HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/08/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
AUGUST 9, 2010
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning --- August 23
2. 6:35 p.m. 2011 Budget Discussion
3. 8:05 p.m. Fire Stations Project
4. 9:20 p.m. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office
Zoning District
5. 9:50pm Communications (Verbal)
9:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
7. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account: Affordable and
Life Cycle Housing Goals for 2011 – 2020
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of
meeting.
Meeting Date: August 9, 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 – August 23, 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on
August 23, 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 August 23, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for August 23, 2010
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session
Study Session, Monday, August 23, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Friends of the Arts Update – Parks and Recreation (30 minutes)
Representatives of Friends of the Arts will be in attendance to provide their annual update
to the City Council.
3. Community Recreation/Civic Facility Planning – Parks and Recreation (45 minutes)
Staff will present a proposed process for advancing one of the recommendations made
thru the Vision St. Louis Park initiative.
4. Affordable Housing – Community Development (45 minutes)
Follow-up to the July 12th discussion with the Council; review and summarize the
direction that the Council would like to take related to affordable housing policy and
related initiatives.
5. 2011 Budget Discussion – Finance/Administrative Services (30 minutes)
This discussion will allow time to tie up any loose ends regarding the preliminary
property tax levy to be certified by the City Council on September 7.
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.
Reports:
Environmental Summary
7015 Walker St. Update
Rental License Amendments for Provisional License
End of Meeting: 9:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: August 9, 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:
2011 Budget Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. This report is to assist with the Study Session discussion regarding 2011
budget recommendations and to provide information for setting the preliminary property tax levy on
September 7, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• What amount does the City Council wish to certify as its preliminary property tax levy?
• Is the City Council in agreement with the franchise fee recommendation for 2011?
• Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding funding options for dispatch
operations?
• Does the City Council have questions regarding the 2011 budget recommendations and/or
are there other items to discuss, add or change?
BACKGROUND:
On June 14, 2010, staff met with Council to discuss the 2011 budget process. Council agreed that
staff should follow recommendations from the “2010/2011 Budget Snapshot” (Attachment 3)
presented at the meeting when preparing the 2011 budget. Assumptions in the “2010/2011 Budget
Snapshot” included a pattern similar to 2010 - to hold expenditures flat if at all possible with the
possibility for some modest growth based on essential business needs, a modest levy increase
($500,000), funding for a wage and benefit contribution increase, a franchise fee increase, a modest
increase in other fees to fit with business costs, utility rate increases, and continued long range
financial planning.
Based on the assumptions just outlined, at the June 14 meeting the City Council was informed of an
estimated budget gap of $411,857 within the General Fund/Park and Recreation Fund combined
budgets. Based on direction from the Council at that meeting, department directors completed and
submitted their budgets by July 7th. Based on the budgets submitted by department directors the gap
decreased to $58,800. This budget gap decrease was achieved via a combination of revenue
adjustments and reductions in department or cost center budgets. Upon subsequent meetings with
each department, further budget refinements were made resulting in essentially a balanced budget
proposal to the City Council for 2011.
For 2011 the combined preliminary General Fund/Park and Recreation Fund budget is
$29,722,246 as compared to $29,255,519 in 2010 or a 1.6% increase.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
Information that was requested by City Council at the June 14 meeting is outlined below along with
responses.
1. Provide a history of property tax levies for the past ten years.
• Attachment 4 – “10 Year Tax Levy History”
2. Identify what funding the City receives from the State of Minnesota and what it is used for.
• Gary Carlson addressed this at the City Council work session of July 19.
3. Research and identify other ways the State of Minnesota could impact the City directly or
indirectly.
• Gary Carlson addressed this at the City Council work session of July 19.
4. How can the City communicate to the public the various ways the City has worked to
“tighten its belt and find creative ways to get business done and save money”?
• Department Directors and the Communications Coordinator are preparing this
information for Council.
5. Which cities charge franchise fees and which cities do not?
• Attachment 8 – “Franchise Fees Comparisons”
6. What impact does a $0.75 franchise fee increase have on the Pavement Management Fund
with no future increases?
• Attachment 10 – “Long Range Financial Management Plan”
Department Directors will be present to answer questions from City Council relating to 2011
recommendations. Below is the order of the budget presentation and discussion for the Study
Session:
1. Review 2011 Budget General Fund Recommendations
• Attachment 1 – “Summary of Revenues”
• Attachment 2 – “Summary of Expenditures”
- Overview of revenues excluding property taxes
Permit revenue relatively stable
o Fees overview
o Fire aid reduction
- Overview of expenditures
Business operation changes for 2011
o Dispatch
2. Debt Service Projections
• Attachment 5 – “Debt Service Levy Requirements”
3. 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Options for Council to Consider
• Attachment 6 – “Proposed Levy Options for 2011 and 2012”
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
4. 2011 Preliminary HRA Levy Projection for Council to consider
5. Franchise Fees
• Attachment 7 – “Franchise Fee Increase Impact Worksheets”
• Attachment 8 – “Franchise Fee Comparisons”
- Franchise fee recommendations for 2011 and potential future increases
- Franchise fee projection with the larger proposed increases
6. Continuation of Capital Improvement Program and Long Range Financial Management
Plan
• Attachment 9 – “Capital Improvement Plan Report – Sources & Department Summary”
• Attachment 10 – “Long Range Financial Management Plan”.
