). Additional
costs would be involved to cover specific equipment, programming, specific ballot layout, and
additional staffing.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: City of Minneapolis Election timeline and statistics
Hennepin County Cities with Primary Elections
City of St. Louis Park Election statistics 1975-2009
City of Minneapolis RCV voter brochure
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
RANKED CHOICE VOTING ELECTION
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
March 2006 – Council Resolution creating IRV Task Force
May 9, 2006 – IRV Task Force final report to the City Council
May 23, 2009 – Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee proposes ordinance amendment
May 26, 2006 – Council refers ordinance amendment to Charter Commission
June 7, 2006 – Charter Commission rejects proposed ordinance amendment allowing IRV
June15, 2006 – Council refers proposed ordinance amendment to IGR & Elections Committee
June 30, 2006 – Council approves proposed amendments and refers to Charter Commission
July 2006 – IRV Report (1) to Elections Committee
August 2006 – Council approves ballot language
November 2006 – Minneapolis Charter Amendment passes with goal to implement IRV for the
next municipal election in November of 2009.
January 2007 – May 2009 – Ten IRV Implementation Updates
March 2008 – Presentation to Council
April 2008 – City Council approves next steps to implement IRV
May 2008 – RFP for RCV voting equipment
August 2008 – Deadline for vendors to respond to RFPO for RVC voting equipment
September 2008 – Elections staff report no vendor proposal met requirements, recommend using
combination of current equipment and hand count
June 2009 – Supreme Court Ruling rejecting constitutional challenge
October 2009 – Ordinance revisions
November 3, 2009 – Ranked Choice Voting Election Day
December 4, 2009 – RESULTS CERTIFIED
For single-seat offices:
• 20 offices: Mayor, 13 Council Members, and 6 District Park Commissioners
• The winning candidates for all offices were also the top vote-getters in the first round
• 16 of 20 offices decided in one round
• 19 out of 20 winning candidates surpassed threshold
• 4 offices decided in two rounds
• Council Wards 4 & 5 and Park District 6: The winning candidates surpassed threshold
in second round
• Park and Recreation District 5: The winning candidate won as the highest vote-getter of
the last two candidates remaining, but did not surpass threshold
• Looking at each race with 3 or more candidates
o At least 1/3 of voters did not rank their choices in the race (i.e. only marked one
choice in that race)
o At least 1/3 of voters ranked more than one choice in the race (i.e. marked two or
three choices)
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
MINNEAPOLIS CITYWIDE ELECTION STATISTICS
(13 Wards, 131 Precincts)
Pre-Registered
Voters
Same Day Voter
Registrations
Spoiled
Ballots
Voter Error
Ballots
Total
Ballots Cast
231,078 2,950 1,888 2,958 45,968
Pre-Registered Voters: the number of voters pre-registered at 7 am on Election Day
Same Day Voter Registrations: the number of voters who registered on Election Day
Spoiled Ballots: In the polling place, if a voter makes an error, the voter can return the spoiled
ballot to an election judge and receive a new ballot. This number is not included in Total Ballots
Cast because the voter received a new ballot.
Voter Error Ballots: Ballots with voter errors specific to Ranked Choice Voting include repeat
ranking of the same candidate, skipped ranking before or between ranked candidates, and overvotes
within a column. This number is included in the Total Ballots Cast.
Total Ballots Cast: includes both absentee ballots and in-person ballots
Minneapolis RCV Election Staffing
Administration, Outreach & Evaluation
• Interim Director, 4 full-time staff, 8 Seasonal staff
• Contract: RCV Outreach Coordinator
• Contract: Impartial Survey of Voters, Candidates and Election Judges
Election Day and Health Care Facilities Absentee Voting
• Health Care Coordinator, 16 Healthcare Election Judges
• 15 Precinct Support Judges/262 Chair and Assistant Chair Judges/1,200 Team
Judges/108 student Judges
Handcount
• Sort & Count Manager and crew of 5 plus 240 sort/counters (90+ per day)
• Human Resource Manager and crew of 2
• Supply Manager and crew of 6
• Data Entry & Analysis Manager and 10-12 staff per day
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
Minneapolis Ranked Choice Voting Voter Error Rules
In a Ranked Choice Voting Election, each city determines its own individual rules for dealing with
“voter errors” specific to Ranked Choice Voting. The following is a sampling from the adopted rules
in Minneapolis regarding voter errors:
No more than one selection per column - You do not want to have more than one selection in
any one vertical column. If you do, you’ve given the same ranking to two candidates. If that
happens in your first choice column, none of your selections will count. If you do it in your second
or third choice columns, only the choices before the column where there’s a duplicated ranking will
count. This is the one error that will be flagged when ballots are inserted into scanners, and election
judges will offer a new ballot if the voter wants to correct their ballot.
No more than one selection per row - You also do not want to make more than one selection in
any one horizontal row. That means you’re casting multiple choices for the same candidate. Your
vote will still be counted, but only once. The voter will have forfeited the ability to make a backup
selection if the first-choice candidate is eliminated from the running.
What happens if the voter skips a choice? - If it’s just your first or second choice, your lower-
ranking selection will move up one notch from second to first and third to second. But if you skip
both your first and second choices, your third choice won’t count.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
HENNEPIN COUNTY CITIES WITH MUNICIPAL PRIMARY ELECTIONS
AND ODD OR EVEN ELECTION YEARS
CITY
PP = City requires POSSIBLE
PRIMARIES if needed
GO = General Elections Only
(city has no primaries)
Odd or Even
City Election Year
Bloomington PP ODD
Minnetonka PP ODD
St. Louis Park PP ODD
Brooklyn Center PP EVEN
Brooklyn Park PP EVEN
Crystal PP EVEN
Dayton PP EVEN
Richfield PP EVEN
Robbinsdale PP EVEN
Rogers PP EVEN
Champlin GO EVEN
Chanhassen GO EVEN
Corcoran GO EVEN
Deephaven GO EVEN
Eden Prairie GO EVEN
Edina GO EVEN
Excelsior GO EVEN
Golden Valley GO ODD
Greenfield GO EVEN
Greenwood GO EVEN
Hanover GO EVEN
Hasson Twp GO EVEN
Hopkins GO ODD
Long Lake GO EVEN
Loretto GO EVEN
Maple Grove GO EVEN
Maple Plain GO EVEN
Medicine Lake GO EVEN
Medina GO EVEN
Minneapolis GO ODD
Minnetonka Beach GO EVEN
Minnetrista GO EVEN
Mound GO EVEN
New Hope GO EVEN
Orono GO EVEN
Osseo GO ODD
Plymouth GO EVEN
Rockford GO EVEN
Shorewood GO EVEN
Spring Park GO EVEN
St. Anthony GO ODD
Tonka Bay GO EVEN
Wayzata GO EVEN
Woodland GO EVEN
ST. LOUIS PARK PRIMARY ELECTIONS2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997 1995 1993 1991 1989 1987 1985 1983 1981 1979MAYORMAYOR Winning Candidate %65%# of Candidates3COUNCILWARD 1 Winning Candidate %58%# of Candidates3WARD 2 Winning Candidate %# of CandidatesWARD 3 Winning Candidate %48%# of Candidates3WARD 4 Winning Candidate %55%59%# of Candidates 33At Large A Winning Candidate %# of CandidatesAt Large B Winning Candidate %61%57%# of Candidates33ST. LOUIS PARK GENERAL ELECTIONS2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997 1995 1993 1991 1989 1987 1985 1983 1981 1979MAYORMAYOR Winning Candidate %97%97%98%68%96%98%70% 99% 55% # of Candidates1112112 1 2COUNCILWARD 1 Winning Candidate %94%55%95%96% 69% 75%98%68%74% # of Candidates1211 2 2122WARD 2 Winning Candidate %59%98% 98% 95%73%96%99%99% 53%99% # of Candidates21 1 12111 21WARD 3 Winning Candidate %92%59%97% 98% 96%52%98%100%54% # of Candidates121 1 12112WARD 4 Winning Candidate %56%66%77%96%59%98%99% 56%56% # of Candidates2221211 22At Large A Winning Candidate %97%54%98%76%97%71% 99% 58% 99% 68% # of Candidates1211121212At Large B Winning Candidate %98%59%59%75%61% 52% 99% # of Candidates12212 2 1Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Ranked Choice VotingPage 11
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting Page 12
Meeting Date: April 26, 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:
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: April 26, 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:
March, 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 March, actual expenditures should generally run about 25% of the annual budget.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 23.2% of the adopted budget and the Park
and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 22.8%. Both are consistent when comparing the prior year
expenditures through March. 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 46% of budget through the month of March. 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 permit revenue
through March, it is at 26% of budget. This is slightly higher than 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 April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: March 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Expenditures:
• The Human Resources budget for Services & Other Charges is at 30%. 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 34% of the Supplies budget through March, which
includes $142,000 spent for road salt. This compares to approximately $101,000 expended
for salt last year at this time. Staff will monitor this area closely going 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 will be allocated to the EDA.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation budget for Services and Other Charges is at 53% of budget. This
is because the full 2010 Community Education contribution in the amount of $187,000 was
paid to the School District in January, which is consistent with prior years.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being stewards
of financial resources.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:06:10R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,889,605.00-14,889,605.00-|14,653,275.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,294,768.00- 244,572.28- 1,065,367.87- 1,229,400.13- 46.43 |2,515,000.00-913,351.68- 36.32
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,750.00- 28,135.39- 52,445.95- 259,304.05- 16.82 |312,000.00-67,551.90- 21.65
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,598,787.00- 42,567.12- 345,208.72- 1,253,578.28- 21.59 |1,647,214.00-352,601.43- 21.41
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,138,018.00- 29,785.15- 104,729.48- 1,033,288.52-9.20 |1,201,900.00-135,268.68- 11.25
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-8,597.33- 31,536.77- 68,463.23- 31.54 |100,000.00-26,464.41- 26.46
4001 REVENUES 20,332,928.00-353,657.27-1,599,288.79-18,733,639.21-7.87 |20,429,389.00-1,495,238.10-7.32
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,132,004.00 1,414,515.82 4,344,229.28 13,787,774.72 23.96 |18,496,154.00 4,560,284.36 24.66
6210 SUPPLIES 846,535.00 61,282.20 202,749.65 643,785.35 23.95 |766,135.00 165,030.34 21.54
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 67,775.00 7,598.73 15,833.37 51,941.63 23.36 |70,775.00 12,485.91 17.64
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,922,858.00 305,876.33 760,073.31 3,162,784.69 19.38 |4,160,215.00 858,885.09 20.65
6001 EXPENDITURES 22,969,172.00 1,789,273.08 5,322,885.61 17,646,286.39 23.17 |23,493,279.00 5,596,685.70 23.82
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 645,956.22- 1,937,868.78- 25.00 |2,678,910.00-657,227.46- 24.53
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-6,276.18 1,754.90 3,254.90- 116.99- |2,000.00-571.15- 28.56
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-41,058.25- 11.73
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 203.00-478.00-478.00 |150.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE 100.00-100.00-|167.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,785,425.00-209,245.56-582,931.89-2,202,493.11-20.93 |3,030,910.00-699,174.36-23.07
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,181.00 181,181.00 |181,000.00 34.63 .02
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 2,101.95 4,205.81 14,794.19 22.14 |19,000.00 4,959.02 26.10
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,181.00 2,101.95 4,205.81 195,975.19 2.10 |200,000.00 4,994.36 2.50
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 51,000.00 1,228,472.20 3,144,870.74 3,093,870.74-6,166.41 |232,980.00 3,407,267.60 1,462.47
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 1,228,472.20 3,144,870.74 3,093,870.74-6,166.41 |232,980.00 3,407,267.60 1,462.47
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 3
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:06:10R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,014,872.00-4,014,872.00-|4,073,118.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-275.00-330.00-5,945.00-5.26 |2,600.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 71,219.00-3,870.37- 6,319.46- 64,899.54-8.87 |55,702.00-999.44- 1.79
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,073,900.00- 92,681.15- 149,995.23- 923,904.77- 13.97 |1,141,598.00-138,407.17- 12.12
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 906,900.00- 125,150.65- 135,131.04- 771,768.96- 14.90 |883,000.00-106,784.51- 12.09
4001 REVENUES 6,073,166.00-221,977.17-291,775.73-5,781,390.27-4.80 |6,153,418.00-248,791.12-4.04
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,440,416.00 233,668.72 734,694.36 2,705,721.64 21.35 |3,503,813.00 779,734.38 22.25
6210 SUPPLIES 906,881.00 39,194.52 116,279.17 790,601.83 12.82 |872,131.00 150,255.68 17.23
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00 3,909.36 94.89
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,712,749.00 119,788.17 531,005.77 1,181,743.23 31.00 |1,703,002.00 490,670.17 28.81
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |15,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,071,166.00 392,651.41 1,381,979.30 4,689,186.70 22.76 |6,098,418.00 1,424,569.59 23.36
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,000.00-1,385.00- 2,085.00- 10,915.00- 16.04 |12,000.00-1,500.00- 12.50
8200 MISC REVENUE 340.00- 5,440.00-5,440.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 13,000.00-1,725.00-7,525.00-5,475.00-57.88 |12,000.00-2,260.08-18.83
