HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/06/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 28, 2010
6:15 p.m. SPECIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. New Business
2a. TIF Note Series 2006 Extension -- Hoigaard Village Project
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a 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)
3. Adjournment
6:25 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – City Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Second Reading of housekeeping amendments to Home Rule Charter/City Code
regarding staff positions and municipal elections.
Recommended Action: 1. Motion to approve Second Reading of ordinance amending
the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Sections 4.03, 4.06, 6.09, and 6.10 concerning
municipal elections and city position titles, and authorize publication. (7 affirmative
votes required to enact) 2. Motion to approve Second Reading of ordinance amending
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Sections 2-350, 2-351, 18-203, 32-34, and 32-99
concerning city position titles, and to approve summary and authorize publication.
2b. Liquor License premises amendment for Granite City Food & Brewery
Recommended Action: Motion to approve premises amendment to the on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday sales liquor license for Granite City Restaurant Operations,
Inc., dba Granite City Food & Brewery located at 5500 Excelsior Boulevard.
3. Adjournment
Meeting of June 28, 2010
Special Economic Development Authority, Special City Council and Study Session Agenda
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 12
2. 6:35 p.m. Charitable Gambling Regulations
3. 7:20 p.m. West End Residential Development
4. 7:50 p.m. Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
5. 8:20 p.m. Freight Rail Policy
6. 8:50 p.m. Finalize City Council 2010 Workshop “Group Norm’s”
7. 9:35 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
8. Municipal Service Center (MSC) Renovation Project Update
9. May 2010 Monthly Financial Report
10. Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy
9:40 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of
Meeting Date: June 28, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2a
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 a 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 July 1 to
November 1, 2010?
BACKGROUND:
On February 1st and April 26th, the EDA extended the maturity date for the taxable TIF Note Series
2006A related to the Hoigaard Village project. The extensions were approved in anticipation of the
EDA issuing a new $4.3 million tax exempt TIF revenue refunding Note prior to July 1. The
Redeveloper recently contacted staff and expressed that it will not be able to close on the refinancing
of the Hoigaard Village TIF Note by July 1 when it expires. It was explained that in working
through the purchase of the Note, an alternative financing structure emerged that would be more
acceptable to the purchaser. The alternative structure involves two tax-exempt notes to refund the
outstanding 2006A and 2007A taxable tax increment revenue notes. One such tax-exempt note
would be purchased by one of the Redeveloper’s partners and the other tax-exempt note would be
sold in the marketplace, This financing structure will require additional time and documentation to
assemble. As a result, the Redeveloper has asked the EDA to once again extend the maturity dates of
the existing taxable TIF notes so they do not expire. The Redeveloper has therefore requested that
the EDA extend the maturity date of the Series 2006 Note from July 1, 2010 to November 1, 2010.
The extension will have no effect other than to provide an additional 120 days for the developer to
complete refinancing of the TIF Notes. 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.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Extending the maturity date of the TIF Note Series 2006 by four months does not materially change
the Note and all other terms and conditions of the Note remain unchanged.
EDA Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: TIF Note Series 2006 Extension -- Hoigaard Village Project
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 June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2a) 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 refinancing plan for two tax-exempt notes to refund
its outstanding initial taxable tax increment revenue notes, including the Series 2006 Note. In order
to successfully complete negotiations to implement such refinancing plan and proceed to the
Authority and City approvals required for such refunding, the Redeveloper previously requested that
the Authority extend the Maturity Date (as defined in the Agreement) of the Series 2006 Note from
February 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010, and due to slower-than-anticipated negotiations, has now
requested that the Authority extend the Maturity Date of the Series 2006 Note from July 1, 2010 to
November 1, 2010.
EDA Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 4
Subject: TIF Note Series 2006 Extension -- Hoigaard Village Project
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”).
Section 2. Extension of Maturity Date Approved.
2.01. The extension of the Maturity Date of the Series 2006 Note to November 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
June 28, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting Date: June 28, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Special City Council Meeting
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Second Reading of housekeeping amendments to Home Rule Charter/City Code regarding staff
positions and municipal elections.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Motion to approve Second Reading of ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Home Rule
Charter Sections 4.03, 4.06, 6.09, and 6.10 concerning municipal elections and city position
titles, and authorize publication. (7 affirmative votes required to enact)
2. Motion to approve Second Reading of ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Sections 2-350, 2-351, 18-203, 32-34, and 32-99 concerning city position titles, and to approve
summary and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council wish to amend Home Rule Charter Sections 4.03, 4.06, 6.09, 6.10 as
recommended by the Charter Commission?
• Does the City Council wish to amend Ordinance Code Sections 2-350, 2-351, 18-203, 32-34,
32-99 regarding staff position housekeeping changes?
BACKGROUND:
On June 7, 2010, Council held the public hearing and approved the first reading of the ordinance
amending the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter and the ordinance amending the City Code
regarding housekeeping changes to staff positions and municipal elections.
City Charter Housekeeping Amendments
MN Statutes requires within a month of the public hearing for charter amendments, the City
Council must vote at the Second Reading. The ordinance is enacted if it receives a unanimous vote
of the entire City Council. The action taken at the meeting will approve all changes proposed by
the Charter Commission and will fall within the time frame requirement within one month of the
public hearing held June 7, 2010. Approved Charter amendments become effective 90 days
following publication of the full ordinance.
The Charter Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed housekeeping amendments at the
request of staff and the City Attorney for the following reasons:
Section 4.03 and 4.06 provides reference to municipal elections and candidate filing
requirements. The Minnesota Legislature amended state statutes to provide that state and
municipal primary elections be held on the second Tuesday in August and candidate filing
period dates be changed to allow for additional time for overseas absentee voting. Amending
these sections in the City Charter will maintain consistency with state election laws.
Special City Council Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: 2nd Reading Charter/Code Housekeeping Amendments Elections and Staff Positions
Charter Sections 6.09 and 6.10 provide reference to the “director of finance” as the lead finance
position with specific duties. With the Finance Director resignation, it was determined through
reorganization by the City Manager that the position would be titled Controller and would serve
as the City Treasurer. All references to “director of finance” were amended to be consistently
replaced with “City Treasurer”.
City Code of Ordinances Housekeeping Amendments related to Staff Positions
In addition to Charter amendments regarding staff positions, housekeeping amendments will also be
necessary for City Code Sections 2-350, 2-351, 18-203, 32-34, and 32-99. All references to
“director of finance” will require amending to be consistently replaced with “City Treasurer”.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Ordinance amending City Charter municipal elections/staff positions
Ordinance amending City Code staff positions
Summary Publication
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special City Council Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Subject: 2nd Reading Charter/Code Housekeeping Amendments Elections and Staff Positions
ORDINANCE NO. ____-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
HOME RULE CHARTER SECTIONS 4.03, 4.06, 6.09, 6.10
CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
AND CITY POSITION TITLES
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 7 the Charter Commission has
recommended to the City Council that the Charter be amended as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 7 provides that upon recommendation of the
Charter Commission the City Council may enact a Charter Amendment by ordinance.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Sections 4.03, 4.06, 6.09, and 6.10
are hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language:
Section 4.03. Primary Elections.
The Council shall, whenever three (3) or more candidates have filed for any elective City office,
provide through ordinance or resolution for a primary election to be held for each such office. The
primary election shall be held on the first second Tuesday after the second Monday in September
August. At least two (2) weeks' notice shall be given by the Clerk of the time and places of holding
such election, and of the officers to be elected, by posting a notice thereof in at least one (1) public
place in each voting precinct where a primary election will be held and by publishing a notice thereof
at least once in the official newspaper of the City. Failure to give such notice shall not invalidate such
election.
Section 4.06. Nomination by Petition.
The nomination of elective officers provided for by this Charter shall be by petition. The name of
any nominee shall be printed upon the ballot whenever a petition meeting the requirements specified
in this Charter has been filed on the nominee's behalf with the City Clerk. Such petition shall be
signed by at least fifteen (15) currently registered electors qualified to vote for the office specified in
the petition. No elector shall sign petitions for more candidates than the number of places to be
filled at the election, and should the elector do so that signature shall be void as to the petition or
petitions last filed. All nomination petitions shall be filed with the City Clerk not no more than ten
(10) eighty four (84) days nor fewer less than eight (8) weeks seventy (70) days and fifty-six (56)
days before the first second Tuesday after the second Monday in September August before the
general city election. The Clerk shall prepare the ballots with names of the candidates for an office
in a manner provided by ordinance. Each petition, when presented, must be accompanied by a
twenty dollar ($20.00) filing fee.
Special City Council Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 4
Subject: 2nd Reading Charter/Code Housekeeping Amendments Elections and Staff Positions
Section 6.09. Levy and Collection of Taxes.
Each year the Council shall levy the taxes necessary to meet the requirements of the budget for the
ensuing fiscal year in the manner prescribed by State law. The Director of Finance City Treasurer
shall transmit a statement of the taxes levied to the County Auditor annually. Such taxes shall be
collected and their payment shall be enforced at the time and in the same manner as State and
County taxes. No tax shall be invalid because of any informality in the manner of levying the same,
nor because the amount levied exceeds the amount required to be raised for the purpose for which it
was levied. Any surplus shall go into a suspense fund, and shall be used to reduce the levy for the
ensuing year.
Section 6.10. Tax Settlement with County.
The Director of Finance City Treasurer shall ensure that all monies in the County Treasury
belonging to the City are promptly turned over to the City according to law.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect ninety days after its publication.
Date of Publication Notice of Public Hearing May 20, 2010
Public Hearing and First Reading June 7, 2010
Second Reading June 28, 2010
Date of Publication of adopted Ordinance July 8, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect October 6, 2010
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 28, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Published (entire ordinance) in St. Louis Park Sailor: July 8, 2010
Special City Council Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 5
Subject: 2nd Reading Charter/Code Housekeeping Amendments Elections and Staff Positions
ORDINANCE NO. ____-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE SECTIONS 2-350, 2-351, 18-203, 32-34, and 32-99
CONCERNING CITY POSITION TITLES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Sections 2-350, 2-351, 18-203, 32-34, and 32-
99 are hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language:
Sec. 2-350. Manner of Presentation of Claims
All bills, invoices, statements and claims for payment of money in discharge of any obligation of the
City shall be filed with the Director of Finance City Treasurer who shall examine the same and enter
each upon the record. Each claim shall be accompanied by either an itemized bill or payroll, or time
sheet, each of which shall be approved and signed by the responsible City officer who vouches for its
correctness and reasonableness and, except in the case of salaries and wages of employees and laborers
of the City, shall be accompanied by the claimant’s verified statement of claim as required by law.
Sec 2-351. Payment of Claims
The Director of Finance City Treasurer is authorized to pay all claims determined to be proper
obligations of the City and consistent with the budget approved by the City Council. The Director
of Finance City Treasurer shall prepare a list of newly paid claims for Council review at each regular
meeting of the City Council.
Sec. 18-203. Disposition of Funds.
Together with found money that has been held for 60 days, the chief of police must deliver all
money that was received from the sale of abandoned property to the finance director City Treasurer
for deposit into the city’s general fund. If no claim has been made by the former owner with
satisfactory proof of ownership, found money may be returned to the finder; otherwise the money
will revert to the city's general fund.
Sec. 32-34. Delinquent water accounts.
All charges for water shall be due and payable within three weeks of the billing date specified by the
director of finance City Treasurer. Accounts shall be considered delinquent and subject to a penalty
of ten percent if not paid within three weeks of the billing date. It shall be the duty of the director of
finance City Treasurer to endeavor to promptly collect delinquent accounts, and in all cases where
satisfactory arrangements for payments have not then been made, the director of public works shall
be instructed to discontinue water service at the stop box. All delinquent accounts shall be certified
by the city clerk to the city assessor who shall prepare an assessment roll each year providing for
assessment of the delinquent amounts against the respective properties served, for collection as other
taxes.
Special City Council Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 6
Subject: 2nd Reading Charter/Code Housekeeping Amendments Elections and Staff Positions
Sec. 32-99. Sewer bills.
It is hereby made the duty of the director of finance City Treasurer to render to the owners, lessees
or occupants of all classes of property on a monthly or quarterly basis, as is appropriate, bills for the
amount of sewer rental charge as provided in section 32-97. Such bills may be a surcharge upon the
water bills rendered to such persons. All such charges when collected shall be placed in a separate
fund. These funds shall be used only for the purpose authorized by M.S.A. § 444.075, and such
charges, if unpaid, may be collected on direction of the city council as authorized by M.S.A. §
444.075, as set forth in sections 32-97, 32-98 and this section.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading June 7, 2010
Second Reading June 28, 2010
Date of Publication July 8, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect July 23, 2010
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 28, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Special City Council Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 7
Subject: 2nd Reading Charter/Code Housekeeping Amendments Elections and Staff Positions
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ____-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE SECTIONS 2-350, 2-351, 18-203, 32-34, and 32-99
CONCERNING CITY POSITION TITLES
This ordinance states that amendments will be made to the City of St. Louis Park Code of
Ordinance concerning city position titles by replacing all references to “director of finance” to read
“City Treasurer”.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council June 28, 2010
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: July 8, 2010
Meeting Date: June 28 2010
Agenda Item #: 2b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Special City Council Meeting
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Liquor License Premises Amendment for Granite City Food & Brewery.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve premises amendment to the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sales liquor license
for Granite City Restaurant Operations, Inc., dba Granite City Food & Brewery located at 5500
Excelsior Boulevard.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the premises amendment for the liquor license at Granite City?
BACKGROUND:
Granite City Food & Brewery located at 5500 Excelsior Boulevard has made a request to the City of
St. Louis Park for an amendment to their current on-sale intoxicating liquor license premises to add
an additional patio dining area. The patio will include 7 additional tables which accommodates
another 28 seats. All requirements have been met with the Community Development and
Inspections Department.
City Ordinance Section 3-68 (a) states each liquor license shall be issued only for the exact rooms
and square footage described in the application. A license is valid only in the compact and
contiguous building or structure situated on the premises described in the license.
City Ordinance Section 3-106 states proposed enlargement or substantial alteration which changes
the character of the licensed establishment or extension of a premise previously licensed shall not be
allowed unless the city council approves an amendment to the liquor license.
The applicant has met all requirements for a premises amendment to their current on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday sales liquor license.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 28, 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 – July 12, 2010
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on July
12, 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 July 12, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for July 12, 2010
Council Items for Follow-Up (spreadsheet)
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session
Study Session, Monday, July 12, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Louisiana Court Refinancing – Community Development (45 minutes)
Follow-up discussion from the June 14 Study Session will take place regarding the financial
status and potential re-financing of Project for Pride in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana Court
Development.
3. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan –
Park & Recreation (20 minutes)
The City Council will discuss the 2009 Year End Report and 2010 Work Plan Park with the
Human Rights Commission and staff liaison.