7. Property Tax Implications on Residential Properties at Different Valuations
• Attachment 11 – “Property Tax Implications Worksheet”
8. Communication to the Public
The 2011 budget presented to the City Council includes the following assumptions:
Wages and Benefits
We have planned a 2.25% increase effective 12/31/10. As you are aware, the City had concessions
from our unions with closed contracts in 2010. Dispatch agreed to roll back to 1% on 1/1/10 and
2.25% on 12/31/10; Firefighters agreed to a combination of roll back and unpaid time off
equivalent to the dispatch pattern, and furloughs are in place for Local 49. Patrol and Sergeants
settled for the same wage pattern of 1% and 2.25% in 2010 with 0% in 2011. The only group to
need approval from the City Council for the 2.25% pattern on 12/31/10 is non-union. Also, for
2010 there was no increase in employer contribution for benefits. For 2011 the preliminary budget
assumes we provide a $65/month per employee increase.
Franchise Fees
Franchise fees historically generate approximately $920,000 annually, which are used to fund the
Pavement Management Program. The City also allocates $415,000 of the property tax levy per year
to aid in funding the Pavement Management Program. Based on the current Long Range Financial
Management Plan, the Pavement Management fund will have a deficit balance by the end of 2016 if
the program is maintained at its current level. Therefore, as discussed previously with the City
Council, the proposed strategy is to increase the City’s franchise fees in 2011. Thereafter, a plan to
increase franchise fees on an every other year basis provides for a sustainable funding source for the
Pavement Management Fund and eliminates the need for the property tax infusion. The property
tax monies could then be redirected and utilized in the Capital Replacement Fund (also projected to
have a significant deficit in future years) as part of a multi-faceted funding approach to help achieve
long term sustainability.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
Franchise fee increases that are being proposed would increase revenues in 2011 by approximately
$294,000, impacting most customer classes as outlined in the attached worksheet. The residential
class, which comprises about 90% of the customer base, would see a $0.50 per month per utility
increase, and the large commercial/industrial customer would see a $4.00 per month per utility
increase. Beginning in 2013 and every other year thereafter, if the City Council, CenterPoint and
Xcel would agree to increase franchise fees by $0.50 or $0.75 for all non-large commercial/industrial
and $4.00 to $6.00 for all large commercial/industrial, this would generate between $256,000 and
$385,000 in additional annual revenue. By implementing the proposed increase for 2011, the City
would continue to be very competitive with other cities as the attached information demonstrates.
Even based on the future proposed increases the franchise fees would still be competitive with many
cities’ current rates. Any approved additional funding will remain dedicated to the Pavement
Management Fund which covers street seal-coating, mill and overlays, curb & gutter repairs, and
reconstruction.
2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy
In working to develop a 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy for the City Council to consider, there
are some important key items to keep in mind:
• Economic Climate
• 2011 Levy Limits Remain
• Debt Service Levy Needs and Capital Beyond 2011
To aid City Council in determining a preliminary levy amount, information is included in
attachment 6 – “Proposed Levy Options for 2011 and 2012”, which include some options based on
input from staff. Please note: These are not the only options available, but rather can help
demonstrate what a particular preliminary levy amount in 2011 could mean for 2012 based on
certain assumptions. Council is not being asked nor required to make a preliminary levy
determination for 2012.
One other key item pertains to the Debt Service Levy and the reduction of the levy amount for
2011. Due to the maturity, defeasance or partial defeasance of several bonds, the City will see its
Debt Service Levy decrease by $361,700 from 2010 to 2011. This decrease provides greater
flexibility for the City Council to consider when setting a preliminary levy for 2011, as discussed
below and in several of the attachments.
A synopsis of the proposed levy options is shown below:
1. The 2010 Final Levy was $22,465,393, which is 2.98% or $650,000 more than 2009.
2. The 2011 maximum levy increase based on levy limits can be $23,562,306, which is 4.88%
or $1,096,913 more than 2010.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
3. Based on various assumptions, the projected 2012 levy amount is estimated at $24,291,032,
which is 3.09% or $728,726 more than the maximum 2011 levy.
4. Based on items 1 through 3 above, staff has calculated preliminary levy options for 2011 that
range from increases of 0.68%(the minimum necessary to balance the current preliminary
budget proposal) to a maximum of 4.88%.
5. Based on the preliminary levy option considered for 2011, the projected estimated 2012
preliminary levy would range from 7.36% (if the 0.68% 2011 preliminary levy option was
selected) to 3.09% (if the maximum 4.88% 2011 preliminary levy option was selected).
If a preliminary levy amount for 2011 was chosen that was over the 0.68%, suggestions on where to
place those dollars have been proposed, such as the Capital Replacement and Park Improvement
funds that would aid in achieving long-term sustainability.
HRA Levy
This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which
significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council has elected to use the levy
proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some of the
HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies and analysis for future
improvement projects. By law these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment
purposes. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future (particularly
transportation infrastructure e.g. Hwy 7 and Louisiana and possibly Highway 100), staff
recommends that at this point in time the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for
the 2011 budget year. The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the taxable market value of the
City. Based on this, Staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy based on data from Hennepin
County for 2011 to be $1,028,888. This is a $14,453 decrease from 2010 HRA Levy of
$1,043,341.
What are the general changes, shifts, reductions that Department Directors used to prepare
the budget recommendations?