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 10.08-39.00 39.00-|6.98
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,696.49 3,862.47 11,137.53 25.75 |3,264.46
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,686.41 3,901.47 11,098.53 26.01 |3,271.44
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 170,635.65 1,086,580.04 1,086,580.04-|67,000.00-1,176,789.83 1,756.40-
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 170,635.65 1,086,580.04 1,086,580.04-|67,000.00-1,176,789.83 1,756.40-
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 4
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
100 GENERAL
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,889,605.00-14,889,605.00-|14,653,275.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-45,205.00-|45,205.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 24.00-62.24-62.24 |143.56-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 21,403.66- 63,596.34- 25.18 |85,000.00-21,368.55- 25.14
4001 REVENUES 15,019,810.00-7,107.33-21,465.90-14,998,344.10-.14 |14,783,480.00-21,512.11-.15
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,600.00 3,600.00-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,600.00 3,600.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 645,956.22- 1,937,868.78- 25.00 |2,678,910.00-657,227.46- 24.53
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-41,058.25- 11.73
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,783,825.00-215,318.74-584,208.79-2,199,616.21-20.99 |3,028,910.00-698,285.71-23.05
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |672.81
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00 672.81 .37
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 17,622,954.00-222,426.07-602,074.69-17,020,879.31-3.42 |17,632,390.00-719,125.01-4.08
100 GENERAL 17,622,954.00-222,426.07-602,074.69-17,020,879.31-3.42 |17,632,390.00-719,125.01-4.08
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 5
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
110 ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 183,360.00- 10,266.67- 188,031.67-4,671.67 102.55 |215,500.00-152,260.00- 70.65
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |947.30-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 139.23-175.86-175.86 |97.00-
4001 REVENUES 191,360.00-10,405.90-188,207.53-3,152.47-98.35 |223,500.00-153,304.30-68.59
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 444,400.00 39,924.09 124,060.40 320,339.60 27.92 |531,500.00 149,641.04 28.15
6210 SUPPLIES 3,100.00 90.79 294.43 2,805.57 9.50 |3,700.00 566.46 15.31
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 476,972.00 26,676.97 92,138.31 384,833.69 19.32 |455,635.00 105,251.59 23.10
6001 EXPENDITURES 924,472.00 66,691.85 216,493.14 707,978.86 23.42 |990,835.00 255,459.09 25.78
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |167.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME |167.50-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |.71
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 733,112.00 56,285.95 28,285.61 704,826.39 3.86 |767,335.00 101,988.00 13.29
110 ADMINISTRATION 733,112.00 56,285.95 28,285.61 704,826.39 3.86 |767,335.00 101,988.00 13.29
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 6
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 FINANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 48,318.00-4,026.50- 44,291.50-8.33 |50,000.00-7,818.50- 15.64
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-4,026.50-44,291.50-8.33 |50,000.00-7,818.50-15.64
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 920,800.00 79,806.21 243,398.12 677,401.88 26.43 |937,200.00 285,752.41 30.49
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 52.10 596.08 3,628.92 14.11 |4,225.00 613.05 14.51
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 152,905.00 9,018.79 27,765.55 125,139.45 18.16 |162,555.00 26,323.03 16.19
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,077,930.00 88,877.10 271,759.75 806,170.25 25.21 |1,103,980.00 312,688.49 28.32
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 25.00-300.00-300.00 |150.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 25.00-300.00-300.00 |150.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00 2.39- .48-
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 500.00 |500.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 2.39-.24-
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,030,612.00 88,852.10 267,433.25 763,178.75 25.95 |1,054,980.00 304,717.60 28.88
120 FINANCE 1,030,612.00 88,852.10 267,433.25 763,178.75 25.95 |1,054,980.00 304,717.60 28.88
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 7
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
130 HUMAN RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 9,000.00-8,403.00-597.00- 93.37 |9,000.00-5,051.00- 56.12
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 264.00-264.00-264.00 |
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-264.00-8,667.00-333.00-96.30 |9,000.00-5,051.00-56.12
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 482,400.00 37,328.14 114,202.71 368,197.29 23.67 |481,000.00 116,518.46 24.22
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 53.62 166.56 1,833.44 8.33 |2,000.00 412.93 20.65
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 2,081.18 48,810.06 111,739.94 30.40 |160,550.00 54,170.56 33.74
6001 EXPENDITURES 644,950.00 39,462.94 163,179.33 481,770.67 25.30 |643,550.00 171,101.95 26.59
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 635,950.00 39,198.94 154,512.33 481,437.67 24.30 |634,550.00 166,050.95 26.17
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 635,950.00 39,198.94 154,512.33 481,437.67 24.30 |634,550.00 166,050.95 26.17
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 8
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 9,000.00-900.00- 1,860.00-7,140.00- 20.67 |12,000.00-1,625.00- 13.54
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 594,000.00-2,962.42- 56,610.88- 537,389.12-9.53 |585,000.00-106,083.77- 18.13
4001 REVENUES 603,000.00-3,862.42-58,470.88-544,529.12-9.70 |597,000.00-107,708.77-18.04
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,001,700.00 110,181.78 330,249.85 671,450.15 32.97 |1,023,000.00 330,347.47 32.29
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 112.99 1,587.01 6.65 |3,000.00 160.50 5.35
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 47,750.00 1,277.42 1,543.52 46,206.48 3.23 |56,750.00 7,269.01 12.81
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,051,150.00 111,459.20 331,906.36 719,243.64 31.58 |1,083,750.00 337,776.98 31.17
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 448,150.00 107,596.78 273,435.48 174,714.52 61.01 |486,750.00 230,068.21 47.27
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 448,150.00 107,596.78 273,435.48 174,714.52 61.01 |486,750.00 230,068.21 47.27
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 9
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 43,000.00- 17,250.00- 17,250.00- 25,750.00- 40.12 |8,200.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,250.00- 5,000.00- 10,000.00- 33.33 |15,000.00-5,000.00- 33.33
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-18,500.00-22,250.00-35,750.00-38.36 |23,200.00-5,000.00-21.55
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 546,200.00 39,997.54 124,712.94 421,487.06 22.83 |534,000.00 119,683.55 22.41
6210 SUPPLIES 86,150.00 5,949.02 12,166.83 73,983.17 14.12 |90,500.00 6,953.67 7.68
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 3,837.73 3,837.73 22,162.27 14.76 |26,000.00 3,599.81 13.85
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 423,392.00 51,002.72 89,842.47 333,549.53 21.22 |502,942.00 114,867.49 22.84
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,081,742.00 100,787.01 230,559.97 851,182.03 21.31 |1,153,442.00 245,104.52 21.25
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |37.02
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 20.00 20.00 20.00-|3.07
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 20.00 20.00 20.00-|40.09
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,023,742.00 82,307.01 208,329.97 815,412.03 20.35 |1,130,242.00 240,144.61 21.25
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,023,742.00 82,307.01 208,329.97 815,412.03 20.35 |1,130,242.00 240,144.61 21.25
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 10
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 516,850.00 46,009.15 139,977.31 376,872.69 27.08 |562,500.00 161,926.35 28.79
6210 SUPPLIES 23,500.00 1,853.63 6,444.23 17,055.77 27.42 |30,800.00 3,371.53 10.95
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 28.95 28.95 28.95-|2,931.46
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,316.00 113,149.87 220,608.65 639,707.35 25.64 |877,970.00 191,707.25 21.84
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,400,666.00 161,041.60 367,059.14 1,033,606.86 26.21 |1,471,270.00 359,936.59 24.46
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 34.90 34.90-|9.83
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 34.90 34.90-|9.83
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,400,666.00 161,041.60 367,094.04 1,033,571.96 26.21 |1,471,270.00 359,946.42 24.47
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,400,666.00 161,041.60 367,094.04 1,033,571.96 26.21 |1,471,270.00 359,946.42 24.47
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 11
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,000.00-3,000.00-|3,000.00-
4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-3,000.00-|3,000.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 188,280.00 9,274.74 29,251.97 159,028.03 15.54 |184,980.00 24,934.79 13.48
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 93,525.00 5,920.00 87,605.00 6.33 |104,245.00 38,298.35 36.74
6001 EXPENDITURES 281,905.00 9,274.74 35,171.97 246,733.03 12.48 |289,225.00 63,233.14 21.86
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 278,905.00 9,274.74 35,171.97 243,733.03 12.61 |286,225.00 63,233.14 22.09
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 278,905.00 9,274.74 35,171.97 243,733.03 12.61 |286,225.00 63,233.14 22.09
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 12
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
160 POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 28,110.39- 52,306.52- 251,193.48- 17.23 |303,500.00-67,551.90- 22.26
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 800,582.00- 34,327.30- 96,055.90- 704,526.10- 12.00 |809,009.00-123,321.13- 15.24
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-8,999.50- 15,909.00- 93,791.00- 14.50 |109,700.00-14,622.85- 13.33
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 4,869.11-4,869.11 |
4001 REVENUES 1,213,782.00-71,437.19-169,140.53-1,044,641.47-13.94 |1,222,209.00-205,495.88-16.81
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,609,294.00 499,669.65 1,524,319.33 5,084,974.67 23.06 |6,546,794.00 1,571,992.64 24.01
6210 SUPPLIES 141,050.00 6,172.31 13,528.38 127,521.62 9.59 |150,900.00 18,444.13 12.22
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,775.00 3,732.05 9,366.69 24,408.31 27.73 |35,775.00 4,163.71 11.64
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 521,783.00 30,372.58 86,333.71 435,449.29 16.55 |547,053.00 105,001.23 19.19
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,305,902.00 539,946.59 1,633,548.11 5,672,353.89 22.36 |7,280,522.00 1,699,601.71 23.34
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-6,276.18 1,754.90 3,254.90- 116.99- |2,000.00-571.15- 28.56
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-6,276.18 1,754.90 3,254.90-116.99-|2,000.00-571.15-28.56
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 19.29 58.68 441.32 11.74 |500.00 57.50 11.50
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 500.00 19.29 58.68 441.32 11.74 |1,000.00 57.50 5.75
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,091,120.00 474,804.87 1,466,221.16 4,624,898.84 24.07 |6,057,313.00 1,493,592.18 24.66
160 POLICE 6,091,120.00 474,804.87 1,466,221.16 4,624,898.84 24.07 |6,057,313.00 1,493,592.18 24.66
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 13
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,700.00 5,950.50 18,148.76 58,551.24 23.66 |76,500.00 18,468.80 24.14
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 264.98 8,440.02 3.04 |8,705.00 318.96 3.66
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,255.00 5,950.50 18,413.74 67,841.26 21.35 |86,055.00 18,787.76 21.83
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,255.00 5,950.50 18,413.74 67,841.26 21.35 |86,055.00 18,787.76 21.83
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,255.00 5,950.50 18,413.74 67,841.26 21.35 |86,055.00 18,787.76 21.83
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 14
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-4,915.13- 9,880.80- 30,119.20- 24.70 |50,000.00-9,407.77- 18.82
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-8,239.82- 8,239.82- 291,760.18-2.75 |300,000.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-240.00-780.00-3,220.00- 19.50 |4,000.00-1,310.00- 32.75
4001 REVENUES 344,000.00-13,394.95-18,900.62-325,099.38-5.49 |354,000.00-10,717.77-3.03
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,826,180.00 206,493.32 642,111.81 2,184,068.19 22.72 |2,815,680.00 653,218.61 23.20
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 1,133.11 3,304.57 68,505.43 4.60 |71,810.00 6,490.71 9.04
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 2,600.00 2,400.00 52.00 |5,000.00 1,790.93 35.82
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 219,183.00 11,242.01 30,221.65 188,961.35 13.79 |224,183.00 38,544.85 17.19
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,122,173.00 218,868.44 678,238.03 2,443,934.97 21.72 |3,116,673.00 700,045.10 22.46
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 178.00-178.00-178.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 178.00-178.00-178.00 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,778,173.00 205,295.49 659,159.41 2,119,013.59 23.73 |2,762,673.00 689,327.33 24.95
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,778,173.00 205,295.49 659,159.41 2,119,013.59 23.73 |2,762,673.00 689,327.33 24.95
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 15