4. Human Rights Commission Annual Report – Police (20 minutes)
The City Council will discuss the 2009 Year End Report and 2010 Work Plan Park with
the Human Rights Commission and staff liaison.
5. Turf – Administrative Services/Park and Recreation (15 minutes)
As a follow-up to the joint School Board/City Council meeting of April 19, staff desires
direction from the City Council as to any further action or steps it should take on this topic.
6. 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.
End of Meeting: 8:20 p.m.
City Council Items for Follow-upCouncilmember Councilmember Councilmember CouncilmemberCouncilmember Councilmember Councilmember OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSevenAffordable Housing Update15105103HighTurfwait for specific request22a412LowCharitable Gambling215645Low/MedCivic Facility Study 52314HighReplacement of BN Bridge over Virginia Ave6Need More Info4811Need More InfoHighHuman Rights Commission Annual Report8Written Report7a107-MedParks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report9Written Report799-MedWomen, Minority Owned and Small Business Policy (Completed)7Written Report676--Council Workshop Recap43325-?Convention and Visitors Bureau (Direction given)341131-Environmental Inventory/Update 10922MedDiscussion on City Attorney Services1188?lowStudy Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Future Study SessionPage 3
Meeting Date: June 28, 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:
Charitable Gambling Regulations
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide further information for Council discussion on lawful
charitable gambling regulations in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the Council feel there is a need for additional charitable gambling requirements and/or
restrictions (within state law limitations) to the existing city gambling ordinance?
• Does the Council wish to meet with charitable gambling managers to discuss gambling
regulations further?
BACKGROUND:
At the April 12 Study Session, Council discussion took place regarding lawful charitable
gambling past history, gambling regulations, gambling authority, gambling proceed
expenditures, and gambling operations in St. Louis Park (see attached staff report and meeting
minutes).
Current program in St. Louis Park
The City currently imposes a 1/10 of 1% local tax to cover charitable gambling administration
costs.
Current operators and managers
Currently there are three qualified organizations licensed by the State who operate pull tab
gambling at five different location premises in the City of St. Louis Park.
• Community Charities, 115 S. Riverfront Drive, Mankato, MN, operating at American
Legion Post 282 since 2002, Park Tavern since 2002, and Texa-Tonka Lanes since
2002.
• St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association operating at Bunny’s since 1992.
• Hopkins Raspberry Festival, 175 Jackson Ave No. Hopkins, MN operating at
McCoy’s since March 2010, previously operated at Al’s Bar since 2002 and Laredo’s
in 2009 (businesses now closed).
Follow-up information requested by Council
At the study session of April 12th, Council requested additional information regarding legal
authority of a 10% contribution requirement. Council also requested that staff receive feedback
from existing gambling managers on the following possible gambling regulations:
• Requiring gambling organizations to exist in the city for a specified number of years.
• Limiting total number of premises locations per establishment.
• Limiting total number of gambling permits citywide.
• Requiring a 10% City Contribution.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
Meeting with Charitable Gambling Managers – feedback attached
As directed by Council, staff conducted a Gambling Manager Meeting on April 28, 2010 to
receive comments. A total of 8 people attended representing Community Charities, Hopkins
Raspberry Festival, American Legion Post 282, and St. Louis Park Hockey Association. In
accordance with Council direction, staff received feedback and comments from the meeting. As
a result of the meeting and gathering feedback it was the consensus of those in attendance that
they did not see a problem with the existing operation in St. Louis Park, nor the need for changes
including adding other gambling requirements in the City.
City Attorney - Legal Opinion on 10% contribution
At the April 12 Study Session Council requested an opinion from the attorney on whether the
city could exempt from any ten percent city contribution requirement any gambling organization
that already expends all (or a certain designated percentage) of its net profits on lawful purposes
conducted within the city. City Attorney Tom Scott believes that the city can have such an
exemption. Mr. Scott’s e-mail to staff on this issue is as follows:
The statute states that the city may have an “ordinance requirement that such organizations must
contribute ten percent per year of their net profits." While not specifically addressed by the
statute, it is the opinion of the city attorney that an exemption for organizations that expend all or
a high percentage of their net profits on activities conducted in St Louis Park would probably not
run afoul of the statute or otherwise be illegal. There is the potential for the exemption to be
successfully challenged in court. However, given what is believed to be a good legal argument
that the exemption is permitted, the nature of the exemption and the amounts of money involved,
it seems like the risks to the city are minimal.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Projections from the Finance Department indicate revenue of approximately $35,000 - $40,000
per year if the city required a 10% contribution fund from the current licensed gambling
establishments.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Gambling Manager Meeting Feedback
General information on gambling operations and regulations
Excerpts from April 12 meeting minutes
April 12 Council Report
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
Feedback from Gambling Managers - April 28, 2010
Organization Applicants must exist in SLP, and for a certain number of years
• Grandfather clause needed
• Too restricting with economy and lower interest in conducting gambling
• 1st priority to local organizations and then open to outside
• Would make it hard to change vendors
• Would make it hard to start up a new organization
• If starting a new organization, number of years is too restrictive
• Why do this? Expenditures already go to the trade area
• Regulation for the sake of regulation
• It is already difficult for establishment to find organizations
Limit # of Premise Locations Per Organization
• More cost effective with more locations
• Could limit donations
• Competition is good
Limit # of Total Gambling Permits allowed Citywide
• Competition not good
• Would limit donations to charities
• Tougher for current organizations
• Profits going down each year
• Not good to have too many
10 % Contribution Fund
• Some organizations already give to fire and police, if they give 10% they would
change their donation
• Burden on the city to determine who to donate to
• Would cut back on current donations
• Who has control over fund?
• Political?
• Fees would be raised for hockey
• Someone else would pay
• Lose lose situation
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
Feedback from Gambling Managers April 28, 2010 continued
Other
• Gambling organizations are the most highly taxed business in state
• Real issue – how well is organization applying and how long have they been involved
in gambling?
• What are we solving and what’s the problem- If its not broken, why fix it
• Veterans Programs Benefit SLP
• Current local organizations have a priority
• Gambling $ not all coming from SLP residents
• Less options there are for locations
• Gambling supports local businesses including rent payment from gambling
organizations
• If limited – donations may go to few charities or just one charity
• Better to have variety of donations but should be up to organizations
• Take a look at who we donate to for the good of the community (Veterans, Hockey,
Parktacular, STEP, Community Foundation, Educational Scholarships)
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
General information on Gambling Operations and Regulations
Gambling Regulation allowed within City Authority
• Limit only organizations that exist in St. Louis Park.
• Require a certain number of years organizations must exist in St. Louis Park.
• Limit the number of premises locations each organization may have in St. Louis Park.
• Limit the total number of premises permits allowed citywide.
• Increase Local Gambling Tax up to 3% of gross proceeds to cover city administration
costs. (St. Louis Park currently imposes 1/10 of 1%)
• Impose contribution of 10% of net profits to a city administered fund for lawful purposes
such as City Fire/Police/Park & Recreation, public trails, scholarship fund, activities and
facilities for youth, food shelves, or community arts program.
Neighboring Cities 10% City Contribution Fund Donation Allocation
Blaine – 10% contribution funds placed in a Special Revenue Fund managed by Finance
Department with final approval by council. Funds are typically used for battered women’s
shelter, food shelves, community groups (4th of July Committee), and high school
scholarship/senior party.
Golden Valley – 10% contribution fund donations decided by Human Services Foundation
through an application process.
Maple Grove – 10% contribution funds placed in an escrow account and staff recommends the
allocation to council (99% of the time it goes to Police/Fire Equipment).
New Hope – 10% contribution funds allocated to Park & Rec Scholarship Fund.
Plymouth –10% contribution funds used for the purpose of Music in Plymouth.
All cities contacted reported a large decline in gambling funding since 2005.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
April 12, 2010 Study Session Meeting - Minutes excerpts
Lawful Charitable Gambling
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and discussed the City’s authority related to charitable
gambling. She stated that the City currently imposes a 1/10 of 1% local tax to cover gambling
administration costs. She discussed lawful purpose expenditures and how the trade area and
gambling relates to St. Louis Park. She stated that cities may require licensed organizations to
contribute up to 10% per year of net profits to a city administered fund; and that the City currently
does not require a 10% contribution fund.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he would like a policy that would encourage these groups to
spend their proceeds in St. Louis Park. He stated the City has several new bars opening up and felt it
was important to have standards in place related to charitable gambling, including perhaps a
limitation on the number of charitable gambling locations in the City.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would like to see constraints, to the extent possible, that charitable
donations are funneled to St. Louis Park charities. She indicated reinstating the 10% City
Contribution Fund as a means of making sure that allowable expenditures actually meet the needs of
the charities in the City.
Mr. Scott stated that the City can require up to a 10% contribution fund but cannot limit where the
funds are spent. He reiterated that the City requires charitable gambling organizations to expend
90% of its lawful purpose expenditures within the trade area.
The Council discussed lawful purpose expenditures, the 10% contribution fund, and the City’s
authority pursuant to State statute.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he would like the Council to further review the City’s allowable
regulation options with respect to limiting the number of premises locations any one charity can have
in the City. He stated he would like to have a requirement that an organization be in existence in the
City for a specified number of years and to consider limiting the total number of premises permits in
the entire City. He indicated he was concerned that if the Council does not address these issues now
and premises permits are approved, the City will lose this opportunity for thoughtful policy
consideration and direction.
Councilmember Mavity requested a more definitive legal opinion with respect to the question of
whether the City can use a 10% contribution fund requirement as a means of encouraging
organizations to donate their charitable contributions to St. Louis Park organizations.
Mr. Harmening stated staff will provide the Council with the feedback received through the public
process of meeting with current gambling organizations and establishments. In addition, staff will
research how a 10% requirement would work and whether the 10% requirement can be leveraged to
encourage operators to donate to St. Louis Park organizations.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the City delay action on any new charitable gambling
applications until the Council has concluded its work on this.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3
Council Report
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Lawful Charitable Gambling.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide information for Council discussion on lawful charitable
gambling including past history, gambling regulations, gambling authority, and the status of
current gambling organizations including gambling expenditures in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• To what extent does the City have ability to limit where gambling proceeds are spent?
• To what extent can the City encourage these groups to spend their proceeds in St. Louis
Park?
• Does the Council feel there is a need for additional gambling requirements and/or restrictions
(within state law limitations) to the existing city gambling ordinance?
BACKGROUND:
As a result of a charitable gambling premises permit application being considered by the City
Council at its March 15, 2010 meeting, concerns and questions were raised by council members
regarding charitable gambling, whether proceed expenditures are benefiting St. Louis Park, and
what legal authority the city has over lawful gambling operations. At that meeting, a premises
permit application for Minneapolis NE Lions Club to conduct gambling at Texa-Tonka Lanes,
8200 Minnetonka Boulevard, was presented for Council consideration. Consideration of the
application was continued until April 19 to allow for the Council to discuss the matter at its April
12 study session. Community Charities held the premises permit at Texa-Tonka Lanes and their
lease agreement was to expire on March 31, 2010. Given the fact the consideration of the
application was continued by the Council into April, Texa-Tonka Lanes owner Jeff Kristal has
chosen to renew the lease agreement with Community Charities in order to continue lawful
gambling at his establishment without interruption. This means there will be no need for Council
consideration of the previous application from Minneapolis NE Lions Club for Texa-Tonka
Lanes.
Lawful Gambling Basics
Lawful gambling can benefit cities by providing entertainment for citizens, helps out local
businesses, and raises revenues to support worthy purposes. Minnesota cities do not license
lawful gambling; the State of Minnesota is the licensing authority. Only qualified organizations
may conduct lawful gambling who are registered nonprofit corporations in Minnesota or
designated as exempt from the payment of income taxes by the IRS, and who must be in
operation at least three years with at least 15 members.
Premises Permits for gambling are connected to the address of the premise location. The owner
of a premises has authority whether to lease their space or renew a lease to an existing gambling
organization.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
April 12, 2010 Council Report
Organizations are no longer required to renew their premises permits with the State. Licenses
issued are now perpetual and valid unless suspended or revoked by the Minnesota Gambling
Board, terminated by the organization, or if the license lapses.
Definitions:
Gross receipts - all receipts derived from lawful gambling sales
Gross profits - gross receipts collected from lawful gambling less prizes
Net profits - gross profits minus all allowable expenses including rent, local tax, and state tax
History
Previous City Council discussions have occurred throughout the years regarding various distance
and parking requirements, distribution of proceeds, local tax, and trade area lawful purpose
expenditures resulting in approximately 17 amendments to the gambling ordinance since 1978.
The conclusion in many of the council discussions was that the city did not have authority over
the state law regarding what specific lawful purpose expenditures must be made. Excerpts from
the meeting minutes of these discussions are attached to this report. One reason the “trade area”
provision in state law originated was to basically cover school districts which often included
surrounding communities. The following is a brief history of various regulations relating to the
City’s gambling ordinance:
1978 – City began licensing and regulating lawful gambling. First gambling Ordinance No.
1430 required organizations to be in existence in the City of St. Louis Park for at least 3
years.
1984 – State Legislature created the State Gambling Control Board to maintain the integrity of
lawful gambling through “state” licensing and “state” regulation.
1989 – City gambling ordinance amended to allow “all” MN qualified organizations
opportunity to apply for a gambling premises permit in St. Louis Park.
1990 – City gambling ordinance amended to require 10% of net profits to be contributed to
City; no more than 2 locations per organization, ALL proceeds (net profits less
expenses) expended within trade area, $250 investigation fee.
1999 – City gambling Ordinance amended to require 2% local tax and 90% of proceeds to be
expended within trade area, remove investigation fee, remove 10% city contribution.
2001 – City gambling Ordinance amended to require .75% local tax.
2005 – City gambling Ordinance amended to require 1/10th of 1% local tax.
Gambling Authority
Minnesota Gambling Control Board (GCB)
• Regulates conduct of lawful gambling
• Conducts compliance reviews, site inspections, and civil investigations
• Committees include Compliance Review Group, Rules Committee, Legislative
Committee, and Executive Committee
Minnesota Department of Revenue
• Collects state lawful gambling tax and conducts tax audits
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
April 12, 2010 Council Report
Department of Public Safety Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement
• Investigates illegal gambling and conducts criminal investigations
City Authority - MN State Statute 349.213
• Approval/denial of permits
• Prohibition of gambling
• Expenditure of gambling funds in trade area (city ordinance/state law requirement)
• Cannot require an organization to make a contribution to the city as a condition of
approval.
• Impose Local Gambling Tax up to 3% of gross proceeds OR investigation fee of $250.