Increases to the budget are mainly due to the projected salary and step adjustments along with a
recommendation for an increase to the employer contribution for benefits. No new programs are
proposed for 2011. Once again, staff worked hard to review, conduct analysis and, if possible, hold
the line on spending with the goal to continue to provide the same quality of services. By working
together, staff has been able to deliver a balanced budget recommendation to Council based on
direction provided at the June 14 meeting. Below is a summary by department that includes a brief
statement about some of the changes of note. More information can be provided as needed or
requested.
Administrative Services: Maintains budgets for Administration, Human Resources, Accounting
and Assessing. Some items to note include increasing fee for an intoxicating license to $500 as
discussed previously with Council and additional revenue anticipated from new establishments. In
Human Resources, reductions are projected in labor consulting cost estimates and print advertising
costs due to increased use of online recruitment. For Accounting, a contractual increase was
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
necessary due to the single audit requirement and other financial statement work. This cost is
currently allocated as 52% Accounting, 16% EDA, and 8% to each utility fund. Assessing shows a
slight reduction in non-personnel expenditures.
Community Development: Maintains budgets for Community Development, EDA, CDBG and
Housing Rehabilitation. One item to note is an increased STEP funding request of $5,000 (from
$35,000 in 2010 to $40,000 in 2011).
Fire: Staff realigned the funding expected to be received from fire insurance revenues since our past
projections for several years have been overestimated due to overpayments from the State in previous
years which are now being recaptured. As discussed, this revenue was reduced by $110,000 to
$190,000 for 2011.
Information Resources: Maintains budgets for Information Resources, Communications &
Marketing, Support Services and Cable TV. For IR, some capital items were shifted from the
General Fund to the CIP to help overall expenditures. In Communications, staff is proposing to
eliminate some cost for consulting and slightly increase some staffing hours to provide assistance
with publications. This shift will provide a reduction in expenditures. The Cable TV division is
currently implementing a program to increase the number of hours volunteers will work in
production which will help reduce expenditures. A new recommendation for 2011 is to budget
$10,000 for translation services for some of our publications.
Inspections: Maintains budgets for Inspections and Facilities Maintenance. For 2010, permit levels
are coming in as projected. In looking forward to 2011, we expect permit levels to come in slightly
under the 2010 projection by $40,000. We also recommend increasing fees for rental housing
licensing for an additional estimated increase in revenue of $11,675. We also see an increase in
revenues for penalties and late fees. In 2010 we budgeted $1,575 in revenue. As of June 30, we’ve
collected approximately $13,000. For 2011, this revenue is increased in the budget proposal. In
Facilities Maintenance, salary for staff working on projects such as Fire Stations and MSC will be
funded from the project, rather than the General Fund. For 2011, the MSC construction will be
complete, but all electric, gas, garbage and other utility costs show an increase due to staff estimates
for the larger facility.
Parks & Recreation: Maintains budgets for Environmental/Natural Resources, Organized
Recreation, Park Maintenance, Recreation Center, Vehicle Maintenance and Westwood.
Environment:
With the unidentified circumstances surrounding Emerald Ash Bore, the Environmental budget has
some unknowns. As we know, we have a grant that started in 2010 and some funds will be utilized
in 2011 to pay for educational materials in this area. Our line item for tree removal fluctuates. We
have $160,000 recommended for Dutch Elm and other tree removal costs. At this time, our
removals are flattening out and additional funding is not needed. Emerald Ash Borer has not been
identified in our city at this time, but if it is, the larger metro area will be affected and in the same
situation. More budget work remains if significant additional funding is needed due to large
outbreak of Emerald Ash Borer.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
Organized Recreation:
Programs were reviewed and revenues adjusted accordingly. For 2011, the program staff will be
handling the arts grant program with Friends of the Arts. Previously, this program was in
Administration.
Park Maintenance and Westwood:
These budgets have remained fairly flat with no significant changes.
Recreation Center:
Beginning in 2010, the frequency in which a sheet of ice was removed from service and fully
replaced decreased. By doing this process less frequently, the City is able to reduce expenditures and
enhance revenues. For 2011, the City will continue this plan.
Vehicle Maintenance:
This budget has reduced costs by budgeting less for motor fuels. The City is participating in a
consortium to purchase a portion of its anticipated fuel needs and, as a result, have been able to
lower fuel costs by utilizing this consortium. We will continue to buy fuel in this manner and
anticipate a conservative budget reduction of $45,000 over 2010 for a total motor fuel budget for
2011 recommended at $295,000.
Police: Maintains budgets for General Public Safety Operations, Dispatch, and Community
Outreach. The focus area for 2010 and 2011 is the ongoing changes with Dispatch. As you know,
the City has received notice that Golden Valley is terminating its contract for dispatch services
effective 12/31/2010. At this point, staff understands Golden Valley is negotiating a contract for
dispatch services for 2011 with the City of Edina. City staff has informed the City of Golden Valley
that we will continue to provide them dispatch services for the entirety of 2011 provided they
inform us by September 1, 2010.
The preliminary 2011 budget assumes we still have a contract with Golden Valley for 2011. If it
turns out that this is no longer the case, adjustments will need to be made to staffing via the
reduction of three dispatch positions. Despite reductions in staffing, an additional budget need of
$80,000 will have to be filled. Staff has analyzed its options and feels the $80,000 gap can be filled
by using $40,000 of the City’s annual 911 fund revenues to pay for 911 related operating expenses
and by filling the remaining $40,000 via other adjustments in the Police Department budget.