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,987,288.00- 226,360.48- 853,365.40- 1,133,922.60- 42.94 |2,162,500.00-738,278.91- 34.14
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 120.00-162.00-162.00 |142.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |95.86-
4001 REVENUES 1,987,288.00-226,480.48-853,527.40-1,133,760.60-42.95 |2,162,500.00-738,516.77-34.15
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,713,100.00 126,260.67 382,751.07 1,330,348.93 22.34 |1,915,500.00 442,136.11 23.08
6210 SUPPLIES 21,500.00 1,822.57 2,046.03 19,453.97 9.52 |22,300.00 3,927.72 17.61
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 63,627.00 7,517.77 16,745.32 46,881.68 26.32 |71,627.00 10,704.16 14.94
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,798,227.00 135,601.01 401,542.42 1,396,684.58 22.33 |2,009,427.00 456,767.99 22.73
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 2,062.66 4,092.23 13,907.77 22.73 |18,000.00 4,215.81 23.42
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 2,062.66 4,092.23 13,907.77 22.73 |18,000.00 4,215.81 23.42
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 171,161.00-88,816.81-447,892.75-276,731.75 261.68 |135,073.00-277,532.97-205.47
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 171,161.00-88,816.81-447,892.75-276,731.75 261.68 |135,073.00-277,532.97-205.47
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 16
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 825,800.00 67,836.34 208,620.93 617,179.07 25.26 |826,500.00 208,300.33 25.20
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 31.57 299.84 3,700.16 7.50 |4,500.00 427.86 9.51
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 24,100.00 279.50 1,008.98 23,091.02 4.19 |22,950.00 2,235.60 9.74
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,900.00 68,147.41 209,929.75 644,970.25 24.56 |854,950.00 210,963.79 24.68
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,900.00 68,147.41 209,929.75 644,970.25 24.56 |854,950.00 210,963.79 24.68
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,900.00 68,147.41 209,929.75 644,970.25 24.56 |854,950.00 210,963.79 24.68
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 17
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-2,100.00- 12,200.00- 62,800.00- 16.27 |75,000.00-11,750.00- 15.67
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-50.00- 1,350.00- 328,650.00-.41 |436,000.00-
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-2,150.00-13,550.00-391,450.00-3.35 |511,000.00-11,750.00-2.30
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 750,000.00 53,689.84 163,778.69 586,221.31 21.84 |844,000.00 167,416.14 19.84
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 191.12 345.46 6,704.54 4.90 |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 3,294.12 7,496.84 63,253.16 10.60 |70,750.00 7,618.99 10.77
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,800.00 57,175.08 171,620.99 658,179.01 20.68 |923,800.00 175,088.50 18.95
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 424,800.00 55,025.08 158,070.99 266,729.01 37.21 |412,800.00 163,338.50 39.57
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 424,800.00 55,025.08 158,070.99 266,729.01 37.21 |412,800.00 163,338.50 39.57
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 18
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 120.00-30.00-30.00-90.00- 25.00 |30.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 250.00-25.00-139.43-110.57- 55.77 |500.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-240,913.00- 209,087.00- 53.54 |490,000.00-228,333.00- 46.60
4001 REVENUES 450,370.00-55.00-241,082.43-209,287.57-53.53 |490,500.00-228,363.00-46.56
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,230,300.00 92,093.85 298,645.39 931,654.61 24.27 |1,217,000.00 309,947.66 25.47
6210 SUPPLIES 479,500.00 43,932.36 163,444.25 316,055.75 34.09 |374,500.00 123,608.41 33.01
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 799,300.00 49,963.40 127,773.27 671,526.73 15.99 |894,300.00 156,574.02 17.51
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,509,100.00 185,989.61 589,862.91 1,919,237.09 23.51 |2,485,800.00 590,130.09 23.74
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,058,730.00 185,934.61 348,780.48 1,709,949.52 16.94 |1,995,300.00 361,767.09 18.13
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,058,730.00 185,934.61 348,780.48 1,709,949.52 16.94 |1,995,300.00 361,767.09 18.13
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 1,228,472.20 3,144,870.74 3,093,870.74-6,166.41 |232,980.00 3,407,267.60 1,462.47
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 19
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,014,872.00-4,014,872.00-|4,073,118.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-44,702.00-|44,702.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 261,000.00- 27,779.94- 58,782.20- 202,217.80- 22.52 |259,298.00-60,951.87- 23.51
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-1,533.00- 3,163.00- 28,237.00- 10.07 |34,000.00-290.00 .85-
4001 REVENUES 4,351,974.00-29,312.94-61,945.20-4,290,028.80-1.42 |4,411,118.00-60,661.87-1.38
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 715,280.00 47,380.78 153,047.19 562,232.81 21.40 |729,162.00 169,152.33 23.20
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 2,745.65 4,800.60 54,650.40 8.07 |59,451.00 7,849.76 13.20
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,677.00 26,551.06 240,268.47 215,408.53 52.73 |502,597.00 241,315.10 48.01
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,230,408.00 76,677.49 398,116.26 832,291.74 32.36 |1,291,210.00 418,317.19 32.40
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-350.00- 14,650.00-2.33 |14,000.00-1,500.00- 10.71
8200 MISC REVENUE 340.00- 5,440.00-5,440.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-340.00-5,790.00-9,210.00-38.60 |14,000.00-2,260.08-16.14
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 10.08-39.00 39.00-|3.79
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,594.70 3,710.48 11,289.52 24.74 |3,095.25
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,584.62 3,749.48 11,250.52 25.00 |3,099.04
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,121,566.00-48,609.17 334,130.54 3,455,696.54-10.70-|3,133,908.00-358,494.28 11.44-
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,121,566.00-48,609.17 334,130.54 3,455,696.54-10.70-|3,133,908.00-358,494.28 11.44-
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 20
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
201 RECREATION CENTER
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 630,000.00- 30,987.00- 50,394.56- 579,605.44-8.00 |679,000.00-41,568.95- 6.12
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 744,500.00- 108,332.23- 101,745.78- 642,754.22- 13.67 |722,000.00-71,350.07- 9.88
4001 REVENUES 1,374,500.00-139,319.23-152,140.34-1,222,359.66-11.07 |1,401,000.00-112,919.02-8.06
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 785,638.00 43,044.31 134,414.86 651,223.14 17.11 |792,467.00 145,307.51 18.34
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 2,811.51 19,784.54 150,565.46 11.61 |170,350.00 26,255.72 15.41
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 480,870.00 31,018.98 101,030.95 379,839.05 21.01 |491,950.00 85,722.73 17.43
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,436,858.00 76,874.80 255,230.35 1,181,627.65 17.76 |1,454,767.00 257,285.96 17.69
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |3.19
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |3.19
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 62,358.00 62,444.43-103,090.01 40,732.01-165.32 |53,767.00 144,370.13 268.51
201 RECREATION CENTER 62,358.00 62,444.43-103,090.01 40,732.01-165.32 |53,767.00 144,370.13 268.51
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 21
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
202 PARK MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-275.00-330.00-5,945.00-5.26 |2,600.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-10,500.00-|10,700.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30,000.00-6,876.00- 4,376.00- 25,624.00- 14.59 |26,000.00-9,427.18- 36.26
4001 REVENUES 46,775.00-7,151.00-4,706.00-42,069.00-10.06 |36,700.00-12,027.18-32.77
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 926,500.00 64,608.74 209,622.16 716,877.84 22.63 |969,400.00 219,247.53 22.62
6210 SUPPLIES 97,755.00 7,528.88 10,212.24 87,542.76 10.45 |93,555.00 18,484.34 19.76
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 22,416.01 66,615.15 294,724.85 18.44 |369,510.00 64,701.12 17.51
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,396,715.00 94,553.63 286,449.55 1,110,265.45 20.51 |1,443,585.00 306,321.38 21.22
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,349,940.00 87,402.63 281,743.55 1,068,196.45 20.87 |1,406,885.00 294,294.20 20.92
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,349,940.00 87,402.63 281,743.55 1,068,196.45 20.87 |1,406,885.00 294,294.20 20.92
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 22
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
203 WESTWOOD HILLS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,400.00- 23,618.50- 28,980.25- 57,419.75- 33.54 |82,600.00-26,097.29- 31.59
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 21.00-681.00-681.00 |82.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,400.00-23,639.50-29,661.25-56,738.75-34.33 |82,600.00-26,179.29-31.69
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 421,200.00 32,077.78 93,511.62 327,688.38 22.20 |420,586.00 97,508.85 23.18
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 724.74 1,677.72 25,322.28 6.21 |26,700.00 2,033.09 7.61
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 45,250.00 2,478.42 7,421.51 37,828.49 16.40 |44,500.00 7,765.53 17.45
6001 EXPENDITURES 493,450.00 35,280.94 102,610.85 390,839.15 20.79 |491,786.00 107,307.47 21.82
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 1,185.00- 1,535.00-1,535.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,185.00-1,535.00-1,535.00 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 101.79 151.99 151.99-|169.21
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 101.79 151.99 151.99-|169.21
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,050.00 10,558.23 71,566.59 335,483.41 17.58 |409,186.00 81,297.39 19.87
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,050.00 10,558.23 71,566.59 335,483.41 17.58 |409,186.00 81,297.39 19.87
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 23
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
204 ENVIRONMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,000.00- 10,295.71- 11,838.22- 74,161.78- 13.77 |110,000.00-668.29- .61
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |1,050.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,000.00-10,295.71-11,838.22-74,161.78-13.77 |110,000.00-1,718.29-1.56
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,648.00 8,378.25 25,561.69 83,086.31 23.53 |108,898.00 26,173.67 24.04
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 242.51 1,464.20 17,960.80 7.54 |19,425.00 1,106.14 5.69
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,470.00 23,381.20 76,116.86 147,353.14 34.06 |158,470.00 64,719.09 40.84
6001 EXPENDITURES 351,543.00 32,001.96 103,142.75 248,400.25 29.34 |286,793.00 91,998.90 32.08
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 200.00-200.00-2,200.00 10.00- |2,000.00
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 200.00-200.00-2,200.00 10.00-|2,000.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 267,543.00 21,506.25 91,104.53 176,438.47 34.05 |178,793.00 90,280.61 50.49
204 ENVIRONMENT 267,543.00 21,506.25 91,104.53 176,438.47 34.05 |178,793.00 90,280.61 50.49
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 24
4/21/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:08:43R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20103/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 26,517.00-3,870.37- 6,319.46- 20,197.54- 23.83 |11,000.00-999.44- 9.09
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |9,120.77-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 25,165.26- 75,834.74- 24.92 |101,000.00-25,165.26- 24.92
4001 REVENUES 127,517.00-12,258.79-31,484.72-96,032.28-24.69 |112,000.00-35,285.47-31.50
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,150.00 38,178.86 118,536.84 364,613.16 24.53 |483,300.00 122,344.49 25.31
6210 SUPPLIES 532,900.00 25,141.23 78,339.87 454,560.13 14.70 |502,650.00 94,526.63 18.81
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |20.97
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 146,142.00 13,942.50 39,552.83 106,589.17 27.06 |135,975.00 26,446.60 19.45
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |8,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,162,192.00 77,262.59 236,429.54 925,762.46 20.34 |1,130,277.00 243,338.69 21.53
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,034,675.00 65,003.80 204,944.82 829,730.18 19.81 |1,018,277.00 208,053.22 20.43
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,034,675.00 65,003.80 204,944.82 829,730.18 19.81 |1,018,277.00 208,053.22 20.43
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 170,635.65 1,086,580.04 1,086,580.04-|67,000.00-1,176,789.83 1,756.40-
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: March 2010 Financial Report Page 25
Meeting Date: April 26, 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:
First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2010).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is for information sharing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s portfolio is focused on shorter term cash flow needs, and investment in other longer term
securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s Investment
Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3) Return on investment. As in the
past several quarters, we saw a number of our investments turn over as calls came in on some of our
higher rate securities. There were nine investments called this quarter with rates ranging from 2% to
5%. However, coupled with several new securities that were purchased, the overall yield of our
portfolio remained stable compared to the 4th Quarter 2009. Our current portfolio yield is averaging
approximately 1.9%. Cities generally use a short horizon benchmark such as the two year Treasury
(1.02% at 3/31) or some similar measure for comparison.