(St. Louis Park currently imposes 1/10 of 1% local tax to cover gambling administration costs)
• Impose contribution of 10% of net profits to a city administered fund for lawful
purposes including City Fire and Police Departments. (St. Louis Park currently does not
require a 10% contribution fund)
• More stringent city regulation options allowable:
1. Limit only organizations that exist in St. Louis Park.
2. Require a certain number of years organizations must exist in St. Louis Park.
3. Limit the number of premises locations each organization may have in St. Louis Park.
4. Limit the total number of premises permits allowed in the entire city.
5. Regulate the days and times and where lawful gambling may occur.
Although cities do not have authority to require gambling funds to be donated to specific
organizations, there is no law that prohibits a city from providing a “list” to applicants of
suggested recipients allowable for donation consideration. If such a list would be provided, it
may be important that careful and impartial consideration be given to the suggested recipients
included on this list.
Neighboring Cities Gambling Regulations
Edina – Gambling prohibited
Blaine – Organization principal business operations within city for at least 2 years, no more than
4 locations per organization, 10% contribution to city, ALL expenditures to trade area.
Brooklyn Center – Organization must be in existence in city for at least 3 years.
Eden Prairie – Limited to 4 premises within city, plus 1 premise for each 10,000 persons
residing in excess of 40,000, 10% contribution to city fund, 30% expenditures to trade area, 1%
local tax.
Maple Grove – Physical site for organization’s headquarters or office located within city at least
2 years, 10% contribution to city fund, 50% expenditures to trade area, ½ % local tax.
New Hope – Only local organizations which have operated within city for at least 3 years, 10%
contribution to city fund, 15% expenditures to trade area.
Plymouth – Organization headquarters within city at least 2 years, 10% contribution to city
fund, 75% expenditures to trade area.
Lawful Purpose Expenditures
State Statute gives cities the authority to specify the percentage of lawful purpose expenditures to
be spent in their trade area. St. Louis Park City Code Section 15-8 requires each organization
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
April 12, 2010 Council Report
conducting lawful gambling within the city to expend 90 percent of its lawful purpose
expenditures within the “trade area” of St. Louis Park which includes Minneapolis, Edina,
Hopkins, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Golden Valley. The city does not have authority on what
specific lawful purpose expenditures must be made. That authority rests with the organization
and its membership.
Lawful purpose expenditure amounts include all taxes, fees, and charitable lawful purposes
contributions. Expenditures are determined from net profit after all prizes and allowable
expenses including payroll, rent, advertising, product, and office supplies are accounted for.
Organizations are allowed to carry over to the next month any unalloted profit expenditures. A
chart listing the types of Expenditures Allowed by State law is attached to this report.
Organizations report their monthly lawful purpose expenditures to the State of Minnesota and the
City of St. Louis Park on a state required form known as “Schedule C/D”. A separate Schedule
C/D is not required for each site location. Attached to this report is a sample of State Schedule
C/D for Community Charities Organization which shows donations from the Texa-Tonka Lanes
site.
Local Gambling Tax
A local gambling tax may be imposed to cover only the expenses incurred by a city to administer
gambling activities. Cities may impose this tax up to 3% of gross profits (gross receipts minus
prizes) awarded to raise revenues necessary to cover city costs. The City has not collected a
local tax since 2005 in order to use the accumulated fund balance towards costs associated with
gambling administration and enforcement through year 2009. Costs allowable associated with
regulating gambling include the following:
• Background investigations
• Administration of premises application
• Random police compliance visits
• Questions and correspondence staff time
With the fund balance completely expended, beginning January 1, 2010 the city reinstated the
local gambling tax of 0.0010 percent (one tenth of one percent) of the gross receipts of a licensed
organization from all lawful gambling less prizes paid out by the organization. Should council
choose to increase this local tax percentage amount, a tax greater than 1% cannot be justified to
cover current annual expenses at this time.
Projected amounts for a 1% local tax increase using past data from current organizations is
shown in the attached Gambling Activity spreadsheet.
Organizations are required to submit a new city form reporting 2010 monthly local tax and
expenditures in addition to copies of required monthly state gambling reports. Attached are
copies of state and city submitted reports and forms for organizations operating since January
2010. (Hopkins Raspberry Festival started operation in March 2010 at McCoy’s Restaurant).
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 11
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
April 12, 2010 Council Report
10% City Contribution Fund
As established by an Ordinance, cities may require licensed organizations to contribute up to
10% per year of net profits (gross profits minus all expenses and any local and state taxes) from
local lawful gambling to a city administered fund. The funds may be spent only for charitable
contributions allowed by state law (A codes) as follows:
A1 To 501(c)(3) organization or 501(c)(4) festival organization
A2 Relieving effects of poverty, homelessness, or disability
A3 Program for education, prevention, or treatment of problem gambling
A4 Public or private nonprofit school
A5 Scholarship fund
A6 Military service recognition (open to public) or support of active military
A7 Activities and facilities for youth
A10 Expenditures for police, fire, and other emergency or public safety-related
services, equipment, and training (not allowed- pension or retirement funds)
A11 Church
A13 With DNR approval, wildlife management projects/activities that benefit public-
at- large such as trails
A14 Nutritional programs, food shelves, and congregate dining programs primarily for
persons 62 and older or disabled
A15 Community arts organizations, or sponsorship of community arts program
A19 Humanitarian service – recognizing volunteerism or philanthropy
In fiscal year 2009, a total of $7,100,000 was contributed to Minnesota units of government for
contributions allowed under code A-10. In calendar year 2008, 84 cities required 10% fund
contributions as mandated by city ordinance.
The City currently does not require a 10% contribution fund. Projected 10% contribution
revenue using past data from current organizations is shown in the attached Gambling Activity
spreadsheet.
St. Louis Park Gambling Establishments
Currently there are three qualified organizations licensed by the State who operate pull tab
gambling at five different location premises in the City of St. Louis Park.
1. Community Charities, 115 S. Riverfront Drive, Mankato, MN
• Operating at American Legion Post 282 since 2002
• Operating at Park Tavern since 2002
• Operating at Texa-Tonka Lanes since 2002
• Operates at over 40 other locations in Minnesota
Various large donations to St. Louis Park since 2004 included: Community Foundation
$200,000; Parktacular $20,000; Youth Bowling $12,000; Youth Baseball $10,000; Park
Nicollet Foundation $7,500; STEP $7,000; Twin West Foundation $5,500; Fire Department
fire engine restoration $5,000; Westwood Nature Center $2,000.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
April 12, 2010 Council Report
2. St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association
• Operating at Bunny’s since 1992
Past donations to St. Louis Park for Ice Time included approx. $174,000 in 2009 and $72,500
in 2008.
3. Hopkins Raspberry Festival, 175 Jackson Ave No. Hopkins, MN
• Operating at McCoy’s since March 2010
• Previously operated at Al’s Bar since 2002 and Laredo’s in 2009 whose businesses
closed
Past donations to St. Louis Park Parktacular since 2004 were approx. $38,000
Rental Lease Amounts
Organizations may conduct lawful gambling only on premises it owns or leases and may choose
from different rental amount options. Booth operations are when organization employees
operate gambling sales and the rental amount is 0-10% of gross profits per month not to exceed
$1,750. Bar operations are when establishment employees operate gambling sales usually at the
bar and the rental amount is 0-20% of gross profits. Rental amounts vary each month.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Projections from finance department calculations indicate revenue of approximately $35,000 -
$40,000 per year if the city required a 10% contribution fund from the current licensed gambling
establishments.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 13
Subject: Charitable Gambling Regulations
Meeting Date: June 28, 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:
West End Residential Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. The purpose of this report is to share the concept plans for the
proposed residential apartment building at the West End, and discuss the actions needed for the
project to proceed. The developer, Chris Culp from the Excelsior Group, and his architects will be
at the meeting to present the building concept to the Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is the City Council willing to amend the zoning ordinance to allow additional density at the
Council’s discretion for residential development in Office zoning districts?
• Does the City Council wish to further pursue incorporating affordable housing into the
proposed residential apartment building at the West End?
BACKGROUND:
The West End development was approved in 2007, and opened in 2009. One site was reserved for a
hotel (shown on the site plan below). As was discussed at the April 26, 2010 Council Study Session,
and the May 17, 2010 EDA meeting, the developers would like to build a 6-story, 120 unit
apartment building on this 1.1 acre site. At the May meeting the EDA amended the West End
Redevelopment Agreement to allow the project to include a housing component of 100-300
dwelling units. It was pointed out at the time that to proceed with a specific housing project,
additional zoning approvals would be needed.
The West End
Site Plan
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: West End Residential Development
To do so, a change to the land use standards for the office zoning district to allow a high density
building would be necessary. The underlying zoning for all of the West End is “Office.” The West
End retail development and the originally proposed hotel were allowed by approval of a PUD in
2007. The proposed modifications to the office zoning district noted below will make it possible to
approve the proposed apartment building. A major amendment to the PUD, which includes a
review of the zoning and site plan, will be required. An analysis of the consistency of the project
with the approved Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is also necessary and being
undertaken to determine if the change in use would have any significant impacts on utilities, traffic
or have other environmental impacts. Lastly, the City Council/EDA discussed the possibility of
providing affordable housing in this development. Each of these items is discussed below.
Office Zoning Amendment
In order to achieve a residential density similar to a hotel on this site, an amendment to the Office
zoning district is proposed. This amendment would allow maximum densities higher than 75 units
per acre in the Office zoning district under certain conditions; the density for a particular site would
have to be approved by the City Council via a Planned Unit Development (PUD). A zoning map is
attached to show Office districts (in purple) where higher residential density could be allowed.
In reviewing options for residential development at the West End, staff looked at the provisions in
the Office district. There are only 4 office zoning districts within the city: West End, Shelard, Park-
Nicollet on Excelsior and the site at Monterey and Beltline Boulevard. They are generally located on
major roadways. Residential development would only be allowed by PUD, and the ordinance would
continue to read that “the maximum density may be increase at the sole discretion of the City
Council.” It is proposed to change the Office zoning district to remove the overall density cap of 75
units per acre in these areas. The proposal for West End is a 120-unit building on 1.1 acres, which
is a zoning density of 109 per acre.
In developing the site plan and the uses and concepts for the West End development, the city
originally was looking to include residential development to make the area a well-rounded mixed-use
development. At the time, the developers were noting the change in market conditions, and after
talking with a few residential developers, found no interest in residential for the site. To pursue it
further, the city engaged a housing market consultant, Maxfield Research. Maxfield Research stated
that higher end or an affordable residential apartment building would work in this area. Residential
was not further pursued; however the option was retained in various alternative development
scenarios in the AUAR document in order to allow for it in the future.
Attached is a proposed zoning amendment for changing the zoning ordinance to allow this proposed
residential development to move forward.
Affordable Housing
Staff and the developer have discussed the possibility of setting aside a limited number of affordable
units in the development. Provided that funding can be found, the developer is open to the concept
of including an affordability component in the West End apartments. He has run a preliminary
revenue impact analysis to determine the cost of designating 10% (twelve) of the units at rents
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: West End Residential Development
affordable to households whose incomes are at 80% of the median area income (MAI). The income
limit at 80% of MAI for a one person household is $47,040. For a two person household the 80%
income limit is $50,400. Based on the development’s proposed market rents and the rent level
needed to meet 80% MAI affordability, the developer estimates that the annual gap in rent revenue
from providing a mix of studio, one and two bedroom units would average approximately $88,400
per year over a 15 year period.
The precise cost impact of providing twelve affordable units would depend on the exact mix of units
(how many studios, one and two bedroom units); and, the mix of household sizes renting the units.
For instance, officially, a $980 per month studio apartment would be affordable for someone with
an income equal to 80% MAI. The proposed market rate rent for a studio apartment at the West
End is $1080 per month. Only a $100 per month reduction would be needed for a studio
apartment to meet the 80% of MAI affordability standard. One and two bedroom units would need
much more substantial discounts.
The financial impact to the development to commit twelve units at an 80% affordability level for a
fifteen year period would total approximately $1,326,000 ($88,400/yr). Proposed market rate rents
for the complex range from $1,080 for a studio apartment to $1,860 for a two bedroom unit. Rents
for units affordable for households at 80% of MAI would be reduced to $980 for a studio apartment
and $1,280 - $1,400 for a two bedroom units, depending on household size.
It is important to note that the rent levels used in the revenue analysis are assuming rents set at the
maximum end of the affordability factor for households at 80% MAI paying approximately 25% of
their income for housing costs. These rents would still exceed both the average multi-family two
bedroom rent ($895) in St. Louis Park based on the most recent Rental Survey and the two
bedroom Payment Standard ($910) established for the Section 8 Voucher rental assistance program.
If the rents were further reduced to meet 60% MAI affordability, the rent revenue gap would
increase to approximately $132,500 annually.
If the city would like to pursue including affordable units in this project further, the developer
would need to consult with his lender regarding the impact on their borrowing ability. Resources to
fund the gap would need to be provided either up front or through the establishment of an escrow
account that could be drawn on annually.
The developer is happy to discuss this option with the Council on Monday evening if there is an
interest in pursuing this further.
NEXT STEPS:
A public hearing is required for the zoning ordinance amendment; with Council direction, it would
be set for the July 21, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. A public hearing is also required by and
for a major PUD amendment; it is expected to be set for the August 4, 2010 Planning Commission
meeting.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: West End Residential Development
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. The
provision of quality housing in the West End will enhance the wholeness of the development, by
providing a community in which one could live, work, shop, recreate and have easy access to both
transit and the highway system.
Attachments: Proposed zoning ordinance amendment to Office
Zoning Map
Concept Plans
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: West End Residential Development
O OFFICE DISTRICT § 36-223
(e) Uses permitted by PUD. No structure or land in any O district shall be used for the following uses
except by the PUD process. These uses shall comply with the requirements of all the general conditions
provided in section 36-222 and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (e). Uses and
structures which are permitted by right, permitted with conditions, or permitted as conditional uses may also
be permitted by PUD. Provisions for the PUD and modifications to dimensional standards and densities are
provided under section 36-367.
(1) Multiple-family dwellings. The provisions are as follows:
a. The housing is part of a larger development permitted within the district.
b. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential environment.
c. Access to off-site parks and open space, plazas and pedestrianways is provided.
d. Housing-related uses do not represent more than 25 percent of the first story or 25 percent
of the second story of any building in the development.
e. No dwelling units are located below the second story of the building. All housing-related
uses located within the first story shall be limited to common areas and rental offices.
f. The minimum spacing between buildings in a multibuilding project is at least equal to the
average heights of the buildings except where dwellings share common walls.
g. All buildings are located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curbline of internal
private roadways or parking lots.
h. The density does not exceed 50 units per acre. The maximum density may be increased by
up to 50 percent at the sole discretion of the city council if two or more of the following are
provided:
1. At least 80 percent of the required parking is provided in underground or aboveground
structures, including all levels of parking ramps.
2. Buildings are placed at or near the street right-of-way and off-street parking is screened
from the public right-of-way by buildings.