Another item we are considering in the Police Department is to extend the rotation life of a squad
from 2 to 3 years on a trial program. We will keep an additional squad or two for back up. This
saves capital costs in our CIP. For the first year, some additional funds will be used to equip the
back up squad with light bar and other equipment.
Public Works: Maintains budgets for Public Works Administration, Engineering, Operations,
Sewer, Solid Waste, Storm Water, Water and Reilly (the latter five are non-general fund operations).
In 2011, we have a staffing cost reduction due to the reduction of one support staff in 2010 with the
remodeling and combining of services and support at the MSC. Public Works Operations closely
reviewed the costs and expenditures for various street materials and supplies and was able to reduce
the 2011 budget by $25,000 from $450,000 in 2010 to $425,000 in 2011 in this area. We are in
the middle of a utility rate study to present rates for 2011 at a future meeting.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
The above are highlights or items to note for 2011. More detailed information can be obtained
from Accounting. Department Directors are attending the study session to assist with providing
additional information or to answer questions.
NEXT STEPS:
We will use information from the discussion this evening to finalize recommendations for the
Preliminary Property Tax Levy on September 7, 2010. If necessary, we can meet on August 23 in
another study session prior to presenting the budget for the preliminary levy.
The schedule is as follows:
August 9 Council Study Session on Budget and Preliminary 2011 Levy
August 23 Continue Discussion from 8/9 if Necessary; Department Directors present as needed
September 7 Council Establishes Preliminary Property Tax Levy (This amount may be reduced
in the future, not increased.)
Sept. to Nov. Council Study Session Updates and Discussion on Budget and Capital Plan as needed
November 8 Final Budget Discussion with Council if needed (Prior to TNT hearing.)
December 6 Truth in Taxation Budget Public Hearing
December 20 Council Approves 2011 Final Budget and Property Tax Levy
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Details provided in this report.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachments: 1. Summary of Revenues – General and Park and Rec. Funds
2. Summary of Expenditures – General and Park and Rec. Funds
3. Budget Analysis Worksheet – Years 2009 – 2012
4. 10 Year Tax Levy History
5. Debt Service Levy Requirements – Years 2010 – 2020
6. Proposed Levy Options for 2011 and 2012
7. Franchise Fee Increase Impact worksheets
8. Franchise Fees Comparisons
9. Capital Improvement Plan Report – Sources & Departments Summary
10. Long Range Financial Management Plan worksheets for 3 funds
11. Property Tax Implications Worksheet
12. Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions
13. Mission and Values Statement – City of St. Louis Park
14. Guiding Principles for Budget 2011
Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Brian Swanson, Controller
Steve Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Revenues
2009 2010 2011
Actual Adopted Requested $ change % change
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,162,792$ 14,889,605$ 15,426,072$ 536,467 3.6%
Licenses and Permits 2,779,167 2,294,768 2,345,910 51,142 2.2%
Intergovernmental 1,570,309 1,598,787 1,481,183 (117,605) -7.4%
Charges for Services 1,034,854 1,138,018 1,152,643 14,625 1.3%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 332,694 311,750 328,200 16,450 5.3%
Investment Earnings 260,263 200,000 200,000 - 0.0%
Miscellaneous Revenue 170,876 101,600 104,900 3,300 3.2%
Transfers In 2,685,300 2,583,825 2,550,876 (32,949) -1.3%
Use of Fund Balance - 51,000 - (51,000) -100.0%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,996,255$ 23,169,353$ 23,589,783$ 420,430 1.8%
Appropriations 22,477,873$ 23,169,353$ 23,589,784$ 420,431 1.8%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 1,518,382$ -$ (0)$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,073,118$ 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ (14,311) -0.4%
Licenses and Permits 6,865 6,275 6,600 325 5.2%
Intergovernmental 67,622 71,219 77,652 6,433 9.0%
Charges for Services 1,042,612 1,073,900 1,095,250 21,350 2.0%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties - - - - 0.0%
Investment Earnings 760 - - - 0.0%
Miscellaneous Revenue 984,559 919,900 952,400 32,500 3.5%
Transfers In 33,274 - - - 0.0%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,208,810$ 6,086,166$ 6,132,463$ 46,297 0.8%
Appropriations 5,835,524$ 6,086,166$ 6,132,462$ 46,296 0.8%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 373,286$ (0)$ 0$
Grand Totals:30,205,065$ 29,255,519$ 29,722,246$
GRAND TOTAL REVS OVER EXPEND. G.F. AND P&R.:(0)$
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 9
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2009 2010 2011
and Activity Actual Adopted Requested $ Change % change
General Government:
Administration/Legislative/Human Resources 1,512,627$ 1,569,422$ 1,542,570$ (26,853) -1.7%
Communications & Marketing 272,270 281,905 294,470 12,565 4.5%