It is always necessary to have a reasonable amount of cash available to cover the normal cash flow
needs for payroll and general operating expenses. A considerable amount of cash was needed in the
early part of 2010 for debt service payments, Pay-As-You-Go developer note payments, and
construction contractor payments for the MSC expansion project. As construction activity picks up
again this spring for Wooddale and Hwy 7 along with other street projects, it will continue to be
necessary to keep a larger amount of cash available for payments to vendors.
Our primary money market fund for investing available cash is the Minnesota Municipal Money
Market Fund, better known as the 4M Fund. This fund is governed and sponsored by the League of
Minnesota Cities and is customized specifically for public entities. While the 4M Fund has dropped
to an average yield of .07%, longer term investments that have been purchased raise the total
portfolio yield. Since commercial paper, which are unsecured notes that corporations and banks
issue for their short term financing needs, is no longer considered as secure as it once was, there are
very few options other than money markets to lock in safe, short-term investments for cash flow
purposes. Finance plans to come back to Council in 2010 to discuss opening a money market
account with the City’s local bank for increased interest earning potential that still adheres to the
City’s Investment Policy.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: First Quarter 2010 Investment Report
Many of our longer term purchases are callable agency bonds. These bonds are issued by
government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank or Fannie Mae, and are considered a very
safe investment. They typically have more reasonable interest rates for the final maturity date which
is in three to five years, but the issuer has the right to call the bond in three months to a year. This
effectively reduces the average life of our investments, since it is expected most of these securities to
be called if interest rates remain low. However, it is also imperative that sufficient liquidity is
available to be able to lock in higher rates once the economy begins to expand. This is another
reason to keep a portion of our portfolio in money market accounts.
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at March 31, 2010:
12/31/09 3/31/10
<1 Year 44%35%
1-2 Years 13%17%
2-3 Years 11%18%
>3 Years 32%31%
12/31/09 3/31/10
Money Markets $26,379,453 $17,374,921
Certificates of Deposit $488,597 $485,077
Municipal Debt $8,437,891 $12,582,558
Agency Bonds $28,053,905 $24,256,603
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City has a sound investment policy that brokers are required to follow with the goals of
preservation of capital, liquidity and return on investment. The policy is strictly followed in making
investment decisions to protect the City’s resources.
Attachments: Quarterly Investment Report
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
Investments
March 31, 2010
Institution Type Maturity
Yield to
Maturity Basis
Market Value
12/31/09
Market Value at
3/31/2010
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
4M Money Market 0.07%11,478,617 1,975,662 1,383
Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 7/6/2011 2.00% 2,000,000 2,032,500 2,032,500 40,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 05/20/2013 4.00% 1,000,000 1,012,100 1,004,140 40,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 7.19%49,395 3,551
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 6/30/2014 3.00% 1,000,000 1,009,860 1,007,240 30,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 2/19/2015 2.00% 1,500,000 1,504,215 30,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney Govt MM Fund 0.05%9,551,558 11,113,051 5,557
16,710,540
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 97,719 96,999 4,032
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 97,719 96,999 4,032
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 97,719 96,999 4,032
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/19/2010 4.25% 96,000 97,720 97,040 4,080
Wachovia/Wells Fargo CD 7/19/2010 4.25% 96,000 97,720 97,040 4,080
Wachovia/Wells Fargo FNMA 1/15/2015 2.00% 1,000,000 1,004,687 20,000
Wachovia/Wells Fargo FHLMC 1/29/2015 1.75% 1,000,000 1,005,694 17,500
Wachovia/Wells Fargo FNMA 2/24/2015 2.25% 2,000,000 1,986,120 45,000
Wachovia/Wells Fargo US Govt MM Fund 0.01%2,505,519 1,500,416 150
5,981,995
UBS/Paine Webber UBS Cashfund 0.01%2,785,718 2,785,787 279
Sterne, Agee Farmer Mac 1/14/2011 1.62% 1,055,900 1,045,370 1,034,520 17,106
Sterne, Agee Gov't Debt 9/26/2011 1.55% 964,160 968,050 974,460 14,944
Sterne, Agee FAMC 10/3/2011 2.10% 1,069,426 1,065,260 1,055,960 22,458
Sterne, Agee FHLB 12/9/2011 2.63% 1,024,946 1,044,020 1,042,110 26,956
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2012 2.80% 101,504 102,349 102,954 2,842
Sterne, Agee FHLB 7/23/2012 4.15% 1,034,230 1,027,520 1,015,660 42,910
Sterne, Agee FHLB 8/27/2012 5.05% 1,000,000 1,028,790 1,018,330 50,500
Sterne, Agee FHLB 08/27/2012 2.81% 1,058,750 1,030,050 1,019,130 29,709
Sterne, Agee FHLB 10/29/2012 4.03% 1,024,995 1,034,850 1,025,260 41,256
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 12/30/2012 2.45% 1,579,605 1,565,850 1,574,565 38,700
Sterne, Agee FNMA 1/18/2013 3.85% 1,004,210 1,028,640 1,023,600 38,662
Sterne, Agee FHLB 2/25/2013 3.65% 521,887 539,779 538,482 19,023
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 3/1/2013 2.03% 752,580 747,230 752,647 15,277
Sterne, Agee FNMA 03/18/2013 3.96% 1,000,000 1,041,910 1,044,640 39,600
Sterne, Agee FNMA 4/29/2013 3.60% 802,894 825,115 822,292 28,880
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2013 3.12% 307,584 309,399 310,548 9,597
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2013 3.16% 599,360 603,705 607,324 18,940
Sterne, Agee FNMA 5/28/2013 4.05% 999,000 1,060,390 1,061,910 40,460
Sterne, Agee FFCB 12/27/2013 2.20% 971,162 962,433 963,558 21,327
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 12/30/2013 2.95% 1,574,415 1,550,835 1,554,315 46,445
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 4/1/2014 2.53% 820,919 810,332 813,119 20,769
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2014 3.52% 720,475 724,521 725,057 25,361
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 6/1/2014 4.04% 1,003,740 1,055,620 1,055,990 40,551
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 1/1/2014 3.25% 1,258,660 1,238,193 40,906
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 1/1/2013 2.63% 865,649 856,707 22,723
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 1/1/2012 1.65% 2,040,400 2,016,680 33,667
Sterne, Agee Gov't Cash Trust 0.05%58,041 5 0
25,248,015
Wells Fargo FHLB 12/30/2011 1.05% 1,000,000 993,750 998,130 10,500
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 1/26/2012 1.25% 1,000,000 999,030 12,500
1,997,160
GRAND TOTAL 54,699,159 1,026,244
Portfolio Yield 1.9%
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: First Quarter 2010 Investment Report Page 3
Meeting Date: April 26, 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:
Fire Stations Project Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is needed at this time. This report is intended to serve as an update on the status of
planning for the replacement of the City’s two fire stations. Please inform staff of any questions or
comments you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
No policy considerations at this time.
BACKGROUND:
Staff provided a written update to City Council on April 12, 2010 regarding the selection process for
architectural and engineering services. This report is to inform you that City staff has completed the
architect selection process and will be recommending that KKE Architects be hired as the architect
for the fire stations project.
The recommendation is based on the firm’s experience designing public buildings; sustainable design
expertise; the project manager’s experience designing fire stations and public safety buildings; the
firm’s understanding of the project and sites; and the firm’s competitive fee.
There are two firms partnering with KKE Architects on the project. Bonestroo will provide
structural, mechanical, electrical engineering for the project. SRF Consulting Group will be the
landscape architect and civil engineer. SRF Consulting Group has been working with the City of St.
Louis Park on park planning for Northside Park, traffic studies throughout the city, and
transportation and land use planning for the Elmwood Neighborhood Area. SRF’s participation on
KKE Architects’ team should help the coordination between the park and fire station projects.