3. At least 35 percent of the building ground coverage contains structures of six or more
stories in height, thereby conserving open space within the development site.
i. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the
redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in
which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying this
requirement.
Westwood
Nature Center
Cedar Manor
School
Minneapolis Golf Club
Knollwood Mall
Benilde-St.Margaret
School
Bass Lake
Wolfe Park
Meadowbrook
Golf Course
Louisiana
Oaks Park
Aquila Park
St. Louis Park
Senior High School
St. Louis Park
Junior High School
Methodist
Hospital
Jewish Community Center
Shelard
Park
City Hall
Dakota Park
Peter Hobart
School
Keystone
Park
Hannon Lake
Victoria Lake
Cobble Crest
Lake
Westwood Lake
Lamplighter
Pond
Meadowbrook
Lake
South
Oak
Pond
Twin Lake
City of MinnetonkaCity of Plymouth
City of Golden Valley
City of Hopkins
City of Edina City of MinneapolisMINNETONKA BLVD
EX C ELSIO R BLVD
CE D AR L AKE
RD
34TH ST W
WALKER ST
L AK E S T W
27TH ST W
ALABAMA AVE STEXAS AVE SFRANCE AVE SO XFO RD STFLAG AVE SFLORIDA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SGEORGIA AVE SIDAHO AVE SLIB
R
A
R
Y L
N
4 1ST ST WJERSEY AVE SWOODDALE AVE SLOUISIANA AVE S38TH ST W
37TH ST W
FORD R
D
KENTUCKY AVE SSHELARD PKWY
C E D A R L A K E R D S
3 5 TH S T W
VERNON AVE SGORHAM AVEPARK GLEN RD INGLEWOOD AVE SKIPLING AVE SBELT LINE BLVDBROWNDALE AVE39TH ST W
CLUB RD
MORNINGSIDE RDBRUNSWICK AVE SJOPPA AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SVIRGINIA CIR N PARK PLACE BLVD S28TH S T WMELROSE AVE25 1/2 ST W
NORT
H ST
ZARTHAN AVE SBROOKSI
DE
A
VEMARYLAND AVE S31ST ST W
16TH ST W
FOREST RD
HAMILTON ST
ZINRAN AVE SE DG E BRO OK D R
TOLEDO AVE SGOODRICH AVE
BASSWOOD RDUTICA AVE S1S T ST NW
2 3R D ST W
36 1/2 ST W
36TH ST W
EL IOT VIE W RD
2 6TH S T W
GLENHURST AVE S2ND ST NW XENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE SAQUILA LN S32ND ST W NEVADA AVE SMONT
ERE
Y
DR
VIRGINIA CIR S NATCHEZ AVE SFRANKLI
N
A
V
E
W
24 T H ST WWESTWOOD HILLS DRMEADOWBROOK RDV A LL A CH E R AV E
DAKOTA AVE SSALEM AVE S22ND ST W
LYNN AVE S43 1/2 ST W
4 0 T H LN W
29TH ST W
40 TH S T W OTTAWA AVE S25TH ST W
BOONE AVE SWOODDA
L
E
A
V
E
GAMBLE DR
30 1/2 ST W
B
R
O
WN
L
O
W A
V
E
BROOK AVE S34 1/2 ST W QUEBEC AVE S14TH ST W
BURD PL
STANLEN RD
RALEIGH AVE SPARKLANDS RDMACKEY AVE SXYLON AVE SSERVICE RDPAR K C O M M O N S D RKILMER AVEV I CT OR IA WAY
SO UTH S T
CEDARWOOD RDJORDAN AVE SPA
R
KER RD
SUMTER AVE SCOLORADO AVE SDART AVE SUTAH AVE SAQUILA AVE SC
A
V
ELL AVE SKENTUCK
Y LN
22ND LN W
35 1/2 ST WRIDGE DRM
ONIT
O
R
S
T BLACKSTONE AVE SVERMONT ST
FORD LN
R AN DA LL AVE
32 1/2 ST W
EDGEWOOD AVE SWYOMING AVE STAFT AVE S
STEPHENS DRINDEPENDENCE AVE SR
E
P
U
B
LIC
AV
EDECATUR LNMONTEREY AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S13TH LN W
CAVELL LN
PARK CENT E R B LVD13 1/2 ST W
PRINCETON AVE SPARKDALE DR
OREGON AVE SPHILLIPS PKWYLANCASTER AVEGLENHURST
R
DVIRGINIA AV
E
S
SB HWY100 S TO W B HWY7YUKON AVE S33R D S T W
MEADOWBR
OOK
B
L
V
D
HIGHWOOD RD
GLEN PLSUMTER DRH IL L SBORO AVE S24TH CT W
EXCELSIOR WAYV I CT O RIA C
RVWOODLAND DRQUEBEC DR
DECATUR AVE SBROOK LNMINNEHAHA C IR SBROOKVIEW
DRCEDAR ST
OAK L
E
A
F D
R
F
O
R
E
S
T
L
N
42 1/2 ST W
H IL L LN SFRONTAGE RDWOOD LN
LOUISIANA CT SFAIRWAY LNO A K P A R K VILLAGE DR
TEXA TO N K A AVE JEWISH CC T U R N A R O U N D
ENSIGN AVE SV I C T
O
R
I
A CI
RWILLOW LN SB OON
E C TAUTO CLUB WAY
DEVANE
Y ST
F R ED E R I CK AV E
AQUILA CIR S
OTTAWA PLWESTRIDGE LN24TH PL W
SUNSET RIDGE RDFORD CIR
TEXAS CIR S
I
DAH
O A
V
E S
23RD ST W
34TH ST W
28TH ST WPENNSYLVANIA AVE SDAKOTA AVE S29TH ST WBLACKSTONE AVE S32ND ST W AQUILA AVE S MARYLAND AVE S18TH ST W
23RD ST W
GETTYSBURG AVE SL A K E S T W
36TH ST W
31ST ST W
23R D S T W
QUEBEC AVE S31ST ST WUTAH AVE S34TH ST W
COLORADO AVE SXENWOOD AVE S33RD ST WOREGON AVE SJOPPA AVE SJERSEY AVE S25TH ST W
18TH ST W
RALEI
GH AVE S31ST ST W
HIGHWAY 100 S33RD ST W WEBSTER AVE SC
ED
AR LAKE RD S
RHODE
I
SLAND AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SKIPLING AVE SSUMTER AVE SDAKOTA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SSUMTER AVE SUTICA AVE SPRI
NCETON AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S13TH LN W
31ST ST W
ZARTHAN AVE S32ND ST W
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SKENTUCKY AVE S16TH ST W
22ND ST WFORD RDOXFORD ST
23RD ST W VIRGINIA AVE SDAKOTA AVE S25 1/2 ST W
INGLEWOOD AVE S43 1/2 ST W
26TH ST W
31ST ST WZARTHAN AVE S27TH ST W
VIRGINIA AVE SSALEM AVE SYOSEMITE AVE S33RD ST W
41ST ST WJORDAN AVE STOLEDO AVE SOTTAWA AVE S36TH ST W
RALEIGH AVE S
25TH ST WOREGON AVE S18TH ST W
37 TH ST W FRANCE AVE S2 8 TH S T W XENWOOD AVE SCOLORADO AVE SUTICA AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SXYLON AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE S37TH ST WNEVADA AVE S1 8 T H ST W
BLACKSTONE AVE SBOONE AVE SCOLORADO AVE S31ST ST W
RHODE ISLAND AVE S23RD ST W
LYNN AVE SQ U EBEC AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE S22ND ST W
BRUNSWICK AVE S26TH ST W
BROOKVIEW DR
40TH ST WDAKOTA AVE STEXAS AVE SKILM E R AVE
27TH ST W
HAMPSHIRE AVE SZARTHAN AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE S42ND ST W
22ND ST W
32ND ST W
FRANKLIN AVE W
24TH ST W
25TH ST W
29TH ST W
RALEIGH AVE S16TH ST W
RHODE ISLAND AVE S16TH ST W
OTTAWA AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SQUENTIN AVE S35TH ST W
16 TH S T W
UTAH AVE SALABAMA AVE SSUMTER AVE S33RD ST W
PENNSYLVANI
A AVE SYUKON AVE SBOONE AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SAQUILA AVE SGETTYSBURG AVE S14TH ST W
XYLON AVE SCAVELL AVE S35TH ST WCOLORADO AVE S29TH ST W
39TH ST W
OTTAWA AVE SXYLON AVE S14TH ST W
OTTAWA AVE SFLAG AVE SWEBSTER AVE SNEVADA AVE S37TH ST WUTAH AVE SHAMPSHI
RE AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SLYNN AVE SJOPPA AVE SALABAMA AVE S27TH ST WHAMPSHIRE AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S2 2 N D S T W
FLORIDA AVE SCAMBRIDGE ST
36TH ST W
CAMBRIDGE ST RALEIGH AVE SXENWOOD AVE SRHODE I
SLAND AVE S26TH ST W
DAKOTA AVE SIDAHO AVE SQUEBEC AVE SINGLEWOOD AVE SSALEM AVE
SME
A
D
O
W
B
R
OOK BLVDVIRGINIA A V E S
32ND ST W NATCHEZ AVE SQUEBEC AVE S28TH ST W
WYOMING AVE SZARTHAN AVE S39TH ST W VERNON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SW A LK E R S T
41ST ST WYOSEMITE AVE S26TH ST W
UTICA AVE SMONTEREY AVE SALABAMA AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W
AQUI
LA AVE S28TH ST W
29TH ST W
16TH ST W
WEBSTER AVE SUTAH AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SOfficial Zoning Map
±
1
Miles
Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park
Community Development Department
Effective: January 1, 2010
Printed: June 23, 2010
1 inch = 750 feet
Zoning Districts
Floodplain Districts (A/AE/AH)
POS - Parks & Open Space
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two-Family Residential
R4 - Multiple-Family Residential
RC - High-Density Multiple-Family Residential
MX - Mixed Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
§¨¦394
")100
")7
£¤169
£¤169
$25
")100
$3
$5
§¨¦394
Study Session Meeting of June 28 (Item No. 3)
Subject: West End Residential Development Page 6
west end apartmentssaint louis parksite plan Study Session Meeting of June 28 (Item No. 3) Subject: West End Residential DevelopmentPage 7
west end apartmentssaint louis parkrendering South corner perspective - Exterior materials Study Session Meeting of June 28 (Item No. 3) Subject: West End Residential DevelopmentPage 8
west end apartmentssaint louis parkrenderingNortheast corner perspective - Exterior materialsStudy Session Meeting of June 28 (Item No. 3) Subject: West End Residential DevelopmentPage 9
Study Session Meeting of June 28 (Item No. 3) Subject: West End Residential DevelopmentPage 10
Study Session Meeting of June 28 (Item No. 3) Subject: West End Residential DevelopmentPage 11
Study Session Meeting of June 28 (Item No. 3) Subject: West End Residential DevelopmentPage 12
Study Session Meeting of June 28 (Item No. 3) Subject: West End Residential DevelopmentPage 13
Meeting Date: June 28, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report and discussion is to update the Council on the planning and project
development activities related to this project – Project No. 20120100, and for Council to provide
feedback on recent activities (Phase 3 work).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The following input from Council is desired:
Is further information needed about the recommended preferred concept (Option 4)?
Does the City Council have any concerns with the Project Management Team (PMT)
findings and their recommendation of Option 4 as the preferred concept?
Does the City Council have any concerns with the recommended layouts for the northeast
and southwest quadrants of the interchange?
Is the City Council comfortable with continuing project development work (Phase 3
activities) with efforts focused only on Option 4?
BACKGROUND:
On June 21, 2010, the City Council received a report on the planning and project development
activities related to this project – Project No. 2012-0100. The report provides information on Phase
3 activities (Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment) completed to date and on the
Project Management Team’s (PMT) recommendation for a preferred concept.
Based on the engineering work and the land use analysis completed to date, the members of the
PMT and Community Development staff recommend Option 4, Button Hook Ramp with
Roundabouts, as the preferred concept for the new interchange design (see attachment).
At the June 28, 2010 City Council Study Session, staff will review with Council the PMT findings
for the preferred concept (Option 4) along with layouts that have been developed by adjusting the
locations of the ramps, roundabouts, and access locations in the northeast and southwest quadrants
of the interchange.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Project Update – Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project – 2012-0100
Next Steps
Assuming the City Council agrees with staffs recommendation on the preferred concept, the city’s
consultant, SEH, Inc., will focus efforts only on Option 4 and begin the detailed analysis of the
environmental assessment process, geometric layout development, right-of-way needs, traffic
modeling and intersection control evaluation.
Public meetings will also be conducted over the next few months to provide an update to the
stakeholders on recent project activities and to solicit feed back on the recommended layouts for the
northeast and southwest quadrants of Option 4.
Phase 3 activities, pending unforeseen circumstances, are expected to be concluded in the spring of
2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The estimated total project costs for Option 4 at this time are as follows:
Total Project Cost (construction, ROW, agreements, design, etc.)
Construction $16,500,000
Engineering $ 3,300,000
Right of Way $ 3,000,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $21,800,000
Current funding for Phase 1, 2 and 3 is coming from HRA levy proceeds which have been
designated to pay for infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas. Past Council direction was
to complete Phase 3 work then halt project work (Phase 4 activities - final plans, R/W acquisition,
and bidding documents) until project financing has been determined.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area has been identified by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: Preferred Concept drawing (Option 4, Alt. 3 – refined Button Hook Ramp
design)
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
WB TH 7
EB TH 7 LOUI
SI
ANA AVE.
WALKER ST.
W. LAKE ST.
MN-7
REPUBLIC A
VE.LAKE ST. W
MONITOR ST.
WALKER ST.
INTERCHANGE
T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE.
0
feetscale
200 200 400
100
Alt 3
Option 4 - Button Hook Ramps with Roundabouts
2.5 acres
1.1 acres
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project - 2012-0100 Page 3
Meeting Date: June 28, 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:
Freight Rail Policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. The purpose of this report is to assist in the study session discussion
regarding draft resolutions stating the city’s freight rail policy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
How does the City Council wish to express the city’s policy regarding freight rail facilities and
operations in St. Louis Park in general, and specifically the potential rerouting of rail traffic from the
Kenilworth corridor to a route entirely in St. Louis Park?
BACKGROUND:
The current status and existing policies regarding SWLRT and freight rail relocation were discussed
at the City Council Study Session on May 24, 2010. As requested by the City Council, two draft
resolutions were prepared and discussed at the City Council Study Session of June 14, 2010.
Revised draft resolutions have been prepared to reflect the City Council discussion and are attached
for Council review, discussion and direction to City staff.