Community Outreach 80,634 86,255 88,515 2,260 2.6%
Information Resources 1,414,794 1,400,666 1,394,226 (6,440) -0.5%
Finance 1,121,237 1,078,930 1,113,106 34,176 3.2%
Community Development 1,050,332 1,051,150 1,094,186 43,036 4.1%
Facilities Maintenance 1,020,128 1,081,742 1,114,550 32,808 3.0%
Total General Government 6,472,022 6,550,070 6,641,622 91,552 1.4%
Public Safety:
Police 6,954,076 7,306,402 7,499,575 193,173 2.6%
Fire Protection 3,031,709 3,122,173 3,179,277 57,104 1.8%
Inspectional Services 1,918,353 1,816,227 1,863,296 47,069 2.6%
Total Public Safety 11,904,138 12,244,802 12,542,148 297,346 2.4%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 913,576 854,900 829,698 (25,203) -2.9%
Engineering 797,018 829,800 846,031 16,231 2.0%
Operations 2,383,457 2,509,100 2,550,285 41,185 1.6%
Total Public Works 4,094,051 4,193,800 4,226,014 32,214 0.8%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,188,616 1,245,408 1,239,230 (6,178) -0.5%
Recreation Center 1,341,344 1,436,858 1,442,447 5,589 0.4%
Park Maintenance 1,389,939 1,396,715 1,435,374 38,659 2.8%
Westwood 481,650 493,450 502,366 8,916 1.8%
Environment 414,311 351,543 371,325 19,782 5.6%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,019,664 1,162,192 1,141,721 (20,471) -1.8%
Total Park & Recreation 5,835,524 6,086,166 6,132,462 46,296 0.8%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency 7,662 180,681 180,000 (681) -0.4%
Total Non-Departmental 7,662 180,681 180,000 (681) -0.4%
Total General & Park Funds 28,313,397$ 29,255,519$ 29,722,246$ 466,727 1.6%
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FOR YEARS 2009 - 2012
2009 2009 2010 2011 2012
Adopted Revised Adopted Preliminary Projected
General Fund Revenues:
Property Taxes 14,970,275 15,285,275 15,528,521 16,064,988 16,064,988
MVHC Loss - (632,000) (638,916) (638,916) (638,916)
All Other Revenues 8,757,024 8,807,024 8,279,748 8,163,714 8,163,714
Total General Revenues 23,727,299 23,460,299$ 23,169,353$ 23,589,786$ 23,589,786$
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Total Admininstration 990,835 990,835$ 924,472$ 889,801$ 889,801$
Total Communications 289,225 289,225$ 281,905$ 294,470$ 294,470$
Total Community Outreach 86,055 86,055$ 86,255$ 88,515$ 88,515$
Total Human Resources 644,050 643,550$ 644,950$ 652,769$ 652,769$
Total Information Resources 1,483,270 1,471,270$ 1,400,666$ 1,394,226$ 1,394,226$
Total Finance 679,450 617,450$ 588,850$ 612,965$ 612,965$
Total Assessing 487,530 487,530$ 490,080$ 500,142$ 500,142$
Total Community Development 1,107,750 1,083,750$ 1,051,150$ 1,094,186$ 1,094,186$
Total Facilities Maintenance 1,203,442 1,153,442$ 1,081,742$ 1,114,550$ 1,114,550$
Total General Government 6,971,607 6,823,107$ 6,550,070$ 6,641,624$ 6,641,624$
Public Safety:
Total Police 7,307,022 7,281,522$ 7,306,402$ 7,499,575$ 7,499,575$
Total Fire 3,116,673 3,116,673$ 3,122,173$ 3,179,277$ 3,179,277$
Total Inspectional Services 2,053,427 2,027,427$ 1,816,227$ 1,863,296$ 1,863,296$
Total Public Safety 12,477,122$ 12,425,622$ 12,244,802$ 12,542,148$ 12,542,148$
Public Works:
Total Public Works Administration 854,950 854,950$ 854,900$ 829,698$ 829,698$
Total Engineering 923,800 923,800$ 829,800$ 846,031$ 846,031$
Total Operations 2,485,800 2,485,800$ 2,509,100$ 2,550,285$ 2,550,285$
Total Public Works 4,264,550 4,264,550$ 4,193,800$ 4,226,014$ 4,226,014$
Non-Departmental:
Total Non-Departmental 180,000 180,000$ 180,681$ 180,000$ 180,000$
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,893,279 23,693,279$ 23,169,353$ 23,589,786$ 23,589,786$
General Fund Gap (165,980)$ (232,980)$ -$ -$ -$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
Property Taxes 4,073,118 4,073,118$ 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ 4,000,561$
Subtotal: All Other Revenues 2,092,300 2,092,300 2,071,294 2,131,902 2,131,902
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,165,418 6,165,418$ 6,086,166$ 6,132,463$ 6,132,463$
Park & Recreation Expenditures:
Total Organized Recreation 1,291,210 1,291,210$ 1,245,408$ 1,239,230$ 1,239,230$
Total Recreation Center 1,454,767 1,454,767$ 1,436,858$ 1,442,447$ 1,442,447$
Total Park Maintenance 1,460,585 1,443,585$ 1,396,715$ 1,435,374$ 1,435,374$
Total Westwood Nature Center 491,786 491,786$ 493,450$ 502,366$ 502,366$
Total Environment 286,793 286,793$ 351,543$ 371,325$ 371,325$
Total Vehicle Maintenance 1,180,277 1,130,277$ 1,162,192$ 1,141,721$ 1,141,721$
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,165,418 6,098,418$ 6,086,166$ 6,132,463$ 6,132,463$
Park & Recreation Gap -$ 67,000$ -$ -$ -$
Total Gap General and P&R Before Adjustments:(165,980)$ (165,980)$ -$ -$
Proposed Property Tax Levy Adjustment:-$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Proposed Benefit Contribution Increases - $50/month - General and P&R Impact:- - - 116,532
Salary adjustments:- - 436,051
Use of Fund Balance:165,980$ 165,980$ -$ -
Estimated Projected increase in expenditures:- - - -
Decreased transfer in from Police and Fire Pension Fund per LRFMP:- - - - (50,000)
Projected Total Budget Gap for Gen. and Park and Rec. Funds:-$ -$ -$ -$ (102,583)$
2011 ASSUMPTIONS:
Salary and step increases if applicable for all employees.