The contract with KKE Architects will require City Council approval. Staff is working on the
details of the proposed contract for City Council consideration on May 3, 2010. KKE Architects’
team will be at that meeting, so City Council will have an opportunity to meet them and ask
questions.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Fire Station Update
Next Steps:
• Staff will negotiate a contract with KKE Architects
• Staff will prepare and present a report regarding the architectural and engineering services
contract for City Council consideration (tentatively on the May 3, 2010 agenda)
Staff will be working with the architect and construction manager to develop the preliminary budget
and schedule as the design process gets started in May. Fire station construction should begin in the
spring of 2011, with site investigation and preparation activities starting in 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
KKE Architects’ proposed fee for services is $498,750, plus $24,000 for reimbursable expenses. The
total represents approximately 4.98% of the estimated $10.5 million construction cost. The cost for
architectural and engineering services is below City staff’s budget estimate. The proposed fees from
the 12 firms that responded to the request for proposal ranged from $424,000 to $789,500.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: KKE Architects Firm and Team Information (proposal excerpts)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
21Architectural ServicesKKE ARCHITECTS, INC.300 FIRST AVENUE NORTHMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401Contact Person: Mike Clark, AIA612/ 596-4872 | MClark@kke.comKKE BACKGROUNDFounded in 1968, KKE measures success based on exceeding client expectations. More specifically, for over 20 years KKE has been providing Municipal and Fire Station facility planning to communities across the country. Our philosophy and proven record as architects and designers includes building strong relationships with clients that allow us to develop creative solutions that fulfill all their needs.KKE Architects, Inc. is a full service architectural firm that provides a wide range of architectural, interior design and planning services. We are a firm of over 100 employees with offices in Minneapolis, MN; Pasadena and Irvine, CA; Phoenix and Tucson, AZ; and Las Vegas, NV. KKE has grown to become one of the top 50 architectural firms in the country as ranked by Building Design & Construction, July 2009.Our strategic markets in the municipal sector include environments in: Fire Station Justice Emergency Medical Detention Police Corrections City Hall Public WorksEngineering Services(MEP and Structural)BONESTROO2335 HIGHWAY 36 WESTSAINT PAUL, MN 55113BONESTROO BACKGROUNDFounded in 1956, Bonestroo has over a half century of collaboration with leaders building fine communities. Supporting the vision from concept through construction, maintenance, and redevelopment, Bonestroo understands the importance of sustainable, long-term investments.Bonestroo provides engineering expertise in Public Safety/Fire Department design to this team. ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE Land development Planning Muncipal infrastructure Water Transportation Engineering Services(Civil and Landscape)SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.2335 HIGHWAY 36 WESTSAINT PAUL, MN 55113 SRF BACKGROUNDFounded in 1961, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. is a full-serviceconsulting firm with a broad base of award-winningengineering, planning, and design services.SRF and their staff will continue in their role of valued partner with the City of St. Louis Park’s Park and Rec Department and will extend this role to include Civil and Landscape design on your Fire Stations sites.ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE Community planning & urban design Landscape architecture Transportation Right of way and relocationFIRE STATION EXPERIENCE An experienced team of professionals… Over 20 years of firm experience Enhance and add value to your community Respect your budget Design flexible and adaptive spaceSUSTAINABLE EXPERIENCEA leader in sustainable design…Actively engaged and committed to sustainble principles, our LEED Accredited Professionals emphasize creating healthy environments that both reduce operating costs and allow for easy maintenance. We are proud to be the architects for the first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building in the state of Minnesota. Reduce waste Use renewable resources Generate replacement resources Maximize site opportunities Provide 100% daylighting to occupied spaces Create healthy envionments - indoor air quality Reduce operating costs Select materials that are easy to maintainWright County Government Center | Buffalo, MNSt. Michael City Hall & Library | St. Michael, MNIntroductionMechanicalBonestrooStephanie C. Dehart, PE, LEED AP, CEM, GBEElectricalBonestrooMichael FitzPatrickStructuralBonestrooPhilip Caswell, PE Civil / LandscapeSRF Consulting Group, Inc.Michael McGarvey, ASLA, LEED APPrincipal in ChargeKKE Architects, Inc.Mohammed Lawal, AIA, NCARB, RAICProject ManagerKKE Architects, Inc.Michael Clark, AIASustainable Designer KKE Architects, Inc.+FOOJGFS"OEFSTPO5VUUMF
"TTPD"*"
-&&%"1Project ArchitectKKE Architects, Inc.Matthew Streed, AIA, LEED APConsultantsMeeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Fire Station Update Page 3
Sustainable Designer t,,&"SDIJUFDUT
*OD +FOOJGFS"OEFSTPO5VUUMF
"TTPD"*"
-&&%"1 Years of Experience: 18Project Responsibility+FOOJGFSIBTPWFSZFBSTPGFYQFSJFODFPODPNNVOJUZCBTFEXPSLXJUIQBSUJDVMBSFNQIBTJTPOTVTUBJOBCMFEFTJHOGPSQVCMJDbuildings. While her responsibilities primarily center on programming, master planning and building design, she remains as an integral project team member from schematic design through the construction document and LEED documentation phase to assure design integrity is maintained. Within the Public Sector Team, Jennifer is responsible for the overview of all projects with an eye toward incorporating sustainable design components and integrating current techniques that address energy efficiency and air quality.Professional BackgroundBachelor of Arts in Architecture; University of New Mexico1SF"SDIJUFDUVSF "SJ[POB4UBUF6OJWFSTJUZ "46
Professional Awardst(PWFSOPST"XBSETPG&YDFMMFODFJO8BTUFBOE1PMMVUJPO1SFWFOUJPO .O(3&"5
)POPSBCMF.FOUJPO
&MLRiver LibrarytIllumination Design Award for Energy and Environmental Lighting Design, Illuminating Engineering Society of /PSUI"NFSJDB *&4
&ML3JWFS-JCSBSZRecent Relevant Project Experience t&ML3JWFS$PNNVOJUZ-JCSBSZ &ML3JWFS
.JOOFTPUBt&BTU-BLF$PNNVOJUZ-JCSBSZ .JOOFBQPMJT
.JOOFTPUBt&BTU-BLF$PNNVOJUZ-JCSBSZ1BUSPO&YQSFTTSFNPEFM .JOOFBQPMJT
.JOOFTPUBt/PSUI3FHJPOBM-JCSBSZ .JOOFBQPMJT
.JOOFTPUBPrincipal in Charge t,,&"SDIJUFDUT
*ODMohammed Lawal, AIA, NCARB, RAICYears of Experience: 19The American Institute of Architects2002 AIA Young Architects AwardSister Bay Fire DepartmentAmerican Builders and Contractors Project of DistinctionProject ResponsibilityMohammed has over 19 years of professional experience working with institutional environments and master planning of NJYFEVTFGBDJMJUJFT)FIBTEFWFMPQFEBQBSUJDVMBSGPDVTPOBOEJOUFSFTUJOUIFQVCMJDTFDUPS
DPNQMFYNVMUJQIBTFEBEEJUJPOTBOESFOPWBUJPOTUPFYJTUJOHTUSVDUVSFT)FJTUIFMFBEEFTJHOFSGPSUIFQVCMJDTFDUPSUFBNBOEBMFBEBEWPDBUFGPSJODPSQPSBUJOHsustainable design into all KKE projects. As Principal, Mohammed will ensure that the city of St. Louis Park will have our best available resources to execute your project. Professional BackgroundBachelor of Architecture; University of MinnesotaRegistered Architect: Minnesota, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, Canada/$"3#$FSUJmFE"SDIJUFDUVSBM:PVUI1SPHSBN ":1
Perpich Center for Arts Education, former board member)VCFSU)VNQISFZ*OTUJUVUF
1PMJDZ'FMMPXKeynote Speaker: “Improving the Built Environment” Indoor Air Quality Conference 2003Professional AwardstSumner Community Library: AIA Minneapolis Merit Award and Preservation Alliance of Minnesota Addition/Expansion Restoration Award, 2005Recent Relevant Project Experience tɨBNFT3PBE'JSF4UBUJPO 8PPECVSZ
.JOOFTPUBt8PPECVSZ$JUZ)BMM"EEJUJPO 8PPECVSZ
.JOOFTPUBt8PPECVSZ1VCMJD4BGFUZ&YQBOTJPOBOE3FNPEFM 8PPECVSZ
.JOOFTPUBt&ML3JWFS$PNNVOJUZ-JCSBSZ &ML3JWFS
.JOOFTPUBt&BTU-BLF$PNNVOJUZ-JCSBSZ .JOOFBQPMJT
.JOOFTPUBt&BTU-BLF$PNNVOJUZ-JCSBSZ1BUSPO&YQSFTTSFNPEFM .JOOFBQPMJT
.JOOFTPUBt/PSUI3FHJPOBM-JCSBSZ .JOOFBQPMJT
.JOOFTPUBt$IJTBHP$PVOUZ(PWFSONFOU4FSWJDFT$FOUFS $FOUFS$JUZ
.JOOFTPUBt.BQMF(SPWF$JUZ)BMM1VCMJD4BGFUZ.BTUFS1MBOOJOH4UVEZ .BQMF(SPWF
.JOOFTPUBt-JOP-BLFT$JWJD$PNQMFY $JUZIBMM
QPMJDFTUBUJPO
FBSMZMFBSOJOHEFWFMPQNFOUDFOUFS
-JOP-BLFT
.JOOFTPUB $PNQMFUFEJOQSJPSBTTPDJBUJPOProject Responsibility.JLFTZFBSBSDIJUFDUVSBMDBSFFSIBTGPDVTFEPOQVCMJDQSPKFDUTBUUIFDJUZ
DPVOUZBOETUBUFMFWFMT)FJTSFTQPOTJCMFGPSEBZUPEBZQSPHSFTTJPOBOEPWFSBMMQSPKFDUNBOBHFNFOUBUBMMQIBTFTGSPNTDIFNBUJDEFTJHOUISPVHIDPOTUSVDUJPOBENJOJTUSBUJPOProfessional BackgroundBachelor of Architecture; Ball State UniversityBachelor of Science; Ball State UniversityRegistered Architect: Minnesota, WisconsinProfessional Awards / Publicationst.BEJTPO1PMJDF%FQBSUNFOU4PVUI%JTUSJDU4UBUJPO
"NFSJDBO#VJMEFSTBOE$POUSBDUPST1SPKFDUPG%JTUJODUJPOt4JTUFS#BZ'JSF%FQBSUNFOU
"NFSJDBO#VJMEFSTBOE$POUSBDUPST1SPKFDUPG%JTUJODUJPOt1VCMJTIFE+VMZ"VHMinnesota Fire Chief
7PM
/P ɨF'PSN'VODUJPOPG5SBJOJOHt"UUFOEFEFire Rescue International 5SBJOJOH'BDJMJUZ1MBOOJOH%FTJHO
'JSF4UBUJPO1MBOOJOH%FTJHORecent Relevant Project Experience t8PPECVSZ1VCMJD4BGFUZ&YQBOTJPOBOE3FNPEFM 8PPECVSZ
.JOOFTPUBt$JUZPG'SJEMFZ1VCMJD4BGFUZ4QBDF/FFET4UVEZ 'SJEMFZ
.JOOFTPUBt.JOOFUPOLB1VCMJD4BGFUZ4QBDF/FFET4UVEZ .JOOFUPOLB
.JOOFTPUBt1BISVNQ'JSF4UBUJPO -BT7FHBT
/FWBEBt"MCFSU-FB'JSF%FQBSUNFOU4QBDF/FFET4UVEZ "MCFSU-FB
.JOOFTPUBt)VOUJOHUPO1VCMJD4BGFUZ3FNPEFM )VOUJOHUPO
*OEJBOB t(SFFOmFME'JSF4UBUJPO3FNPEFM (SFFOmFME
8JTDPOTJO t)BMFT$PSOFST'JSF4UBUJPOBOE&.4 )BMFT$PSOFST
8JTDPOTJO t.JEEMFUPO'JSF%FQBSUNFOUBOE&.44QBDF/FFET4UVEZ .JEEMFUPO
8JTDPOTJO t1VCMJD4BGFUZ4UVEZ
4BOUFF4JPVY5SJCFPG/FCSBTLB /JPCSBSB
/FCSBTLBt4JTUFS#BZ'JSF%FQBSUNFOUBOE&.4 4JTUFS#BZ
8JTDPOTJO t7FSPOB'JSF%FQBSUNFOUBOE&.44QBDF/FFET4UVEZ 7FSPOB
8JTDPOTJO t.PXFS$PVOUZ(PWFSONFOU$FOUFS3FOPWBUJPO4UVEZ "VTUJO
.JOOFTPUBt4U.JDIBFM$JWJD$PNQMFY 4U.JDIBFM
.JOOFTPUBt$JUZPG"OPLB.VOJDJQBM'BDJMJUJFT4UVEZ "OPLB
.JOOFTPUB $PNQMFUFEJOQSJPSBTTPDJBUJPOProject Manager t,,&"SDIJUFDUT