Freight Rail Policy
The June 14th draft freight rail policy resolutions attempted to build on the significant work which
had been done over many years to identify the community’s needs and establish policies regarding
freight rail in St. Louis Park. The work involved countless hours of participation by our
neighborhoods and residents. It led to the May 2001 Railroad Advisory Task Force Position
Statement adopted by the City Council in October 2001 as the City’s policy regarding freight rail.
This is a robust document rich in detail and nuance crafted after many hours of analysis and
community discussion. It provides a base from which to build a current freight rail policy statement
that succinctly explains our position regarding freight rail in general, and the potential rerouting of
freight traffic from Kenilworth specifically. The intent is not to replace the 2001 position, but rather
to supplement that document with a shorter, clear resolution focused on the most critical freight rail
issues of today.
The revised draft policy/resolution continues to reflect the City Council’s commitment to protect
and enhance the quality of our neighborhoods, the community’s support for LRT, the concerns for
potential negative impacts from freight rail activity in the city; and, the need for mitigation of both
existing freight rail problems and future impacts that could result from potential increases in rail
activity including possible rerouting of TCWR or CP rail traffic. The draft resolution is attached for
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
discussion. Based on direction provided at the June 14 meeting, it adds language that makes it clear
the City does not want added rail traffic; and, adds language regarding the prerequisites for accepting
rerouted freight rail traffic in St. Louis Park.
Analysis of Freight Rail Rerouting Alternatives
The June 14, 2010 draft resolution requesting reevaluation of alternative freight rail routes references
Hennepin County’s study from 2009. The 2009 Hennepin County study identified and analyzed in
a cursory way, six alternative routes for TCWR freight rail traffic now using the Kenilworth corridor.
The June 14th draft resolution formally requested that the County reanalyze the alternative routes at
a much greater and more consistent level of detail. The letter making a similar request last summer
was sent to Marthand Nookala at Hennepin County and dated July 21, 2009. The revised draft
resolution attached expressing the city’s request is more specific about the analysis that should be
done. An additional item has been added to the resolution to clarify the level of detail needed in the
analysis requested, stating that the analysis should be done in sufficient detail and reported in a
format that makes it possible for St. Louis Park to fully understand the positive and negative impacts
of each alternative on St. Louis Park itself. The City will need to fully understand the impact of
each alternative and conduct our own evaluation of the alternative s and the consequences for St.
Louis Park.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on Council direction, final resolutions will be prepared for formal City Council action.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Adoption of a policy regarding freight rail in St. Louis Park has little direct budget impact. Follow-
up actions may.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
SWLRT, Freight Rail planning and station area planning are consistent with the City’s strategic
vision to be a connected and engaged community; as well as leaders in environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION RELATING TO FREIGHT RAIL ACTIVITY IN
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to protect and enhance the quality of
its neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, several railroads operate within the City of St. Louis Park and railroad
operations can have adverse impacts on the City and its neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park seeks to provide a clear, concise statement of its
position regarding freight rail activity in the City today and in the future; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has never consented to the realignment of freight rail
traffic through our community; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park adopted the Railroad Task Force Recommendations
of May 23, 2001 by Resolution No. 01-120, which included St. Louis Park’s opposition to freight
rail; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has been an active participant and supporter of
transit in the Southwest corridor, and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has participated in the Technical, Policy and
Community Advisory Committees for the Southwest Transitway, and
WHEREAS, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) unanimously recommended the
selection of Route 3A as the locally preferred alternative with conditions including that agencies
work cooperatively to identify impacts, mitigation requirements, and mitigation funding options to
address the potential of rerouting freight rail in a parallel process with the Southwest LRT DEIS and
to identify the freight rail issue and impacts as a part of the “secondary and cumulative impacts.”;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park adopted Resolution No. 10-05 in support of
Hennepin County’s decision of LRT alignment 3A (through the Kenilworth Corridor) as the locally
preferred alternative for the Southwest Transitway ; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park participated in the Technical, Policy and
Community Advisory Committees for the Southwest Transitway.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the
City of St. Louis Park:
1. Supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project; and,
2. Continues to support the May 23, 2001 Railroad Task Force Recommendations adopted
by the City Council October 21, 2001;and,
3. Opposes in general the introduction of any additional freight rail traffic through the City
of St. Louis Park; and,
4. Opposes the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis
Park unless the following conditions are clearly met:
a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable
route exists;
b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with
rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential
negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise,
vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and
safety; and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit
and bicycle;
c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the
City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St.
Louis Park;
d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any
other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of
any new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the
North-South CP-MNS tracks.
e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way
between the track and adjacent properties.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
(HCRRA) REANALYZE THE POTENTIAL ROUTES IN THE 2009 TCWR FREIGHT
RAIL REALIGNMENT STUDY IN GREATER DETAIL
WHEREAS, in 2009 Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority conducted a study titled,
“TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study” that evaluated options for moving freight rail from the
Kenilworth corridor; and
WHEREAS, this study considered six options for TCWR operations, and
WHEREAS, the six options were not adequately or equally evaluated in the report, and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park needs additional information that evenly applies
criteria to each option is necessary to ensure a viable, cost-effective route is selected.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
1. The City Council hereby requests Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority more fully
evaluate the six options previously evaluated.
2. The additional study should evenly apply the same evaluation criteria to each route.
3. The evaluation should include, but not be limited to, such items as: an explanation of
the future routes to Minneapolis and St. Paul; impacts to crossing Highway 100; a
quantification of the number of at-grade road crossings and number and proximity of
homes, schools and other sensitive uses along each route; impacts on public safety and
transportation networks; operational impacts for TCWR and cost to compensate for
possible competitive TC&W disadvantage due to route selection; an analysis of routing
both freight rail and light rail through the Kenilworth corridor right-of way; and more
detailed analysis of the projected costs for each route, including property acquisitions,
environmental mitigation, and other factors outlined in the letter from St. Louis Park to
the County in July 2009.
4. The evaluation should ensure that the analysis and criteria are applied consistently and
equally for each route to provide a basis and understanding for decision making.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
5. The analysis should be done in sufficient detail and reported in a format that makes it
possible for St. Louis Park to fully understand the positive and negative impacts of each
alternative on St. Louis Park itself.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 28, 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:
Finalize City Council 2010 Workshop “Group Norm’s.”
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Agree upon group norms as a means to help insure a high performing and effective City Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to adopt group norms?
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council Workshop on February 19, 2010 Council discussed norms for a highly effective
Council and determined a potential list. Council then continued the discussion until all seven
members could be present. It was Council’s intent to review the list and spend time refining,
adding, deleting, discussing and coming to agreement on the norms. City staff will facilitate the
discussion at the study session.
The initial list identified at the study session contained the following:
• Let everyone speak
• Be respectful
• Be open and honest
• Agree to disagree (when we disagree, we assume are all working hard for what
we think is best for the community)
• Talk directly to the person when you have a problem
• Don’t personalize
• Stay on policy
• Don’t criticize staff in public
• Remember we represent the office, we are not the office
• Differentiate ward specific and city-wide discussions
• At-large members will acknowledge the question (from a resident) and get ward
members in the loop
• Once a vote is taken, we all work to “make-it-work”
• Chief Governing Officer (the Mayor) will nudge when we need nudging
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Finalize City Council 2010 Workshop Norm setting
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 28, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 28, 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:
Municipal Service Center (MSC) Renovation Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None required. This report is to update the Council on the status of the MSC project.
BACKGROUND:
Council awarded the general construction contract to Jorgenson Construction Inc. on July 6, 2009.
The project is now about 90% complete.
The contract for soil removal and disposal was awarded to Jorgenson Construction Inc. May 17,
2010 following grant approval from Hennepin County for up to $534,000.
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS:
Office Addition – The new two-story office addition is nearly completed with interior furnishings
installed. The staff originally located at the MSC, and Public Works Administrative Division staff
from City Hall, have been relocated in the new office addition. Utilities Division staff will be
moving into the MSC within the next few weeks once the new locker rooms are completed and the
existed office area is remodeled. This is now the area where most of the construction activity is
occurring.
New Bay Additions and Existing Bays – The new wash bay has been completed and is in use. While
not automatic, it provides different wash stations for removing heavy mud, steam cleaning, soapy
brush/rinsing, and vacuuming. The large west bay vehicle storage addition and new north side repair
bay are useable with only finishing work to be completed. Existing vehicle storage bays 1, 2, and 3
are currently being used and will be completely retrofitted in the next few weeks.
Site Work –The site grading, irrigation system and plantings began the week of June 14th and is
quickly changing the look of the site. Work on removing the soil which was stockpiled on Creekside
Park is nearly completed. The contractor will then begin on installing curbing and pavement in the
park and undertaking overall restoration
Attached are several pictures of the project in its current state to illustrate the progress and
substantial improvements resulting from this project.
Expected Completion – The project is expected to be completed during August 2010 with full
occupancy by Public Works, Utilities and Park Maintenance Departments.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: MSC Renovation Project Update
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The attached financial report indicates the project is currently on budget and we anticipate coming
in slightly under the Council approved initial construction budget of $9.5 million and the soil
removal and disposal costs are anticipated to come in under the current grant maximum of
$534,000 funded through Hennepin County.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Attachments: Site Pictures
Project Budget Summary
Prepared by: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendent
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: MSC Renovation Project Update
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Subject: MSC Renovation Project Update
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Subject: MSC Renovation Project Update
Municipal Service Center Project No. 2008-1900
Updated Project Budget Summary
Project Funding Sources
2008 A Utility Revenue Bonds $4,000,000
Solid Waste Fund Cash $1,000,000
Permanent Revolving Fund Cash $4,500,000
Subtotal $9,500,000
Hennepin County Grant Nov 2009 $18,292
Hennepin County Grant Jan 2010 **$534,000
Subtotal $552,292
Total Funding $10,052,292
Construction Bid Summary Original Contract Changes Revised Amount
Jorgenson Construction
Contract Amount $8,164,000
Value Engineering -$335,427
Change Order #1*$228,554
Change Order #2*$98,591
Change Order #3 $28,319
Change Order #4*$36,628
Revised Contract Amount $8,220,665
* Included soil corrections
Project Expenditure Summary:Original Contract Changes Revised Amount
Oertel Architects
Contract Amount $494,000
Fee Reduction -$100,000
Incidentals $14,000
Revised Contract Amount $408,000
Current Estimated Project Costs
Miscellaneous $75,000
Telecommunications $25,000
Security System $25,000
Office Furniture $110,000
Conference Room Furniture $20,000
Offsite Space Rental $50,000
Lighting Retrofit $50,000
Soils Removal/Disposal **$552,292
Environmental Consultant $110,000
Contingency $375,000
Total Other Project Costs $1,392,292
Total Anticipated Expenditures $10,050,292
Study Session Meeting of june 28, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: MSC Renovation Project Update Page 6
Meeting Date: June 28, 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:
May 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 May, actual expenditures should generally run about 42% of the annual budget.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 40% of the adopted budget and the Park and
Recreation Fund expenditures are at 37.7%. Both are consistent when comparing the prior year
expenditures through May. 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 59.6% of budget through the month of May. 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 May, it is at 42.3% of budget. This is slightly higher than the 40.2% of budget at
this same point in time in 2009, and Staff will continue to monitor the permit revenues
closely throughout the year.
• The Human Resources budget shows that 100% 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.
• Other recoveries revenue under the Police Department will exceed budget in 2010 by as
much as $20,000. This is due to a process improvement that has been implemented in 2010
to better handle and account for Property Room cases.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Expenditures:
• The Public Works Administration budget for Services and Other Charges is at 71% of
budget through May. This is due to a progress payment made in May in the amount of
$10,800 to Goodpointe Technology for a Pavement Distress Survey. An additional $3,000
remains to be paid on this contract. Partial funding for this survey may come from the
Pavement Management Fund.
• The Community Outreach – Police budget for Services and Other Charges is at 52.5% of
budget because the annual fee for mediation services was paid in May.