No use of fund balance in 2011.
No Market Value Homestead Credit
2012 ASSUMPTIONS:
Salary and step increases if applicable for all employees.
No use of fund balance in 2012.
No Market Value Homestead Credit
No increase in non-personnel expenditures.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 11
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
10 Year Tax Levy History
With Dollar and Percent Changes
Year Levy Amount $ Change % Change
2001 13,252,491
2002 14,271,459 1,018,968 7.69%
2003 14,536,228 264,769 1.86%
2004 16,323,715 1,787,487 12.30%
2005 17,303,138 979,423 6.00%
2006 18,515,211 1,212,073 7.00%
2007 19,478,002 962,791 5.20%
2008 20,619,676 1,141,674 5.86%
2009 21,815,393 1,195,717 5.80%
2010 22,465,393 650,000 2.98%
10 Year Average 17,858,071 1,023,656 6.08%
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 12
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKDebt Service Levy RequirementsFor the Years 2010 - 20202010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 City G.O. 1999 Bonds340,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ G.O. Improv Bonds 2003519,400 501,800 508,100 514,100 - - - - - - - City G.O. 2005A Bonds498,900 495,200 496,500 497,200 497,300 495,700 - - - - - Fire Stat. Bonds - Projected- - 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE REQUIRED:1,358,700 997,000 2,059,600 2,066,300 1,552,300 1,550,700 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 1,055,000 CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR: N/A(361,700) 1,062,600 6,700 (514,000) (1,600) (495,700) - - - - Year CollectedStudy Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 13
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKProposed Levy OptionsFor 2011 and 2012Levy YearLevy AmountTotal Change Percent Change201022,465,393$ 11,700$ 500,000$ 138,300$ 650,000$ 2.98%2011 Levy Options1) 2011 w/$522K GF 22,625,849$ (361,700)$ 522,156$ -$ 160,456$ 0.68%7.36%2) 2011 w/522K GF & 361K Capital22,987,549$ (361,700)$ 522,156$ 361,700$ 522,156$ 2.32%5.67%3) 2011 w/522K GF & 502K Capital23,127,849$ (361,700)$ 522,156$ 502,000$ 662,456$ 2.95%5.03%4) 2011 w/522K GF & 625K Capital23,250,849$ (361,700)$ 522,156$ 625,000$ 785,456$ 3.50%4.47%5) 2011 w/522K GF & 738K Capital23,363,849$ (361,700)$ 522,156$ 738,000$ 898,456$ 4.00%3.97%6) 2011 Max Levy 23,562,306$ (361,700)$ 522,156$ 936,457$ 1,096,913$ 4.88% 3.09%2012 (Projected)w/602K to Gen. Fund 24,291,032$ 1,062,600$ 602,583$ -$ 1,665,183$ Debt Service ChangeGeneral Fund and Park and Rec. Change Capital ChangeProjected Increase Needed for 2012Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 14
City of St Louis Park, MinnesotaFranchise Fee EstimateVariable Increases Proposed for 2011Beginning in 2013 and Every Other Year After an Increase of $0.50 For All Non Large C/I, With Large C/I Increase of $4.00.Xcel - ElectricCUSTOMER CLASSAVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNTESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES2011 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEE2011 New Fee Proposal2013 and Odd Years After $.50 Increase for All Except $4.00 increase for Large C/IFuture New RevenueEstimateResidential*22,306 $334,585 $468,419$1.25 $1.75$2.25 $133,834Small C&I – Non-Demand*1,355 $65,028$65,028$4.00 $4.00$4.50$8,129Small C&I – Demand627 $75,280$99,746$10.00 $13.25$13.75$3,764Large C&I 146 $113,945 $127,969$65.00 $73.00$77.00$7,012Public Street Lighting75 $0not exemptedbut fee not applied$0Municipal Pumping – Non-Demand21 $1,012$1,012$4.00 $4.00$4.50$127Municipal Pumping – Demand18 $2,160$2,160$10.00 $10.00$10.50$108Total24,548 $592,010 $764,334$152,973Net Increase$172,324CenterPoint - Heating GasCUSTOMER CLASSAVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNTESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES2011 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEENew Fee Proposal2013 and Odd Years After $.50 Increase for All Except $4.00 increase for Large C/IFuture New RevenueEstimateResidential15,666 $234,990 $328,986$1.25 $1.75$2.25$93,996Commercial A584 $8,760$12,264$1.25 $1.75$2.25$3,504Commercial B398 $19,104$19,104$4.00 $4.00$4.50$2,388Commercial C550 $66,000$87,450$10.00 $13.25$13.75$3,300SVDF A & B79 $9,480$12,561$10.00 $13.25$13.75$474LVDF4 $3,120$3,504$65.00 $73.00$77.00$192Total17,281 $341,454 $463,869$103,854Net Increase$122,415Total- $.50 Increase$294,739$256,82708/05/2010Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 15