*ODMichael Clark, AIA, NCARBYears of Experience: 24Project Architectt,,&"SDIJUFDUT
*ODMatthew Streed, AIA, LEED APYears of Experience: 9Project ResponsibilityBelieving thBUEFTJHOJTIJHIMZJNQPSUBOUJOUIFXBZQFPQMFVTFBOEFYQFSJFODFTQBDF
.BUUIFXTFYQFSJFODFIBTBMMPXFEIJNUPGPDVTPODPNNVOJUZCBTFEXPSLXJUIQBSUJDVMBSFNQIBTJTPOFEVDBUJPOBMGBDJMJUJFT
MJCSBSJFTBOEDPNNVOJUZDFOUFST)FJTparticularly skilled in working directly with clients and user groups by preparing design options that clearly illustrate the strengths BOEXFBLOFTTFTPGEJĊFSFOUJEFBTBTJUQFSUBJOTUPUIFPWFSBMMQSPKFDUHPBMT)FJTBOFĊFDUJWFDPNNVOJDBUPSXIPDBODBSSZJEFBTinto technical documents for consultant coordination for overall project unity.Professional BackgroundMasters Degree in Architecture; University of Minnesota College of Architecture and Landscape ArchitectureBachelor of Science in Architecture; University of Minnesota College of Architecture and Landscape ArchitectureRegistered Architect: MinnesotaRecent Relevant Project Experience tɨBNFT3PBE'JSF4UBUJPO 8PPECVSZ
.JOOFTPUBt8PPECVSZ$JUZ)BMM 8PPECVSZ
.JOOFTPUBt8PPECVSZ1VCMJD4BGFUZ&YQBOTJPOBOE3FNPEFM 8PPECVSZ
.JOOFTPUBt.PXFS$PVOUZ+VTUJDF$FOUFS4JUF4FMFDUJPO4UVEZ "VTUJO
.JOOFTPUBt&BTU-BLF$PNNVOJUZ-JCSBSZ .JOOFBQPMJT
.JOOFTPUBt/PSUI3FHJPOBM-JCSBSZ .JOOFBQPMJT
.JOOFTPUBt-PXFS4JPVY*OEJBO$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS .PSUPO
.JOOFTPUBt.$'3FE8JOH+VWFOJMF7PDBUJPOBM5FBDIJOH#VJMEJOH 3FE8JOH
.JOOFTPUBt3FOWJMMF$PVOUZ.BTUFS1MBOOJOH 0MJWJB
.JOOFTPUBt4UFFMF$PVOUZ+BJM 0XBUPOOB
.JOOFTPUB43Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Fire Station Update Page 4
Electrical t#POFTUSPP Michael T. FitzPatrick Years of Experience: 11Project Responsibility.JDIBFMDVSSFOUMZTFSWFTBTBOFMFDUSJDBMEFTJHOFSTQFDJBMJ[JOHJOMJHIUJOHEFTJHOBOEFMFDUSJDBMESBGUJOHBOEEFTJHO)JTSFTQPOTJCJMJUJFTJODMVEFQSPKFDUMBZPVU
QSFQBSJOHEFUBJMEFTJHOESBXJOHTBOETQFDJmDBUJPOTGPSFMFDUSJDBMTFHNFOUTPGDJWJMFOHJOFFSJOHBOEBSDIJUFDUVSBMQSPKFDUT TIPQESBXJOHSFWJFX BOETJUFJOTQFDUJPOT
TVDIBTQSFMJNJOBSZJOTQFDUJPOTBOEmOBMJOTQFDUJPOTProfessional BackgroundDunwoody College, Associate Degree Electrical; Minor: Construction Design and ManagementCentury College, Associate Degree Arts*MMVNJOBUJOH&OHJOFFSJOH4PDJFUZPG/PSUI"NFSJDB *&4/"
Recent Relevant Project Experience t$BNCSJEHF'JSF4UBUJPO $BNCSJEHF
.JOOFTPUBt$BSWFS'JSF4UBUJPOt)BN-BLF'JSF4UBUJPOt8FTU)FOOFQJO1VCMJD4BGFUZ#VJMEJOHt0SPOP1PMJDFHBSBHFt4DBOEJB'JSF3FTDVF1VCMJDXPSLTt-JHIUJOHSFUSPmUGPSUISFFmSFTUBUJPOTJO"QQMF7BMMFZt1VCMJD8PSLT.BJOUFOBODF'BDJMJUZ "VTUJO
.JOOFTPUBt.FUSP5SBOTJU*-BLFWJMMF1BSLJOH4USVDUVSF -BLFWJMMF
.JOOFTPUBt.FUSP5SBOTJU5XJO-BLF1BSLJOH4USVDUVSF 3PTFWJMMF
.JOOFTPUBMechanical t#POFTUSPPStephanie C. Dehart, PE, LEED AP, CEM, GBEYears of Experience: 10Project Responsibility4UFQIBOJFIBTPWFSUFOZFBSTPGNFDIBOJDBMFOHJOFFSJOHEFTJHO
FTUJNBUJOH
ESBGUJOH
BOEQSPKFDUNBOBHFNFOUFYQFSJFODF)FSFYQFSJFODFJODMVEFT)7"$BOEQMVNCJOHEFTJHO
QSFQBSJOHEFTJHOBOEQFSGPSNBODFTQFDJmDBUJPOTGPSNFDIBOJDBMTZTUFNT DPNQMFUJOH)7"$
QMVNCJOH
BOEmSFQSPUFDUJPODPEFSFWJFXTBOEBOBMZTJTGPSDPNNFSDJBMCVJMEJOHTBOESFUBJMTQBDFT QFSGPSNJOHenergy code compliance calculations using Title 24 and IECC approved software; and performing building energy simulation GPSQSPKFDUTSFHJTUFSFEGPS-&&%DFSUJmDBUJPOT"TB-&&%"DDSFEJUFE1SPGFTTJPOBM
4UFQIBOJFIBTFYQFSJFODFEFWFMPQJOHEFTJHOTUSBUFHJFTUPSFEVDFFOFSHZDPOTVNQUJPO
JNQSPWFJOEPPSBJSRVBMJUZ
JNQSPWF)7"$BOEMJHIUJOHDPOUSPMMBCJMJUZGPSCVJMEJOHoccupants, and minimize water use and waste water production.Professional BackgroundUniversity of Minnesota, Bachelor of Science Mechanical Engineering6OJWFSTJUZPG4UɨPNBT
#BDIFMPSPG"SUT.BUIFNBUJDTRecent Relevant Project Experience t'JSF4UBUJPO4QBDFT/FFET4UVEZ 'SJEMFZ
.JOOFTPUB
"TTFTTFEUIF$JUZPG'SJEMFZTmSFTUBUJPOUPEFUFSNJOFUIFMJGFFYQFDUBODZPGJUT)7"$BOEQMVNCJOHTZTUFNT4IFBMTPQSPWJEFEBiHSFFOSFWJFX
wTVHHFTUJOHQPTTJCMFJNQSPWFNFOUTUIBUXPVMEJODSFBTFUIFTZTUFNTFċDJFODZ#POFTUSPPQSPWJEFEB.&1BTTFTTNFOUt'JSF4UBUJPO&YQBOTJPO 4U+PTFQI
.JOOFTPUB
%FTJHOFEBGPPUCZGPPUFYQBOTJPOUPUIFFYJTUJOHmSFTUBUJPO4UFQIBOJFEFTJHOFEUIF)7"$BOEQMVNCJOHTZTUFNUPTVQQPSUUIFFYQBOTJPOt&OFSHZ&ċDJFODZ*NQSPWFNFOUT1PMJDF4UBUJPOBOE$.' "QQMF7BMMFZ
.JOOFTPUB
1SPWJEFETQFDJmDBUJPOTBOEEFTJHOGPSNVMUJQMFCVJMEJOHTJNQMFNFOUJOHFOFSHZDPTUSFUSPmUTJOUIFDJUZPG"QQMF7BMMFZ4FWFSBMFOFSHZTBWJOHTTUSBUFHJFTXFSFJODMVEFEJOUIFEFTJHOJODMVEJOHGVMMCVJMEJOHBVUPNBUJPOTZTUFNT
FMFDUSJDBMMJHIUJOHSFUSPmUT
JOTUBMMBUJPOPGWBSJBCMFfrequency drives, hot water reset controls, outdoor air ventilation controls, boiler cutout controls, and exhaust/make up air time controls.t.FUSP5SBOTJU5XJO-BLF1BSLJOH4USVDUVSF 3PTFWJMMF
.JOOFTPUBt$BQJUBM.BJOUFOBODF#VJMEJOH1SPHSBN1SPKFDU #SPPLMZO$FOUFS
.JOOFTPUB
1SFQBSFE)7"$BOEQMVNCJOHTQFDJmDBUJPOTand design for multiple buildings in the City of Brooklyn Center. Projects included annual maintenance items for the DPNNVOJUZDFOUFS
mSFTUBUJPOT
XFMMTUBUJPOT
MJGUTUBUJPOT
DJUZIBMMBOEPUIFSQVCMJDXPSLTCVJMEJOHTɨF)7"$BOEplumbing items included the replacing the existing boiler and accessories, several motorized dampers for louvers providing WFOUJMBUJPO
BOESFQMBDJOHUIFFYJTUJOHDPNNVOJUZDFOUFSmUOFTTSPPNBJSIBOEMJOHVOJUXJUIBQBDLBHFEIPUXBUFS%9cooling rooftop unit.Project Responsibility1IJMJQTFSWFTBTBTUSVDUVSBMEJTDJQMJOFMFBEFS
XIFSF1IJMTSFTQPOTJCJMJUJFTJODMVEFTUBĊNBOBHFNFOU
TUSVDUVSBMEFTJHO
TQFDJmDBUJPOpreparation, and quality assurance. Phil specializes in structural design and construction of a variety of municipal project types JODMVEJOHmSFTUBUJPOT
DJUZIBMMT
MJCSBSJFT
QVCMJDXPSLTGBDJMJUJFTBOESFDSFBUJPOBMGBDJMJUJFTProfessional Background6OJWFSTJUZPG.JOOFTPUB#BDIFMPSPG4DJFODF$JWJM&OHJOFFSJOH1SPGFTTJPOBM&OHJOFFS.JOOFTPUBRecent Relevant Project Experience t$JUZ)BMM "MCFSUWJMMF
.JOOFTPUB
1SPWJEFETUSVDUVSBMEFTJHOQFFS SFWJFXGPSUIJTQSPKFDU)BWJOHPVUHSPXOUIFFYJTUJOH2,000 sq. ft building, Albertville chose Bonestroo to deliver full design services for their new 17,000 sq. ft. city hall. Completed in 2006, the new building sets the standard for redevelopment in the downtown area. t$FOUSBM.BJOUFOBODF'BDJMJUZ&YQBOTJPO 4U$MPVE
.JOOFTPUB
1SPWJEFETUSVDUVSBMEFTJHOQFFSSFWJFXGPSUIJTQSPKFDUɨJTFYQBOTJPOJODMVEFTBEEJOHDPMETUPSBHFUPUIFTPVUIPGUIFFYJTUJOHGBDJMJUZ
BTXFMMBTFYQBOEJOHUIFVUJMJUZEFQBSUNFOUɨJTTUVEZJOWPMWFENFFUJOHXJUIUIFWBSJPVTEFQBSUNFOUTUPSFWJFXUIFJSDVSSFOUTQBDFVTF
DVSSFOUTQBDFOFFET
BOEprojected future needs. Alternate sites were evaluated around the city for potential development as satellite facilities to maintain the level of service as the city continues to grow. t$BQJUBM.BJOUFOBODF1SPKFDU )BSSJT
./
1SPWJEFETUSVDUVSBMEFTJHOBOE2"2$SFWJFXPGTUSVDUVSBMQMBOTBOETQFDT#POFTUSPPQSPWJEFEQSFMJNJOBSZEFTJHOUISPVHIDPOTUSVDUJPOQIBTFTFSWJDFTGPSUIJTXBTUFXBUFSUSFBUNFOUQMBOUɨFproject replaced leaking stabilization ponds with new sequencing batch reactor facility with ammonia limits. t$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS1VCMJD-JCSBSZ4UVEZ (MFODPF
./
1FSGPSNFEWJTVBMTUSVDUVSBMDPOEJUJPOBTTFTTNFOUɨFschematic design that was prepared and accepted for this project added a new community meeting room space with accessible restrooms and an expanded kitchen facility. Bonestroo worked with the city staff to prepare an Accessibility Grant Application which was submitted and approved by the Minnesota Department of Education.t&BTUNBO1BSL$PNNVOJUZ#VJMEJOH 4U$MPVE
./
1SPWJEFETUSVDUVSBMEFTJHOQFFSSFWJFXGPSUIJTQSPKFDUɨF&BTUNBOPark Community Building restoration involved completely gutting and remodeling a 1940 pool/concession building into BDPNNVOJUZBDUJWJUZDFOUFSXJUIPċDFBOEDPOGFSFODFBSFBT
BTXFMMBTBDUJWJUZBSFBTGPSBMMBHFTɨFQSPKFDUJODMVEFENPEJmDBUJPOTUPUIFSPPGGSBNJOH
BOESFDPOmHVSBUJPOPGCFBSJOHXBMMTBOEGPVOEBUJPOStructural t#POFTUSPPPhilip Caswell, PEYears of Experience: 26Civil / Landscapet43'$POTVMUJOH(SPVQ
*ODMichael McGarvey, ASLA, LEED APYears of Experience: 17Project ResponsibilityAs a Principal at SRF, he will lead the civil engineering and landscape design teams. Mike has 17 years of experience in all aspects PGMBOETDBQFBSDIJUFDUVSF
QMBOOJOHBOEVSCBOEFTJHO)JTBSFBTPGFYQFSUJTFJODMVEFUSBJMQMBOOJOHBOEEFTJHO
QBSLQMBOOJOHBOEEFTJHO
TUSFFUTDBQFEFTJHOBOEQSPKFDUNBOBHFNFOU)FCSJOHTDSFBUJWFBOEJOOPWBUJWFEFTJHOTPMVUJPOTUPQBSL
USBJMBOETUSFFUTDBQFQSPKFDUTUIBUBDLOPXMFEHFUIFJOnVFODFPGPQFSBUJPOTBOENBJOUFOBODFDPODFSOT"TPOFPGUIFmSTU-&&%BDDSFEJUFElandscape architects in Minnesota, Mr. McGarvey ensures that sustainability is incorporated into SRF projects.Professional BackgroundB.L.A., Iowa State University-BOETDBQF"SDIJUFDU .JOOFTPUB
LEED Accredited Professional American Society of Landscape ArchitectsMinnesota Chapter ASLA Board Member, $IBQUFS1SFTJEFOU
5SVTUFF
QSFTFOURecent Relevant Project Experience t"DUJWF$PNNVOJUZ-JWJOH5SBJMBOE4JEFXBMLT.BTUFS1MBO
4U-PVJT1BSL
.JOOFTPUBtUI4USFFU4USFFUTDBQF
4U-PVJT1BSL
.JOOFTPUBt&YDFMTJPS#PVMFWBSE1IBTFT***7
4U-PVJT1BSL
.JOOFTPUBt)VUDIJOTPO4QVS3FHJPOBM5SBJM
4U-PVJT1BSL
.JOOFTPUBt.JOOFTPUB-BOETDBQF"SCPSFUVN
$IBOIBTTFO
.JOOFTPUBt4IPSFWJFX$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS
4IPSFWJFX
.JOOFTPUB65Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Fire Station Update Page 5
10Recent ExperienceTeam ExperienceFIRE STATION DESIGNThe team of KKE Architects, Bonestroo and SRF Consulting Group offers the City of St. Louis Park knowledge gained from our work on numerous fire stations in the Metro Area, across Minnesota, the Midwest and nationally fire station projects.KKE ARCHITECTS Thames Road Fire Station; Woodbury, MN Public Safety Building Expansion & Remodeling; Woodbury, MN Public Safety Services Planning Study; Minnetonka, MN Public Safety Space Needs Study; Minnetonka, MN Fire Department Space needs Study; Albert Lea, MN Public Safety Space Planning Study; Fridley, MN New Fire Station; Pahrump, NV New Fire Station and Community Park;* Sister Bay, WI New Fire Station;* Hales Corners, WI Fire Station and Public Safety Study;* Middleton, WI City Hall and Public Safety Project;* Verona, WI City Hall and Public Safety Renovations;* Huntington, IN Fire Department Space Planning;* Johnson Creek, WI Municipal and Public Safety Facility Planning;* Platteville, WI* Michael Clark’s prior experienceBONESTROO Cambridge Fire Station; Cambridge, MN Carver Fire Station; Carver, MN Cedarburg Fire Station; Cedarburg, WI Cottage Grove Fire Stations; Cottage Grove, MN Fire Station & City Hall; Dayton MN, Fire Station and Public Safety Building; Forest Lake, MN Grafton Fire Station; Grafton, WI Ham Lake Fire Station; Ham Lake, MN Hammond Fire Station; Hammond, WI Kenosha Fire Station; Kenosha, WI Kenyon Fire Station; Kenyon, MN Maple Grove Fire Station; Maple Grove, MN New Scandia Fire Station; New Scandia, WI Oakdale Fire Station; Oakdale, MN Saukville Fire Station; Saukville, WI** Bonestroo experienceMaple Grove Fire Station | Maple Grove, MN**Sister Bay Fire Station | Sister Bay, WI*Sister Bay Fire Station | St. Paul, MNNew Scandia Fire Station | New Scandia, MN**Carver Fire Station | Carver, MN**Sister Bay Fire Station | St. Paul, MNOakdale Fire Station | Oakdale, MN**St. Paul Fire Station | St. Paul, MNControl RoomTraining RoomTraining TowerThames Road Fire Station | Woodbury, MNEOCDaylightingHales Corners Fire Station | Hales Corners, WI*Carver Fire Station | Carver, MN**Pahrump Fire Station | Las Vegas, NVCedarburg Fire Station | Cedarburg, WI**8Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Fire Station Update Page 6