• 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 and cost that will be allocated to the EDA.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation budget for Services and Other Charges is at 59% 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
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:56:18R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 158,721.02- 1,368,529.21- 926,238.79- 59.64 |2,515,000.00-1,316,486.24- 52.35
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,750.00- 23,212.90- 104,330.16- 207,419.84- 33.47 |312,000.00-137,189.78- 43.97
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,598,787.00- 31,130.29- 432,175.79- 1,166,611.21- 27.03 |1,647,214.00-425,456.69- 25.83
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,138,018.00- 87,407.79- 304,526.36- 833,491.64- 26.76 |1,201,900.00-210,883.47- 17.55
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-8,333.33- 52,622.12- 47,377.88- 52.62 |100,000.00-74,331.87- 74.33
4001 REVENUES 20,332,928.00-308,805.33-2,262,183.64-18,070,744.36-11.13 |20,429,389.00-2,164,348.05-10.59
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,132,004.00 1,466,070.95 7,570,785.79 10,561,218.21 41.75 |18,496,154.00 7,418,235.99 40.11
6210 SUPPLIES 846,535.00 25,294.81 270,085.68 576,449.32 31.90 |766,135.00 228,329.86 29.80
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 67,775.00 1,186.43 40,707.03 27,067.97 60.06 |70,775.00 20,766.34 29.34
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,922,858.00 259,885.83 1,305,700.71 2,617,157.29 33.28 |4,160,215.00 1,356,308.03 32.60
6001 EXPENDITURES 22,969,172.00 1,752,438.02 9,187,279.21 13,781,892.79 40.00 |23,493,279.00 9,023,640.22 38.41
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 1,076,593.70- 1,507,231.30- 41.67 |2,678,910.00-1,095,379.10- 40.89
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-2,412.66- 16,628.42- 15,128.42 1,108.56 |2,000.00-1,030.19- 51.51
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-41,058.25- 11.73
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 2,525.00- 3,078.00-3,078.00 |325.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE 100.00-35.54-64.46- 35.54 |167.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,785,425.00-220,256.40-1,034,588.23-1,750,836.77-37.14 |3,030,910.00-1,137,960.04-37.55
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,181.00 181,181.00 |181,000.00 59.65 .03
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,694.92 7,688.92 11,311.08 40.47 |19,000.00 8,785.07 46.24
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,181.00 1,694.92 7,688.92 192,492.08 3.84 |200,000.00 8,845.43 4.42
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 51,000.00 1,225,071.21 5,898,196.26 5,847,196.26-*********|232,980.00 5,730,177.56 2,459.51
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 1,225,071.21 5,898,196.26 5,847,196.26-*********|232,980.00 5,730,177.56 2,459.51
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:56:18R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 6,275.00-512.00-5,763.00-8.16 |4,635.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 71,219.00- 25,005.76- 39,938.01- 31,280.99- 56.08 |55,702.00-26,588.32- 47.73
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,073,900.00- 64,319.95- 366,564.64- 707,335.36- 34.13 |1,141,598.00-417,474.76- 36.57
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 906,900.00- 88,166.48- 287,060.50- 619,839.50- 31.65 |883,000.00-265,610.29- 30.08
4001 REVENUES 6,073,166.00-177,492.19-694,075.15-5,379,090.85-11.43 |6,153,418.00-714,308.37-11.61
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,440,416.00 275,414.76 1,305,106.23 2,135,309.77 37.93 |3,503,813.00 1,356,285.92 38.71
6210 SUPPLIES 906,881.00 76,035.20 255,840.20 651,040.80 28.21 |872,131.00 227,135.96 26.04
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 327.82 4,681.57 561.57- 113.63 |4,120.00 3,909.36 94.89
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,712,749.00 106,291.54 725,756.31 986,992.69 42.37 |1,703,002.00 683,215.62 40.12
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |15,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,071,166.00 458,069.32 2,291,384.31 3,779,781.69 37.74 |6,098,418.00 2,270,546.86 37.23
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,000.00-5,556.56-7,443.44- 42.74 |12,000.00-4,015.00- 33.46
8200 MISC REVENUE 5,440.00-5,440.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 13,000.00-10,996.56-2,003.44-84.59 |12,000.00-4,775.08-39.79
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|6.98
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,522.10 6,899.46 8,100.54 46.00 |6,545.85
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,522.10 6,938.46 8,061.54 46.26 |6,552.83
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 282,099.23 1,593,251.06 1,593,251.06-|67,000.00-1,558,016.24 2,325.40-
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 282,099.23 1,593,251.06 1,593,251.06-|67,000.00-1,558,016.24 2,325.40-
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 55.68-117.92-117.92 |255.12-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 35,570.32- 49,429.68- 41.85 |85,000.00-35,535.21- 41.81
4001 REVENUES 15,019,810.00-7,139.01-35,688.24-14,984,121.76-.24 |14,783,480.00-35,790.33-.24
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 18,188.00 18,188.00-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 18,188.00 18,188.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 1,076,593.70- 1,507,231.30- 41.67 |2,678,910.00-1,095,379.10- 40.89
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-41,058.25- 11.73
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,783,825.00-215,318.74-1,014,846.27-1,768,978.73-36.46 |3,028,910.00-1,136,437.35-37.52
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 17,622,954.00-222,457.75-1,032,346.51-16,590,607.49-5.86 |17,632,390.00-1,171,554.87-6.64
100 GENERAL 17,622,954.00-222,457.75-1,032,346.51-16,590,607.49-5.86 |17,632,390.00-1,171,554.87-6.64
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 5
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 183,360.00-700.00- 189,231.67-5,871.67 103.20 |215,500.00-153,260.00- 71.12
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |947.30-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 41.94-313.11-313.11 |97.00-
4001 REVENUES 191,360.00-741.94-189,544.78-1,815.22-99.05 |223,500.00-154,304.30-69.04
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 444,400.00 36,449.78 205,739.24 238,660.76 46.30 |531,500.00 204,392.58 38.46
6210 SUPPLIES 3,100.00 159.41 453.84 2,646.16 14.64 |3,700.00 686.58 18.56
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 476,972.00 23,540.69 146,032.29 330,939.71 30.62 |455,635.00 140,563.99 30.85
6001 EXPENDITURES 924,472.00 60,149.88 352,225.37 572,246.63 38.10 |990,835.00 345,643.15 34.88
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 59,407.94 162,680.59 570,431.41 22.19 |767,335.00 191,172.06 24.91
110 ADMINISTRATION 733,112.00 59,407.94 162,680.59 570,431.41 22.19 |767,335.00 191,172.06 24.91
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 6
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 48,318.00-4,417.38- 16,496.88- 31,821.12- 34.14 |50,000.00-11,727.75- 23.46
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-4,417.38-16,496.88-31,821.12-34.14 |50,000.00-11,727.75-23.46
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 920,800.00 85,355.15 427,298.03 493,501.97 46.41 |937,200.00 399,564.66 42.63
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 272.44 1,158.58 3,066.42 27.42 |4,225.00 966.29 22.87
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 152,905.00 17,045.98 54,837.44 98,067.56 35.86 |162,555.00 57,197.42 35.19
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,077,930.00 102,673.57 483,294.05 594,635.95 44.84 |1,103,980.00 457,728.37 41.46
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 2,525.00- 2,900.00-2,900.00 |325.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,525.00-2,900.00-2,900.00 |325.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00 22.63 4.53
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 .01-.01-500.01 |500.00 9.17 1.83
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 .01-.01-1,000.01 |1,000.00 31.80 3.18
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,030,612.00 95,731.18 463,897.16 566,714.84 45.01 |1,054,980.00 445,707.42 42.25
120 FINANCE 1,030,612.00 95,731.18 463,897.16 566,714.84 45.01 |1,054,980.00 445,707.42 42.25
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 7
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 9,000.00-9,026.00-26.00 100.29 |9,000.00-5,461.00- 60.68
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 264.00-264.00 |
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-9,290.00-290.00 103.22 |9,000.00-5,461.00-60.68
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 482,400.00 39,254.12 200,067.93 282,332.07 41.47 |481,000.00 196,314.78 40.81
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 130.39 627.17 1,372.83 31.36 |2,000.00 796.47 39.82
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 7,374.85 60,742.14 99,807.86 37.83 |160,550.00 63,537.58 39.57
6001 EXPENDITURES 644,950.00 46,759.36 261,437.24 383,512.76 40.54 |643,550.00 260,648.83 40.50
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 635,950.00 46,759.36 252,147.24 383,802.76 39.65 |634,550.00 255,187.83 40.22
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 635,950.00 46,759.36 252,147.24 383,802.76 39.65 |634,550.00 255,187.83 40.22
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 8
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 9,000.00-1,330.00- 4,950.00-4,050.00- 55.00 |12,000.00-4,335.00- 36.13
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 594,000.00- 75,764.54- 223,189.35- 370,810.65- 37.57 |585,000.00-157,725.85- 26.96
4001 REVENUES 603,000.00-77,094.54-228,139.35-374,860.65-37.83 |597,000.00-162,060.85-27.15
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,001,700.00 113,826.53 579,781.38 421,918.62 57.88 |1,023,000.00 405,635.64 39.65
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 4.38 213.03 1,486.97 12.53 |3,000.00 282.54 9.42
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 47,750.00 163.00 1,025.02 46,724.98 2.15 |56,750.00 8,086.65 14.25
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,051,150.00 113,993.91 581,019.43 470,130.57 55.27 |1,083,750.00 414,004.83 38.20
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 448,150.00 36,899.37 352,880.08 95,269.92 78.74 |486,750.00 251,943.98 51.76
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 448,150.00 36,899.37 352,880.08 95,269.92 78.74 |486,750.00 251,943.98 51.76
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 9
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 25,750.00- 40.12 |8,200.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,250.00- 7,500.00-7,500.00- 50.00 |15,000.00-7,500.00- 50.00
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,250.00-24,750.00-33,250.00-42.67 |23,200.00-7,500.00-32.33
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 546,200.00 38,374.50 213,096.58 333,103.42 39.01 |534,000.00 208,290.78 39.01
6210 SUPPLIES 86,150.00 1,487.30 21,236.49 64,913.51 24.65 |90,500.00 10,977.41 12.13
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 3,837.73 22,162.27 14.76 |26,000.00 3,599.81 13.85
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 423,392.00 16,403.62 137,404.00 285,988.00 32.45 |502,942.00 172,513.62 34.30
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,081,742.00 56,265.42 375,574.80 706,167.20 34.72 |1,153,442.00 395,381.62 34.28
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |37.02
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 34.00 34.00-|3.07
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 34.00 34.00-|40.09
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,023,742.00 55,015.42 350,858.80 672,883.20 34.27 |1,130,242.00 387,921.71 34.32
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,023,742.00 55,015.42 350,858.80 672,883.20 34.27 |1,130,242.00 387,921.71 34.32
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 10
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 44,522.17 241,266.09 275,583.91 46.68 |562,500.00 239,669.74 42.61
6210 SUPPLIES 23,500.00 1,413.44 11,133.88 12,366.12 47.38 |30,800.00 5,517.68 17.91
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 23,556.10 23,556.10-|2,931.46
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,316.00 67,502.09 343,393.49 516,922.51 39.91 |877,970.00 305,329.01 34.78
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,400,666.00 113,437.70 619,349.56 781,316.44 44.22 |1,471,270.00 553,447.89 37.62
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 35.54-35.54 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 35.54-35.54 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 42.31 42.31-|25.85
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 42.31 42.31-|25.85
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,400,666.00 113,437.70 619,356.33 781,309.67 44.22 |1,471,270.00 553,473.74 37.62
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,400,666.00 113,437.70 619,356.33 781,309.67 44.22 |1,471,270.00 553,473.74 37.62
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 11
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 13,512.55 55,016.61 133,263.39 29.22 |184,980.00 71,609.57 38.71
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 93,525.00 200.00 24,377.72 69,147.28 26.07 |104,245.00 53,351.83 51.18
6001 EXPENDITURES 281,905.00 13,712.55 79,394.33 202,510.67 28.16 |289,225.00 124,961.40 43.21
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 278,905.00 13,712.55 79,394.33 199,510.67 28.47 |286,225.00 124,961.40 43.66
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 278,905.00 13,712.55 79,394.33 199,510.67 28.47 |286,225.00 124,961.40 43.66
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 12
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 900.00-900.00-900.00 |
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 23,212.90- 104,190.73- 199,309.27- 34.33 |303,500.00-137,189.78- 45.20
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 800,582.00- 31,130.29- 183,022.97- 617,559.03- 22.86 |809,009.00-196,176.39- 24.25
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-6,593.25- 27,458.75- 82,241.25- 25.03 |109,700.00-34,052.25- 31.04
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 9,287.80-9,287.80 |31,200.80-
4001 REVENUES 1,213,782.00-61,836.44-324,860.25-888,921.75-26.76 |1,222,209.00-398,619.22-32.61
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,609,294.00 523,768.34 2,672,564.46 3,936,729.54 40.44 |6,546,794.00 2,642,251.47 40.36
6210 SUPPLIES 141,050.00 5,283.95 25,385.92 115,664.08 18.00 |150,900.00 35,649.45 23.62
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,775.00 1,186.43 10,713.20 23,061.80 31.72 |35,775.00 11,749.14 32.84
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 521,783.00 41,132.77 162,066.87 359,716.13 31.06 |547,053.00 180,370.79 32.97
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,305,902.00 571,371.49 2,870,730.45 4,435,171.55 39.29 |7,280,522.00 2,870,020.85 39.42
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-2,412.66- 16,628.42- 15,128.42 1,108.56 |2,000.00-1,030.19- 51.51
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-2,412.66-16,628.42-15,128.42 1,108.56 |2,000.00-1,030.19-51.51
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 22.18 101.67 398.33 20.33 |500.00 92.99 18.60
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 500.00 22.18 101.67 398.33 20.33 |1,000.00 92.99 9.30
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,091,120.00 507,144.57 2,529,343.45 3,561,776.55 41.53 |6,057,313.00 2,470,464.43 40.78
160 POLICE 6,091,120.00 507,144.57 2,529,343.45 3,561,776.55 41.53 |6,057,313.00 2,470,464.43 40.78
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 13
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,700.00 6,248.01 31,834.88 44,865.12 41.51 |76,500.00 31,136.88 40.70
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 4,300.00 4,564.98 4,140.02 52.44 |8,705.00 368.96 4.24
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,255.00 10,548.01 36,399.86 49,855.14 42.20 |86,055.00 31,505.84 36.61
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,255.00 10,548.01 36,399.86 49,855.14 42.20 |86,055.00 31,505.84 36.61
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,255.00 10,548.01 36,399.86 49,855.14 42.20 |86,055.00 31,505.84 36.61
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 14
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 40,000.00-2,136.29- 14,593.62- 25,406.38- 36.48 |50,000.00-19,060.17- 38.12
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-8,239.82- 291,760.18-2.75 |300,000.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-350.00- 8,932.35-4,932.35 223.31 |4,000.00-1,102.50- 27.56
4001 REVENUES 344,000.00-2,486.29-31,765.79-312,234.21-9.23 |354,000.00-20,162.67-5.70
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,826,180.00 212,928.20 1,116,887.37 1,709,292.63 39.52 |2,815,680.00 1,105,717.30 39.27
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 1,460.65 9,219.66 62,590.34 12.84 |71,810.00 22,780.65 31.72
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 13,261.88 53,499.76 165,683.24 24.41 |224,183.00 65,613.69 29.27
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,122,173.00 227,650.73 1,182,206.79 1,939,966.21 37.86 |3,116,673.00 1,195,902.57 38.37
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 178.00-178.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 178.00-178.00 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,778,173.00 225,164.44 1,150,263.00 1,627,910.00 41.40 |2,762,673.00 1,175,739.90 42.56
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,778,173.00 225,164.44 1,150,263.00 1,627,910.00 41.40 |2,762,673.00 1,175,739.90 42.56
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 15
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 149,357.73- 1,131,646.92- 855,641.08- 56.94 |2,162,500.00-1,099,181.07- 50.83
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 35.00-242.00-242.00 |212.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |95.86-
4001 REVENUES 1,987,288.00-149,392.73-1,131,888.92-855,399.08-56.96 |2,162,500.00-1,099,488.93-50.84
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,713,100.00 134,823.09 676,021.13 1,037,078.87 39.46 |1,915,500.00 753,748.79 39.35
6210 SUPPLIES 21,500.00 384.88 2,545.14 18,954.86 11.84 |22,300.00 5,282.75 23.69
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 63,627.00 5,043.88 28,245.99 35,381.01 44.39 |71,627.00 16,536.86 23.09
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,798,227.00 140,251.85 706,812.26 1,091,414.74 39.31 |2,009,427.00 775,568.40 38.60
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 100.00-100.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-100.00-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,672.75 7,510.95 10,489.05 41.73 |18,000.00 7,981.18 44.34
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,672.75 7,510.95 10,489.05 41.73 |18,000.00 7,981.18 44.34
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 171,161.00-7,468.13-417,565.71-246,404.71 243.96 |135,073.00-315,939.35-233.90