City of St Louis Park, MinnesotaFranchise Fee EstimateVariable Increases Proposed for 2011Beginning in 2013 and Every Other Year After an Increase of $0.75 For All Non Large C/I, With Large C/I Increase of $6.00.Xcel - ElectricCUSTOMER CLASSAVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNTESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES2011 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEE2011 New Fee Proposal2013 and Odd Years After $.75 Increase for All Except $6.00 increase for Large C/IFuture New Revenue EstimateResidential*22,306 $334,585 $535,336$1.25 $2.00$2.75 $200,751Small C&I – Non-Demand*1,355 $65,028 $65,028$4.00 $4.00$4.75 $12,193Small C&I – Demand627 $75,280 $99,746$10.00 $13.25$14.00 $5,646Large C&I 146 $113,945 $127,969$65.00 $73.00$79.00 $10,518Public Street Lighting75 $0not exemptedbut fee not applied$0Municipal Pumping – Non-Demand21 $1,012 $1,012$4.00 $4.00$4.75 $190Municipal Pumping – Demand18 $2,160 $2,160$10.00 $10.00$10.75 $162Total24,548 $592,010 $831,251$229,460Net Increase$239,241CenterPoint - Heating GasCUSTOMER CLASSAVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNTESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES2011 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEENew Fee Proposal2013 and Odd Years After $.50 Increase for All Except $4.00 increase for Large C/IFuture New Revenue EstimateResidential15,666 $234,990 $375,984$1.25 $2.00$2.75 $140,994Commercial A584 $8,760 $14,016$1.25 $2.00$2.75 $5,256Commercial B398 $19,104 $19,104$4.00 $4.00$4.75 $3,582Commercial C550 $66,000 $87,450$10.00 $13.25$14.00 $4,950SVDF A & B79 $9,480 $12,561$10.00 $13.25$14.00 $711LVDF4 $3,120 $3,504$65.00 $73.00$79.00 $288Total17,281 $341,454 $512,619$155,781Net Increase$171,165Total- $.75 Increase$410,406$385,24108/05/2010Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 16
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKFRANCHISE FEE ANALYSISCOMPARISONS TO OTHER COMMUNITIESXcel Franchise FeesCenterPointe Franchise FeesFlat RatesSm C/I Sm C/IMun Pump Mun PumpCityRes Non-Demand Demand Lg C/I St Lights Non-Demand Demand Res Comm AComm B Comm C SVDF ASVDF B LVDF Afton 2.002.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Baker (U) 3.253.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Brooklyn Center 1.523.10 20.60 99.00 12.40 12.40 12.40 1.52 1.58 5.15 20.60 51.50 98.88 98.88 Champlin 2.508.00 35.00 125.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 2.50 2.50 8.00 35.00 70.00 125.00 125.00 Chisago City 1.305.00 15.00 55.00 5.00 5.00 15.00 Circle Pines 2.753.00 35.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 Cottage Grove 1.251.25 6.25 25.00 2.50 0.63 6.25 1.25 3.25 6.25 6.25 12.50 12.50 18.75 Deephaven 2.502.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Dilworth 1.754.00 14.00 91.00 0.00 4.00 14.00 Excelsior 2.502.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Faribault1.351.60 32.00 280.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Goodview 2.753.00 25.00 110.00 25.00 2.50 10.00 Grant 2.352.00 14.00 75.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Hopkins 1.002.00 9.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 18.00 63.00 63.00 Lindstrom 1.305.00 15.00 55.00 5.00 5.00 15.00 Little Canada1.754.00 24.00 0.00 15.00 1.00 7.00 Mahtomedi 1.301.38 14.40 110.28 12.71 0.63 14.84 Mankato 0.501.00 10.00 130.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.95 2.50 5.25 12.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 Maplewood 0.501.00 6.00 45.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 Minnetonka 2.504.50 4.50 4.50 0.00 4.50 4.50 Monticello 1.955.50 31.00 190.00 12.00 12.00 31.00 Mound 2.002.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 New Hope 1.504.50 9.00 36.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 1.50 3.00 6.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 Newport 0.501.00 6.00 50.00 4.00 1.00 5.00 North Mankato 0.751.10 9.25 125.00 13.25 1.10 9.25 1.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 30.00 75.00 Oakdale 1.002.00 9.00 7.50 6.00 1.50 7.50 1.00 4.50 4.50 7.50 15.00 15.00 15.00 Prior Lake 1.505.00 10.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 5.00 5.00 10.00 10.00 50.00 Richfield 1.655.10 11.33 73.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 1.65 5.10 11.33 11.33 11.33 11.33 Sartell 2.752.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 St. Joseph 1.001.75 10.008.00 1.00 10.00 St. Michael 2.502.50 2.50 10.00 10.00 2.50 10.00 St. Paul Park 1.502.00 25.00 335.00 10.00 1.00 5.00 Stillwater 2.002.50 18.00 125.00 4.00 2.00 18.00 Watertown 2.003.50 15.00 50.00 0.00 12.50 20.00Average1.74$ 2.98$ 13.25$ 70.75$ 5.34$ 3.04$ 7.31$ 1.67$ 2.83$ 5.01$ 11.94$ 23.70$ 44.84$ 122.05$ St. Louis Park $1.25 $4.00 $10.00 $65.00 $0.00 $4.00 $10.00$1.25 $1.25 $4.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $65.00Cites not charging Franchise FeesEdinaPlymouthGolden Valley- Considering Franchise Fees to fund Douglas Drive Project.Bloomington- Cable Franchise FeesCrystal- Receives some Cable Franchise FeesStudy Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 17
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
SOURCES AND DEPARTMENTS SUMMARY
2011 thru 2015
TotalSource2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 458,15080,800 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300
Capital Replacement Fund 10,635,9681,652,559 3,343,234 1,934,154 1,907,337 1,798,684
G.O. Bonds 5,500,0005,500,000
Hennepin County 620,000320,000 300,000