2423Additional InformationProfessional FeesCompensationDELIVERABLESSCHEMATIC DESIGN Schematic Site Plans Schematic Building Plans Elevations 3-D Rendering of Proposed Building Mechanical and Electrical Narrative Building System Narrative Sustainability Narrative Public Design Process Presentation to City CouncilDESIGN DEVELOPMENT Site Plan Landscape Plan Building Plan Elevations Preliminary Building Sections Typical Wall Sections Mechanical Plans Electrical Lighting and Power Plans Outline Specification Public Design Process Presentation to City Council Preliminary Presentation to Plan CommissionPresent WorkloadGOVERNMENT TEAM Woodbury Public Safety Renovations and Expansion This project is currently in Design Development Phase bidding expected in August of this year Minnetonka Public Safety Study This project is a facility study and is expected to be complete in May of this year Fridley Public Safety Study This project is a facility study and is expected to be complete in March of this year St. Michael City Hall This project is currently under constructionWith 18 staff in our Government Team and over 108 total staff, we do not anticipate any difficulties in pursuing your proposed project through bidding and construction start this year. Unique QualificationsWe offer this proposal based on our unique qualifications to assist you with your building projects.EXTENSIVE TEAM EXPERIENCE WITH.... Design and construction of fire stations Multiple, concurrent Municipal building projects Managing a public awareness and public design process Working with Kraus-Anderson as construction manager Condensed project schedules that will allow the projects to be started this yearOwner/Contractor DisputesOUR ROLEKKE has always taken a collaborative approach in our relationships with owners and contractors. Over our 40 year history, we have found that the best result is obtained by working closely as an owner/architect/contractor team in all respects in the delivery of our services and the construction of the project for our clients. This is founded on a premise of mutual respect for the value which each party brings to the process and for the risk which each party assumes. As “Architect” for your project, we are required to maintain an impartial perspective in the Administration of the Contract between the Owner, Architect and Contractor. While these are the legal requirements for the administration of the contract, we have found that a respectful, collaborative, teaming approach from the beginning of the process offers the best results for all parties. We have always embraced this approach which is now becoming more prevalent across the industry as demonstrated by the advancement of alternative project delivery processes, such as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Final Bid Documents Specifications Detail Manual Public Design Process Presentation to City Council Final presentation to Plan CommissionBIDDING Responses to Questions Issue Addendum (if necessary) Review of BidsCONSTRUCTION Response to Request for Information Shop Drawing Review Attendance at Bi-Weekly Construction Meetings Punchlist & CloseoutServices specifically not included in base scope of service: Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Energy Modeling are typically required for completion of B3 or LEED Certification processes. Our team will provide costs for these services as part of our recommendations for sustainability options at completion of the Schematic Design Phase.Anticipated Construction Cost $10,500,000 Professional Fees $498,750 Professional Fee/Construction Cost 4.75%3FJNCVSTBCMF&YQFOTFT -VNQ4VN
GRAND TOTAL $522,750*Assumes printing by Owner or Construction ManagerMeeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Fire Station Update Page 7
Meeting Date: April 26, 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:
The West End Redevelopment Contract Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. Modifications to the redevelopment contract with Duke Realty for The West End
project will be presented for consideration at an upcoming EDA meeting. The purpose of this
report is to highlight the proposed changes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Staff requests feedback on any of the proposed modifications.
BACKGROUND:
The West End redevelopment contract with Duke Realty was approved by the EDA in December
2007. The project, as envisioned at the time, consisted of essentially of two components - a retail
area and an office area. Development was to occur in a series of phases over approximately eight
years. It also was anticipated that a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between St. Louis Park and
Golden Valley would be needed, since the parking for the office development is in Golden Valley.
Conditions have changed dramatically since the redevelopment contract was approved in 2007.
Assumptions about the timing of the development have shifted with the changing economic
conditions; the need for a JPA with Golden Valley has disappeared with Duke Realty’s successful
pursuit of land use approvals directly from Golden Valley; and, the opportunity for including
housing in The West End has presented itself as a result of changing market conditions.
Much has been accomplished to date. The former warehouse and office buildings on the site have
been removed, the bulk of the soil corrections and infrastructure improvements have been
completed, and the retail component of the project has been built. Approximately 70% of the retail
space is leased. With each passing month a new tenant opens for business or a new lease is
announced. The developer provides the latest news on tenants and leasing at
www.TheShopsAtWestEnd.com .
However, the economic downturn has slowed the pace of the office and hotel components of The
West End. It was originally anticipated that both the first office building and the hotel would be
under construction by now. It is now projected that it may be 2014 before construction on either of
these components begins. Similarly, the second, third, and potential fourth office buildings are all
expected to start construction much later than scheduled in the redevelopment contract. It is
projected that the last of The West End office buildings may not commence construction until
2016. Completion of all components within The West End development is now projected to be
2021; five years later than scheduled in the contract.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: The West End Redevelopment Contract Update
The development timing changes resulting from the changes in market conditions, along with the
elimination of the need for a JPA and the opportunity to incorporate housing into The West End,
all lead to the need for an amended and restated redevelopment contract. The EDA will be asked to
consider modifications to the contract at an upcoming meeting. The purpose of this staff report is
to preview the changes envisioned. The key changes are:
1. changes to the development schedule
2. elimination of references to the JPA with Golden Valley.
3. introduction of the opportunity to incorporate housing into the West End project.
4. minor updates and changes
Schedule Changes
As mentioned above, economic conditions have slowed West End development, especially the office
development component. The table provided below summarizes the original schedule incorporated
into the redevelopment contract and the new schedule proposed by the developer. Essentially the
new schedule delays the required commencement and completion dates for the office buildings by
five years.
Phase
Requirement
Original
Start
Date
Original
Completion
Date
New
Start
Date
New
Completion
Date
I Demolition &
infrastructure
Complete
II-A Retail
(includes
theater &
office over
retail on West
End Blvd
Complete
II-B First 277,555
sf of office
space
3/1/2009 12/31/2011 3/1/2014 12/31/2016
II-C Hotel 3/1/2009 12/31/2009 3/1/2014 12/31/2016
III Remaining
offices
6/1/2011 6/1/2016 7/1/2016 12/31/2021
Elimination of the Joint Powers Agreement
A JPA with Golden Valley had been anticipated when the original agreement was drafted. A JPA is
no longer needed. Duke has successfully pursued and received the land use approvals needed from
each city. Regarding delivery of municipal services; the two cities will provide services to the
portions of the development within their boundaries as they have always done. The cities will
coordinate efforts with Golden Valley where necessary as we would for any development at our
borders. No special agreements are anticipated to be needed at this time. The redevelopment
contract will be modified to reflect this new approach to the land use approvals.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: The West End Redevelopment Contract Update
Housing Opportunities
When The West End development was being conceived, consideration was given to incorporating
housing in the master plan. At the time it was concluded that the timing was not right to include
housing. It was hoped that housing could be added at some future date.
Conditions have now changed and the potential for housing development at The West End has
surfaced. Two housing developers are vying for the site on W16th Street originally designated for a
hotel. It is anticipated that Duke will bring forward an upscale apartment proposal for the W16th
Street site very soon. Details of the proposals are not available yet, but preliminary concepts shared
with staff suggest a mult-story building and 100 to 200 dwelling units.
For housing to be built in The West End, the redevelopment agreement would need to be amended.