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 171,161.00-7,468.13-417,565.71-246,404.71 243.96 |135,073.00-315,939.35-233.90
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 16
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 67,675.11 357,050.91 468,749.09 43.24 |826,500.00 357,821.52 43.29
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 426.50 846.78 3,153.22 21.17 |4,500.00 901.38 20.03
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 24,100.00 11,727.72 17,174.45 6,925.55 71.26 |22,950.00 3,954.81 17.23
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,900.00 79,829.33 375,072.14 479,827.86 43.87 |854,950.00 362,677.71 42.42
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,900.00 79,829.33 375,072.14 479,827.86 43.87 |854,950.00 362,677.71 42.42
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,900.00 79,829.33 375,072.14 479,827.86 43.87 |854,950.00 362,677.71 42.42
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 17
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 75,000.00-4,297.00- 27,057.00- 47,943.00- 36.08 |75,000.00-40,350.00- 53.80
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-150.00- 1,500.00- 328,500.00-.45 |436,000.00-250.00- .06
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-4,447.00-28,557.00-376,443.00-7.05 |511,000.00-40,600.00-7.95
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 750,000.00 56,016.10 287,747.87 462,252.13 38.37 |844,000.00 289,728.64 34.33
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 2,978.12 3,529.26 3,520.74 50.06 |7,050.00 521.98 7.40
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 695.00 34.75
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 2,288.27 11,148.90 59,601.10 15.76 |70,750.00 18,147.97 25.65
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,800.00 61,282.49 302,426.03 527,373.97 36.45 |923,800.00 309,093.59 33.46
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 424,800.00 56,835.49 273,869.03 150,930.97 64.47 |412,800.00 268,493.59 65.04
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 424,800.00 56,835.49 273,869.03 150,930.97 64.47 |412,800.00 268,493.59 65.04
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 18
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 120.00-150.00-30.00 125.00 |300.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 250.00-139.43-110.57- 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 450,370.00-241,202.43-209,167.57-53.56 |490,500.00-228,633.00-46.61
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,230,300.00 93,317.30 506,413.31 723,886.69 41.16 |1,217,000.00 512,353.64 42.10
6210 SUPPLIES 479,500.00 11,293.35 193,735.93 285,764.07 40.40 |374,500.00 143,966.68 38.44
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 799,300.00 49,901.08 242,999.66 556,300.34 30.40 |894,300.00 270,734.85 30.27
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,509,100.00 154,511.73 943,148.90 1,565,951.10 37.59 |2,485,800.00 927,055.17 37.29
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,058,730.00 154,511.73 701,946.47 1,356,783.53 34.10 |1,995,300.00 698,422.17 35.00
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,058,730.00 154,511.73 701,946.47 1,356,783.53 34.10 |1,995,300.00 698,422.17 35.00
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 1,225,071.21 5,898,196.26 5,847,196.26-*********|232,980.00 5,730,177.56 2,459.51
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 19
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 22,351.00- 22,351.00- 22,351.00- 50.00 |44,702.00-22,351.00- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 261,000.00- 10,682.50- 163,365.38- 97,634.62- 62.59 |259,298.00-171,649.22- 66.20
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-2,128.00- 5,691.00- 25,709.00- 18.12 |34,000.00-5,102.00- 15.01
4001 REVENUES 4,351,974.00-35,161.50-191,407.38-4,160,566.62-4.40 |4,411,118.00-199,102.22-4.51
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 715,280.00 51,249.29 263,132.03 452,147.97 36.79 |729,162.00 291,093.62 39.92
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 1,968.97 7,838.99 51,612.01 13.19 |59,451.00 15,609.98 26.26
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,677.00 18,324.08 271,099.97 184,577.03 59.49 |502,597.00 278,074.31 55.33
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,230,408.00 71,542.34 542,070.99 688,337.01 44.06 |1,291,210.00 584,777.91 45.29
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-4,350.00- 10,650.00- 29.00 |14,000.00-1,500.00- 10.71
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 5,440.00-5,440.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-9,790.00-5,210.00-65.27 |14,000.00-2,260.08-16.14
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|3.79
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,448.28 6,582.76 8,417.24 43.89 |6,254.99
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,448.28 6,621.76 8,378.24 44.15 |6,258.78
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,121,566.00-37,829.12 347,495.37 3,469,061.37-11.13-|3,133,908.00-389,674.39 12.43-
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,121,566.00-37,829.12 347,495.37 3,469,061.37-11.13-|3,133,908.00-389,674.39 12.43-
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 20
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 44,147.78- 135,831.76- 494,168.24- 21.56 |679,000.00-169,050.90- 24.90
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 744,500.00- 75,182.31- 226,780.17- 517,719.83- 30.46 |722,000.00-200,144.89- 27.72
4001 REVENUES 1,374,500.00-119,330.09-362,611.93-1,011,888.07-26.38 |1,401,000.00-369,195.79-26.35
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 785,638.00 46,796.80 232,569.71 553,068.29 29.60 |792,467.00 270,860.40 34.18
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 16,028.94 44,387.18 125,962.82 26.06 |170,350.00 49,010.18 28.77
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 480,870.00 46,571.87 176,414.40 304,455.60 36.69 |491,950.00 135,660.37 27.58
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,436,858.00 109,397.61 453,371.29 983,486.71 31.55 |1,454,767.00 455,530.95 31.31
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |3.19
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |3.19
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 62,358.00 9,932.48-90,759.36 28,401.36-145.55 |53,767.00 86,338.35 160.58
201 RECREATION CENTER 62,358.00 9,932.48-90,759.36 28,401.36-145.55 |53,767.00 86,338.35 160.58
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 21
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 6,275.00-512.00-5,763.00-8.16 |4,635.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-10,500.00-|10,700.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30,000.00-1,626.50- 8,601.86- 21,398.14- 28.67 |26,000.00-13,248.80- 50.96
4001 REVENUES 46,775.00-1,626.50-9,113.86-37,661.14-19.48 |36,700.00-17,883.80-48.73
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 926,500.00 90,180.77 385,833.72 540,666.28 41.64 |969,400.00 381,979.65 39.40
6210 SUPPLIES 97,755.00 17,402.68 41,315.82 56,439.18 42.26 |93,555.00 34,527.29 36.91
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,353.75 233.75- 105.67 |4,120.00 3,888.39 94.38
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 361,340.00 27,732.02 126,146.74 235,193.26 34.91 |369,510.00 126,297.63 34.18
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,396,715.00 135,315.47 557,650.03 839,064.97 39.93 |1,443,585.00 546,692.96 37.87
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,349,940.00 133,688.97 548,536.17 801,403.83 40.63 |1,406,885.00 528,809.16 37.59
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,349,940.00 133,688.97 548,536.17 801,403.83 40.63 |1,406,885.00 528,809.16 37.59
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 22
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 86,400.00-9,132.49- 53,013.49- 33,386.51- 61.36 |82,600.00-53,105.99- 64.29
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 841.25- 1,792.25-1,792.25 |82.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,400.00-9,973.74-54,805.74-31,594.26-63.43 |82,600.00-53,187.99-64.39
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 421,200.00 34,788.60 167,924.07 253,275.93 39.87 |420,586.00 172,964.23 41.12
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 1,056.26 4,228.03 22,771.97 15.66 |26,700.00 3,875.93 14.52
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 327.82 327.82 327.82-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 45,250.00 1,816.14 11,398.63 33,851.37 25.19 |44,500.00 11,883.93 26.71
6001 EXPENDITURES 493,450.00 37,988.82 183,878.55 309,571.45 37.26 |491,786.00 188,724.09 38.38
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 1,860.00-1,860.00 |715.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,860.00-1,860.00 |715.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 73.82 316.70 316.70-|290.86
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 73.82 316.70 316.70-|290.86
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,050.00 28,088.90 127,529.51 279,520.49 31.33 |409,186.00 135,111.96 33.02
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,050.00 28,088.90 127,529.51 279,520.49 31.33 |409,186.00 135,111.96 33.02
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 23
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 6,050.00-6,050.00 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,000.00-357.18- 14,354.01- 71,645.99- 16.69 |110,000.00-14,547.88- 13.23
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |1,318.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,000.00-357.18-20,404.01-65,595.99-23.73 |110,000.00-15,865.88-14.42
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,648.00 14,111.70 52,515.60 56,132.40 48.34 |108,898.00 38,281.63 35.15
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 4,394.43 7,255.60 12,169.40 37.35 |19,425.00 9,854.29 50.73
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,470.00 2,329.53 81,518.82 141,951.18 36.48 |158,470.00 81,169.57 51.22
6001 EXPENDITURES 351,543.00 20,835.66 141,290.02 210,252.98 40.19 |286,793.00 129,305.49 45.09
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 653.44 1,346.56 32.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00- 90.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 653.44 1,346.56 32.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00-90.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 267,543.00 20,478.48 121,539.45 146,003.55 45.43 |178,793.00 111,639.61 62.44
204 ENVIRONMENT 267,543.00 20,478.48 121,539.45 146,003.55 45.43 |178,793.00 111,639.61 62.44
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 24
6/22/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:58:42R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20105/31/2010 <==========================================>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 26,517.00-2,654.76- 11,537.01- 14,979.99- 43.51 |11,000.00-4,237.32- 38.52
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |9,120.77-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 44,195.22- 56,804.78- 43.76 |101,000.00-45,714.60- 45.26
4001 REVENUES 127,517.00-11,043.18-55,732.23-71,784.77-43.71 |112,000.00-59,072.69-52.74
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,150.00 38,287.60 203,131.10 280,018.90 42.04 |483,300.00 201,106.39 41.61
6210 SUPPLIES 532,900.00 35,183.92 150,814.58 382,085.42 28.30 |502,650.00 114,258.29 22.73
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |20.97
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 146,142.00 9,517.90 59,177.75 86,964.25 40.49 |135,975.00 50,129.81 36.87
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |8,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,162,192.00 82,989.42 413,123.43 749,068.57 35.55 |1,130,277.00 365,515.46 32.34
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,034,675.00 71,946.24 357,391.20 677,283.80 34.54 |1,018,277.00 306,442.77 30.09
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,034,675.00 71,946.24 357,391.20 677,283.80 34.54 |1,018,277.00 306,442.77 30.09
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 282,099.23 1,593,251.06 1,593,251.06-|67,000.00-1,558,016.24 2,325.40-
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: May 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 25
Meeting Date: June 28, 2010
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide information on a proposed
Construction Assistance Program Policy based on state legislation passed during the 2010 session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the requested Construction Assistance Program Policy in line with the EDA’s expectations and is
it acceptable? Please inform staff of any comments, questions, or concerns that you might have.
Assuming there are no major objections or concerns with the policy, staff proposes to bring the
policy to the EDA for adoption in July.
BACKGROUND:
At the April 12, 2010 Study Session, staff reviewed several provisions within the recently enacted
Minnesota Jobs Bill. One such provision in the Bill authorized that cash balances in existing TIF
districts could be used to spur new construction or substantial rehabilitation of private
buildings and ancillary facilities. Staff noted that one local company was considering the
relocation or expansion of its local operations and requested financial assistance to help it
remain in St. Louis Park. Given the potential to assist a local company under the new law, there
was consensus to consider the use of the cash balances within the city’s TIF districts as the
funding source to help that company remain and expand in St. Louis Park. The EDA also
requested that staff prepare criteria by which to consider this company’s and other companies’
requests for construction assistance. In response, staff prepared the attached proposed Construction
Assistance Program Policy for the EDA’s review and feedback.
How Can TIF Cash Balances Be Used To Stimulate Construction Projects?
Below are answers to frequently asked questions related to the use of TIF cash balances.
• What kinds of projects can the EDA assist?
The project must consist of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of private buildings
and/or ancillary facilities, if doing so would create or retain jobs in the State, including
construction jobs. Such construction must begin before July 1, 2011.
• How would the EDA provide assistance to a project?
The first step is to adopt a written spending plan that specifically authorized the assistance.
The EDA will then need to enter into a development agreement that specifies how much
increment will be provided, what it will pay for, and what form it will take. Under the law,
the assistance may be provided as a:
• Direct loan
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy
• Grant
• Interest rate subsidy on developer’s private financing
• Equity or similar investment in corporation, partnership, or limited liability company
• Reimbursement to the City for public improvements such as utilities, streets, and storm
water improvements.
• Does this mean the EDA can pay actual building construction costs?
Yes. Assistance can be provided in any form to a private development consisting of
construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings.
• Can the EDA use increment to pay for public construction projects?
No. Tax increment cannot be used to pay for public land, public buildings, or recreational
facilities. Increment may be used to pay for public costs associated with a private
construction project, such as utility connection fees, sidewalks, parking, or storm water
ponds.
• Does it matter what type of district the increment is coming from?
No. Increment from a housing district can be used to help build an office building or
increment from a redevelopment district can be used in a commercial area.
• How long may the EDA offer such assistance?
The window for this authorization is narrow as any cash balances must be expended by
December 31, 2011.
• Can the EDA pledge tax increment it expects to receive in the future?
No. Only existing cash balances and increment collected through December 31, 2011 must
be used.
• What is the approval process?
The EDA must adopt a written spending plan that specifically authorizes the assistance. This
plan must be adopted following a public hearing. A notice of the public hearing must be
published in a newspaper of general circulation at least once and not less than 10 days and
not more than 30 days prior to the date of hearing.
Proposed Construction Assistance Program
Pursuant to the newly enacted Jobs Bill and the discussion at the April 12th Study Session, staff
proposes the creation of a simple, straight forward Construction Assistance Program to avail the
city of the state’s stimulus authorization. The purpose of the Construction Assistance Program
is to spur the immediate construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, or
mixed use buildings within the city of St. Louis Park so as to create or retain local jobs. The
goal of the Construction Assistance Program is to improve the city’s commercial/industrial
building stock by constructing new structures or rehabilitating existing ones so as to attract and
retain jobs as well as stimulate additional private investment in the city. The resulting new
investment should result in a higher market value for the underlying commercial or industrial
property consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project should also have the
potential to serve as a catalyst for additional neighborhood investment.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy
Ehlers & Associates has determined that there is a total of approximately $1.8 million in fund
balances available between the EDA’s nine TIF districts. Staff proposes that the first $500,000 be
reserved for the company that requested such assistance at the April 12th study session. Staff expects
to hear shortly whether this company plans to formally request all or a portion of this funding. Staff
proposes that another $750,000 in Construction Assistance be made available to assist other
businesses construct building improvements within the city. No one business would be provided
with more than $500,000 and funds would be available on a first-come-first-serve basis.
The Construction Assistance Program would provide funding upon demonstrated need. A
business or building owner must provide the EDA with written evidence that the requested
Assistance is warranted and necessary and without such Assistance the project would be unable
to proceed. Such Assistance would be provided as a deferrable loan to reimburse up to a third
(33%) of eligible costs. Applications would only be considered for private construction projects
requiring between $20,000 and $500,000 in Construction Assistance. (For example: a business
wishes to upgrade its facilities and make it more energy efficient. The business has sworn
construction statements reflecting a total project cost of $280,000. The business could apply
for up to $92,400 in Construction Assistance.) If the subject building is held and properly
maintained by the business and/or building owner for 5 years after project completion, the
entirety of the loan will be forgiven. If the subject property is sold within 5 years of project
completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full along with 7% accrued interest.