It should also be noted that allowing housing in the West End under the terms of the redevelopment
contract, does not eliminate the need for zoning approval for the housing component. The West
End PUD and possibly other zoning approvals would be needed before a housing development
could be built at The West End.
The addition of housing to The West End would be positive for the development and the
community. It would add to the economic vitality of The West End. It is consistent with the
concept of creating a vibrant, 24/7, pedestrian oriented, transit friendly, mixed-use area.
The environmental review of The West End, the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
undertaken in 2006 and approved in 2007, included the potential for housing in the development
scenarios analyzed. In general that analysis concluded that a significant number of housing units
could be accommodated at The West End. Prior to approval of any specific housing proposal, the
proposed development would need to be reviewed in the context of the AUAR to make sure that any
mitigation measures needed were identified and addressed. We hope that a specific concept plan for
housing at The West End will be available to share with the City Council shortly.
Minor Changes and Updates
Since 2007 many of the requirements in the redevelopment contract have been completed and other
things changed. For instance, the contract was approved prior to the completion of The West End
plat. Property references in the agreement will be updated to reflect the new plat. The Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Contract will reflect several other updates as well.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The West End redevelopment contract authorizes a combination of pay-as-you-go notes to the
developer and direct TIF supported public improvements. The city has the first claim on the tax
increments generated up to the amount needed to reimburse the city for the public improvements it
built, essentially the Park Place Blvd street and streetscape improvements. The Shoppes at West End
component of the redevelopment project provide the lions share of the increment needed to support
these public improvements. The delay in the construction of office buildings will delay generation of
tax increment that will be used to make payments to the developer for the pay-as-you-go notes.
Since the developer has completed many of the actions for which they may be reimbursed from tax-
increment, staff expects to bring authorization to issue the Tax Increment Pay as You Go notes for
The West End when the amended and restated redevelopment contract is presented to the EDA for
consideration of approval.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Subject: The West End Redevelopment Contract Update
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The West End project is consistent with the City’s Vision; especially the Strategic Directions
concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks and transportation.
NEXT STEPS:
An amended and restated redevelopment contract reflecting the changed development schedule, the
addition of housing development to the project and elimination of a JPA is being drafted for the
EDA’s consideration along with actual TIF notes that are the vehicle for providing TIF assistance to
the redeveloper. The Amended and Restated Redevelopment Contract and proposed TIF Notes are
expected to be ready for consideration at the May 17th EDA and City Council meetings.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager, EDA Executive Director
Meeting Date: April 26, 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:
Minority-owned, Women’s Business Enterprises and Small Business.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. This report is intended to provide information on a proposed policy
statement in support of minority-owned, women’s business enterprises and small business in
contracting, professional services and purchasing. If more discussion is needed, staff can bring this
report back to another study session. If Council is satisfied with this report, the policy statement will
be brought to a regular Council meeting for formal approval.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does Council wish to discuss this report at another study session?
• Are there any changes that need to be made?
• If the report is acceptable does the Council wish to proceed with approval of the policy?
BACKGROUND:
On April 12, 2010 the Council had a conversation about contracting as it relates to minority-owned,
women’s enterprises and small business. It was the consensus of the Council to develop a policy
statement supporting minority-owned, women’s business enterprises and small business in our
contracting, professional services and purchasing.
The City of St Louis Park is committed to encourage, support and make use of minority-owned,
women’s business enterprises and small business when possible. Staff has developed a policy
statement based on Council comment. Once approved, it will be incorporated into the purchasing
guide for use by staff. Staff will also be proactive in informing agencies and organizations related to
this policy and provide information on contracting, professional services and purchasing.
Definitions
1. A small business is a business that is: independently owned; not dominant in its field of
operation; and not an affiliate or subsidiary of a business dominant in its field of operation.
2. A minority-owned business is defined as a business which is at least 51% owned by one or
more minority group members; or, in the case of a publicly-owned business, one in which at
least 51% of its voting stock is owned by one or more minority group members, and whose
management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more such individuals.
Minority group members include, but are not limited to Black Americans, Hispanic
Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Asian Indian Americans, and
Hasidic Jewish Americans.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Minority-Owned, Women’s Business Enterprises and Small Business
3. A women’s business enterprise is defined as a business that is at least 51% owned by a
woman or women who are U.S. citizens and who control and operate the business.
Next steps
• If more discussion is needed, staff can bring this report back to another study session.
• If Council is satisfied with this report, the policy statement will be brought to a regular
council meeting for formal approval.
• Staff to incorporate policy statement in purchasing guide and educate staff on support
minority-owned, women’s business enterprises and small business in contracting,
professional services and purchasing.
• Develop a list to contact businesses, agencies, firms for use in contracting and
purchasing. Will use the services and assistance of the Small Business Administration,
and the Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce;
• Information on how to obtain information related to purchasing, contracts and
professional services placed on our website to proactively support minority-owned,
women’s business enterprises and small business in contracting, professional services and
purchasing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
“St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community”
Attachments: Draft Resolution regarding support of minority-owned, women’s business
enterprises and small business.
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Minority-Owned, Women’s Business Enterprises and Small Business
RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESS,
WOMEN’S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES AND
SMALL BUSINESS
WHEREAS, the City Council has met and discussed the importance of small and minority-
owned businesses and women’s enterprises in contracting, professional services and purchasing.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ST. LOUIS PARK AS FOLLOWS:
The City of St. Louis Park is committed to encourage, support and make use of minority-owned
business and women’s business enterprises and small business when possible as it relates to
contracting, professional services and purchasing. Such efforts shall include, but not limited to:
A. Including such firms, when qualified, on solicitation mailing lists;
B. Encouraging their participation through direct solicitation of bids or proposals whenever
they are potential sources;
C. Dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to
permit participation by such firms;
D. Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage
participation by such firms;
E. Using the services and assistance of the Small Business Administration, and the Minority
Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce;
F. Encourage prime contractors, when subcontracting is anticipated, to take the positive steps
listed above.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 26, 2010
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes the current status of redevelopment projects in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The attached report is meant to keep the EDA & City Council informed on a quarterly basis as to
the status of various redevelopment projects in the city to which the EDA &/or City is a party. It is
also meant to apprise city officials of any anticipated actions or issues relative to corresponding
redevelopment contracts.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 1st Quarter 2010
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development & Planning Assistant
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
1st Quarter 2010
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Wooddale Catered Living
(Greco Development)
111 senior assisted living rentals 3/1/2011 0% leased
10,000 SF retail space 3/1/2011 0% leased
Equity partner found, developer
awaiting final approval of HUD
financing.
Pending Contract Actions:
Redeveloper has submitted a revised TIF request which staff and Ehlers are currently evaluating.
This request and other minor modifications to the Redev Contract will soon be presented to the EDA.
An updated Redevelopment Contract capturing all proposed modifications is envisioned.
Ellipse on Excelsior
(Bader Development)
132 market rate apartments 3/1/2011 10% leased Building under construction
16,394 SF mixed used bldg 3/1/2011 0% leased
Pending Contract Actions:
A First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract along with an Easement Agreement were
approved 4/19/10 which allowed for the construction of a common driveway between the Ellipse
property and 3924 Ex Blvd as well as an adjustment in the Ex Blvd median.
The West End
(Duke Realty)
350,000 SF retail/restaurant 6/1/2010 70% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
28,00 SF 2nd floor office space 6/1/2010 0% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
130-140 unit hotel 12/31/2011 0% leased Duke negotiating on hotel pad site
1.1 million SF Class A office
space
6/1/2016
0% leased
Construction will likely occur in the
next few years once the office mkt
recovers and sufficient tenant
commitments are secured.
Pending Contract Actions: Redeveloper is preparing to submit prove-up costs to EDA. Revisions to
project schedule and TIF note, the inclusion of housing, and removal of Joint Powers Agreement will
require a First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract. These revisions will soon be presented to the
EDA for consideration.
Oak Hill II Office Building
(Anderson Builders)
15,000 SF Office building 12/31/2009 0% leased Redeveloper unable to obtain project
financing due to new preleasing
requirements.
Pending Contract Actions: Since Redeveloper was unable to fulfill contract requirements for the
second time the contact was terminated on April 5, 2010.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report Page 2
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Melrose Eating Disorders Institute
(Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital)
3-story 67,000 SF medical bldg 6/30/2009
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed
Pending Contract Actions: Park Nicollet recently reimbursed EDA for costs associated with the
relocation and construction of tennis courts as required in Redev Contract.
Lake St Office Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
4.000 SF medical office building 12/31/2009 75% leased Building completed, Twin Cities
Vein & Laser is the tenant.
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Highway 7 Corporate Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/tech bldg 12/31/2007 70% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
Pending Contract Actions:
None. The long term future of the Gold and Purple parking lots is currently subject to SWLRT and
Hwy 7 & LA interchange planning.
Hoigaard Village
(Union Land II Dunbar Development )
“Harmony Vista” – 78 units,
25,000 SF retail 2/28/2008 90% leased
70 % leased Building completed, seeking tenants
“The Camerata” – 220 units 9/1/2008 90% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
“The Adagio” – 56 units 12/31/2011 0% leased
“Melody Row” – 20 townhomes 12/31/2011 0% leased
Developer marketing site,
construction will commence once
condo market recovers.
Pending Contract Actions:
Redeveloper has requested that the maturity date of its 2006 TIF Notes be extended another 60 days in
order to complete refinancing efforts. Such an extension will require formal approval. Redeveloper to
update EDA on project status and refinancing efforts at the May 10th study session.
Brookside Lofts
(Master Dev & Foundation Land)
27-unit loft condo building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
14-unit townhouse building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
5 single family houses 12/31/2006 4 sold Last single family lot on Webster
currently under construction.
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report Page 3
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Aquila Commons
(Stonebridge Dev)
106 unit senior housing
cooperative 12/31/2007 85% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring adherence to contract provisions especially purchaser income/net worth requirements.
Village In The Park
(Rottlund Homes)
78 Townhomes 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
66 loft-style condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
60 senior condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring sale of property at 36th St and Wooddale Ave to Greco Development. TIF Note was paid
off Feb. 1.
Edgewood Business Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/warehouse 12/4/2004 100%
leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Wolfe Lake Professional Center
(Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc)
2-story, 54,742 SF office bldg 3/31/2004 89% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
1-story, 10,038 SF commercial
“West” bldg 5/31/2005 100 %
leased Building completed, seeking tenants
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Commons East
Excelsior & Grand
(TOLD Development)
Phase I – 338 apts, 62,700 SF
retail space 7/1/2003 Building completed
Phase NE-124 Condos, 4,500
retail space 4/30/2006 Building completed
Phase E – 86 condos & 14,235
SF retail space 4/1/2006 Building completed
Phase NW – 96 condos, up to
5,000 SF retail space 6/1/2007
Apts 91%
occupied
Condos
98% sold
Retail 96%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
EDA is working with the county to transfer ownership of condo parking stall to homeowners assoc.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report Page 4
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Fern Hill
(Park Land Company)
30 condos & 11,200 SF
commercial space 12/1/2001 100% sold
& leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Mill City – LA Oaks
(MSP Real Estate)
200 mkt rate apartments 6/1/2002 90%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Zarthan & 16 Street
(CSM Hospitality & Rottlund Homes)
Marriott Springhill Ste-127 units 3/1/2002 Hotel Building completed
Marriot TownePlace Ste-107
units 8/1/2001 Hotel Building completed
86 owner occupied townhomes 1/1/2003 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Center
(Silver Crest Properties)
45 unit assisted living facility 6/1/2001 100%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Victoria Ponds
(SVK Development)
72 duplex townhomes 12/1/2002 100% sold Buildings completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
PNMC – Phase II
(Park Nicollet Health Services)
49,310 SF medical office 5/7/2001 100% occupied
by PN Building completed
50,690 SF medical office 12/31/2006 Not built PN paid a financial settlement
45,000 SF medical office 12/31/2010
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring adherence to contract provisions.
Meeting of April 26, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report Page 5