The attached Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application further outlines the
program’s objectives, eligible & ineligible costs, timing, qualifications and application
procedures.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
It is proposed the EDA consider the use of up to approximately $1.25 million in TIF district cash
balances as the funding source for a short term Construction Assistance Program that would provide
deferred loans of up to $500,000 to fund private construction activity within the city.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Elements of the proposed policy have a relationship with the adopted Strategic Directions e.g.
Environmental Stewardship.
Attachments: Draft Construction Assistance Program Policy
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
DRAFT
Construction Assistance
Program
POLICY & APPLICATION
Adopted , 2010
Conformance with the attached Policy does not entitle any applicant to financial assistance
under this program. This Policy states the current minimum and desired qualifications
necessary to approve an application. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
(EDA) retains the right to accept or deny applications on the basis of evaluating additional
criteria it deems prudent and necessary. All applicants are subject to approval by the St. Louis
Park EDA or its designee(s). This program may be amended or discontinued at any time
without prior notice
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 4
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
2
For the purpose of this Application, the "City" shall also mean the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (EDA), which conducts various economic development, housing and redevelopment programs and
activities within the City of St. Louis Park. “Applicant” shall mean the business entity undertaking the
proposed construction (this may include the property owner).
Overview
The State of Minnesota Jobs Bill was signed into law on April 1, 2010. Its primary objective
was to stimulate economic development and job creation in the State. Among other things this
law allows cities with cash balances in their existing TIF districts to use those funds to provide
improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or other assistance for the construction or
substantial rehabilitation of private buildings and ancillary facilities, if doing so will create or
retain jobs in Minnesota, including construction jobs. Such construction must commence
before July 1, 2011, and would not have commenced before that date without the assistance.
Any funds utilized under this authorization must be expended by December 31, 2011.
The purpose of this Policy is to establish the City's position relating to the use of its TIF cash
balances for Construction Assistance to stimulate private construction projects within City.
This Policy shall be used as a guide in reviewing and processing requests for construction
projects requiring a minimum of $20,0000 and no more than $500,000 in financing.
Pursuant to the newly enacted Jobs Bill, the purpose of the Construction Assistance Program is
to spur the immediate construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, or
mixed use buildings within the city of St. Louis Park so as to create or retain local jobs. The
goal of the Construction Assistance Program is to improve the city’s commercial/industrial
building stock by constructing new structures or rehabilitating existing ones so as to attract and
retain jobs as well as stimulate additional private investment in the city. The resulting new
investment should result in a higher market value for the underlying commercial or industrial
property consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project should also have the
potential to serve as a catalyst for additional neighborhood investment.
Each project will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Qualifications
outlined within this document. The EDA retains the right to evaluate projects under this
Policy as it sees fit so as to meet the overall objectives of the Jobs Bill.
The Construction Assistance Program will provide reimbursements for qualified construction
activities. Projects are highly encouraged to utilize Construction Assistance in conjunction with
commercial lending sources. Assistance will be considered upon evidence that construction
would not have occurred without such assistance and other financing is not feasible.
Projects which receive $200,000 or more in Construction Assistance are subject to the City’s
Green Building Policy adopted February 16, 2010.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 5
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
3
All projects approved pursuant to this Policy that constitute a business subsidy under
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995, as amended, will be subject to the
City of St. Louis Park/St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Business Subsidy
Policy.
OBJECTIVES: The EDA will consider providing Construction Assistance to facilitate private
construction projects to achieve one or more of the following objectives:
• Revitalize identified key areas of the city through the construction of new buildings
or building expansions.
• Renovate existing buildings to meet current building code standards and accessibility
requirements, enhance building energy efficiency, and improve the health and safety
of occupants so as to retain or attract business tenants in the city.
• Assist local businesses expand and/or improve their facilities for their own use or the
benefit of retaining or attracting tenants.
• Stabilize or increase the market value of the city’s building stock so as to expand the
municipal tax base.
• Retain local jobs and/or increase the number and quality of jobs (e.g. stable
employment with attractive wages and benefits).
• Encourage projects that exhibit efficient urban design; quality architecture and
materials; sustainable “green” design; energy efficiency; enhanced stormwater
management; improved public safety; and decrease the capital and operating costs of
local government.
• Serve as a catalyst for additional neighborhood investment.
• Fulfill the strategic directions outlined in Vision St. Louis Park including:
• being a connected and engaged community.
• being a leader in environmental stewardship.
• promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City
initiatives.
TERMS: The Construction Assistance Program is based upon demonstrated need. A business
or building owner must provide the EDA with written evidence that the requested Assistance is
warranted and necessary and without such Assistance the project would be unable to proceed.
Such Assistance would be provided as a deferrable loan to reimburse up to a third (33%) of
eligible costs. The EDA will only consider applications for private construction projects
requiring between $20,000 and $500,000 in Construction Assistance. (For example: a business
wishes to upgrade its facilities and make it more energy efficient. The business has sworn
construction statements reflecting a total project cost of $280,000. The business could apply
for up to $92,400 in Construction Assistance.) If the subject building is held and properly
maintained by the business and/or building owner for 5 years after project completion, the
entirety of the loan will be forgiven. If the subject property is sold within 5 years of project
completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full along with 7% accrued interest.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 6
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
4
ELIGIBLE COSTS: The following costs are eligible for reimbursement under the Construction
Assistance Program:
• Site-related work including: contamination clean up, soil correction, site regrading,
and pilings
• Utility relocation or upgrades
• Building demolition
• Building construction
• Building expansion
• Building rehabilitation (specifically: costs to bring building into compliance with the
current building code and ADA requirements, costs related to the installation of fire
suppression and energy efficient HVAC systems, as well as upgrades to a building’s
electrical, plumbing and wall systems)
• “Green Building” or sustainable building features
• Tenant improvements which require construction
• Nonconforming use removal
INELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS: The following costs are ineligible for reimbursement under
the Construction Assistance Program:
• Upfront financing. The EDA will only provide assistance (reimbursement) upon
evidence that qualified costs were actually incurred.
• Soft costs, legal fees, permits, architectural, engineering, design fees, taxes, closing
costs, real estate fees, etc.
• Furnishings, equipment, inventory, or other expenses that are not improvements to
the real estate.
• Place extraordinary demands on City services.
• Would likely generate environmental problems in the opinion of the local, state, or
federal governments.
• Involve business activities that are inconsistent with Vision St. Louis Park including
but not limited to: sexually oriented businesses, pawn shops, tattoo parlors, off sale
liquor stores, tobacco shops, gun shops, check cashing businesses or those considered
to create environmental problems due to the type of operation or processes involved
in the business operation.
• Continue and/or expand nonconforming uses.
TIMING: All applications are subject to review and approval by the EDA and require a public
hearing. Deferrable loans will be awarded on a first-come/first-serve basis. Construction must
commence no later than July 1, 2011 and reimbursements must occur no later than December
31, 2011.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 7
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
5
QUALIFYING PROJECTS: All proposed construction projects considered by the City of St.
Louis Park must meet each of the following Minimum Qualifications and will also be evaluated
based on their ability to meet the Desired Qualifications for assistance. However, it should not
be presumed that a project meeting these qualifications will automatically be approved.
Meeting the qualifications creates no contractual rights on the part of any applicant to receive
financial assistance.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
A. The proposed project must be located within the City of St. Louis Park and result in the
construction, expansion or renovation of a building. Projects which result in making
buildings comply with the property maintenance code and/or make life/safety
improvements may also qualify.
B. The proposed project must result in the retention or creation of jobs within the city
(including construction jobs).
C. Applicants must have been in business a minimum of three (3) years and must
demonstrate that the proposed construction project would not have commenced
without Construction Assistance.
D. The applicant must provide market data, tenant letters of intent or other evidence
which support the market potential/demand for the proposed project.
E. The applicant must be able to demonstrate the ability to commence the construction
project by July 1, 2011.
F. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Strategic Plan and Vision St. Louis
Park.
G. The proposed construction project must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance, or required changes to the Plan and Ordinance must be
under active consideration by the City at the time a Development Contract providing
the assistance is scheduled for approval.
H. The applicant must be willing to enter into a Development Contract with the EDA
which outlines the requirements and obligations of both parties for the provision of
Construction Assistance.
I. Assistance will not be provided when the applicant's credentials, in the sole judgment of
the City, are inadequate due to past track record relating to: quality and completion of
projects, general reputation and/or bankruptcy, or other problems or issues considered
relevant by the City.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 8
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
6
DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS:
A. The proposed project should be located within areas of the City envisioned for
Construction and/or revitalization.
B. Construction projects should meet public policy objectives as determined by the City
Council. Preference will be given to projects that:
• Include efficient urban architectural design, high quality construction and materials,
additional green space.
• Provide significant improvement to surrounding land uses, the neighborhood,
and/or the City.
• Aim to clean-up contaminated sites and buildings.
• Facilitate the expansion/location of a business or industry with an environmentally
sound track record.
• Provide new and/or retained employment that provides wages and/or benefits above
the MSA average.
• Increase the market value of the property.
• Fill an unmet market need.
• Consistent with Livable Communities and Transit Oriented Development
principles.
• Substantially improve the building’s accessibility, energy efficiency and/or safety.
• Reduce demands on City services (i.e. public safety).
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 9
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
7
APPLICATION PROCEDURE:
1. Meet with appropriate City staff to discuss the scope of the project, anticipated costs,
financial needs, public participation being requested, time schedule, and other
information as may be necessary. The loan request shall be reviewed by City staff on a
preliminary basis as to the feasibility of the project.
2. If, in staff’s judgment, the project appears to meet the Program’s objectives and the
amount of requested assistance appears reasonable, the applicant may elect to file a
formal application for Construction Assistance at which time the applicant will be asked
to submit a $1,000 Application Fee.
3. Following the necessary project review by staff, the EDA will determine whether the
proposed project is sufficiently consistent with the Policy to merit funding.
Applications will be considered by the EDA in Study Session at which staff will present
the proposed project and its findings. The applicant should also be prepared to make a
formal presentation of the project. If the project is favorably received a public hearing
will be scheduled and the applicant will be required to enter into a Development
Agreement. Applicants agree to fully reimburse the EDA for all costs it incurs related to
the preparation of such an Agreement.
4. A public hearing must be held after which the EDA must adopt a written spending plan that
specifically authorizes the assistance along and approve the Development Agreement. A
notice of the public hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least
once and not less than 10 days and not more than 30 days prior to the date of hearing.
5. Upon project completion staff should be invited to tour the facility and verify the
completed improvement(s).
6. On or before December 1, 2011, applicant must submit evidence of total project costs
incurred and paid (reflecting individual improvements constructed and their respective
costs) along with the specific qualified costs for which reimbursement is being sought.
Construction Assistance will then be disbursed prior to December 31, 2011.
7. If the project is approved and the applicant proceeds with the project, the EDA shall
reimburse the applicant any unused portion of the escrow as of the date of execution of
the redevelopment contract. If the applicant does not proceed with the project, the
EDA shall reimburse the applicant for the unused portion of the escrow as of the date
that the EDA is notified in writing that the applicant desires to withdraw its
application.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 10
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
8
Construction Assistance Program Application
General Information
1. Business Name:
Address:
Contact Person:
Telephone Number:
Email Address:
2. Brief description of the business seeking Construction Assistance:
Building and Project Information
3. Location and address of project.
4. Proposed construction project: business type(s) and/or use(s), prospective tenants,
building(s) square footage, and building height and materials. If new building and
expansion projects please provide a preliminary site plan.
5. Other project elements:
6. Is any of the proposed project area blighted, contaminated or environmentally challenged? If
yes, please explain.
7. Present ownership of the building. Is applicant the building owner? If not, what are the
terms for property acquisition including purchase price, closing date and any other pertinent
conditions for Purchase Agreement. If applicant is a tenant in the building please provide
evidence property owner is in agreement with proposed project.
8. Who will own the building upon completion of the proposed project?
9. Project construction schedule:
a. Estimated construction start date:
b. Estimated construction completion date:
c. If phased project: year % completed
year % completed
10. Name & address of architect, engineer, and general contractor.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 11
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
9
Project Cost/Financial Analysis
11. Please submit sworn construction statements or written bids indicating total estimated
project costs (such as those listed below).
a. Property Acquisition $
b. Soil Correction/Remediation $
c. Demolition $
d. Site Grading and Excavation $
e. Utilities $
f. Road Improvements $
g. Curb, gutter, parking lot, sidewalks $
h. Building Construction $
i. Parking Ramp (if applicable) $
j. Landscaping $
k. HVAC and other bldg equipment $
l. Architectural & Engineering Fees $
m. Legal Fees $
n. Financing Costs $
o. Broker Costs $
p. Developer Fee $
q. Contractor Fees $
r. Contingencies $
s. Other (please specify) $
t. TOTAL PROJECT COST $
12. Sources of Funding/Financing:
a. Equity $
b. Loan Source(s) $
(please provide lender contact information and summary of financing terms)
c. Other Sources (explain) $
13. Total projected Market Value of property upon project completion: $
14. Estimated amount of Construction Assistance required in order to make project viable.
15. Please submit an itemized list of project costs for which Construction Assistance is being
requested (See above list of eligible costs).
16. Specific reasons why, “but for” the use of Construction Assistance, this project would not be
possible.
17. What other alternative financing sources have been sought and why are they not adequate or
feasible?
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 12
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
10
Job Creation/Retention
18. How many FTE (Full Time Equivalent) jobs are expected to be retained in the City as a
direct result of this project?
19. What is the expected pay range of these retained positions (without benefits)?
Pay Range
# of FTE
Employees Total Wages
$0 to $14,999 0 $
$15,000 to $24,999 0 $
$25,000 to $29,999 0 $
$30,000 to $44,999 0 $
$45,000 to $59,999 0 $
$60,000 & Up 0 $
TOTAL 0 $
20. How many FTE (Full Time Equivalent) jobs are expected to be created in the City as a
direct result of this project?
21. What is the expected pay range of these new positions (without benefits)?
Pay Range
# of FTE
Employees Total Wages
$0 to $14,999 0 $
$15,000 to $24,999 0 $
$25,000 to $29,999 0 $
$30,000 to $44,999 17 $
$45,000 to $59,999 0 $
$60,000 & Up 0 $
TOTAL 0 $
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 13
SLP Construction Assistance Program Policy & Application
11
Energy Savings
22. If project includes improvements to the building’s energy usage, please describe any energy
savings this project is likely to achieve.
Other Community Impacts
23. Please describe any other beneficial economic/social impacts this project is likely to have on
the community.
Applicant Background
24. Background on the applicant’s company, principals, and history. Please list previous related
projects and locations as well as experience of this particular construction team working
together.
25. Has applicant, applicant’s company, partner or related affiliate ever filed bankruptcy?
If yes, please explain.
Study Session Meeting of June 28, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Proposed Construction Assistance Program Policy Page 14