HRA Levy 3,430,54220,000 3,410,542
Municipal State Aid 2,016,500427,000 472,500 540,000 385,000 192,000
Other 215,000215,000
Park Improvement Fund 5,717,5001,509,500 941,000 707,000 895,000 1,665,000
Pavement Management Fund 8,010,6501,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534 1,374,134
Police & Fire Pension 811,42527,625 27,625 107,625 620,925 27,625
PW Operations Budget 1,457,853273,418 283,511 335,251 282,178 283,495
Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,523,400170,500 632,000 300,900 210,000 210,000
Special Assessments 889,000121,000 110,000 658,000
State of Minnesota 12,669,50012,444,500 225,000
Stormwater Utility 1,650,000730,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000
Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,776,5093,776,509
U.S. Government 7,630,0007,630,000
Undetermined 5,857,306782,456 18,385 789,603 266,862 4,000,000
Unfunded 211,53830,000 31,500 88,466 34,725 26,847
Utilities 3,000,0003,000,000
Water Utility 2,940,200278,000 617,100 1,370,000 275,100 400,000
13,100,593 36,273,501 8,422,401 7,751,461 13,473,085 79,021,041SOURCE TOTAL
Total2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Department
Buildings 7,304,0005,930,000 760,000 335,000 141,000 138,000
Cable TV 458,15080,800 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300
Community Development 1,857,306294,592 506,249 479,102 577,363
Fire 400,000400,000
Parks & Recreation 10,997,9682,264,559 2,765,734 1,498,654 1,733,337 2,735,684
Public Works 53,805,6923,312,653 31,919,907 4,845,119 4,011,537 9,716,476
Technology 4,197,925730,125 786,125 915,125 1,148,925 617,625
12,612,729 36,761,365 8,111,900 8,061,962 13,473,085 79,021,041DEPARTMENT TOTAL
Active Status Projects Only
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 18
08/05/2010City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated August 2, 2010WITH FRANCHISE FEE INCREASE OF $294,000 IN 2011 and $256,000 every other year thereafter.Pavement Management Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to street reconstruction and chip-sealing20062007 2008 2009 201020112012201320142015201620172018 2019 2020Actual Actual Actual Actual Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues General Property Taxes 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,003 415,003 - - - - - - - - - - Charges for ServicesFranchise Tax 945,641 917,153 922,194 922,437 922,437 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 Franchise Tax Increase294,000 294,000 550,000 550,000 806,000 806,000 1,062,000 1,062,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 Transfers InPIR- - - - - 100,000 - - - - - - - - - Interest Income (2%)62,090 100,690 57,101 42,852 30,843 32,665 31,523 17,419 14,257 10,045 9,852 8,607 11,379 13,095 18,820 Misc/Other - 76,752 5,177 868 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,422,731 1,509,595 1,399,472 1,381,160 1,368,283 1,346,665 1,245,523 1,487,419 1,484,257 1,736,045 1,735,852 1,990,607 1,993,379 2,251,095 2,256,820 ExpendituresCapital Outlay 1,265,815 1,447,993 1,420,082 1,496,684 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,694,867 1,745,713 1,798,084 1,852,027 1,907,588 1,964,815 2,023,760 Total Expenditures1,265,815 1,447,993 1,420,082 1,496,684 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,694,867 1,745,713 1,798,084 1,852,027 1,907,588 1,964,815 2,023,760 Revenues less Expenditures156,916 61,602 (20,610) (115,524) 91,115 (57,070) (705,222) (158,083) (210,610) (9,668) (62,233) 138,580 85,791 286,279 233,060 Fund Balance - Beginning1,459,744 1,616,660 1,678,262 1,657,652 1,542,128 1,633,243 1,576,172 870,951 712,868 502,258 492,590 430,358 568,938 654,729 941,008 Fund Balance - Ending1,616,660 1,678,262 1,657,652 1,542,128 1,633,243 1,576,172 870,951 712,868 502,258 492,590 430,358 568,938 654,729 941,008 1,174,068 Fund Balance Percentage111.65% 118.18% 110.75% 120.75% 116.35% 80.80% 52.93% 42.06% 28.77% 27.40% 23.24% 29.82% 33.32% 46.50%* Increase is equal to $0.50 per utility per month every other year for all types except Large C/I, which is $4.00. $0.50 and $4.00 increases are shown for 2011.Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 19
08/05/2010City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated August 2, 2010WITH FRANCHISE FEE INCREASE OF $410,000 IN 2011Pavement Management Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to street reconstruction and chip-sealing20062007 2008 2009 201020112012201320142015201620172018 2019 2020Actual Actual Actual Actual Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues General Property Taxes 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,003 415,003 - - - - - - - - - - Charges for ServicesFranchise Tax 945,641 917,153 922,194 922,437 922,437 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 Franchise Tax Increase410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 Transfers InPIR- - - - - 100,000 - - - - - - - - - Interest Income (2%)62,090 100,690 57,101 42,852 30,843 32,665 33,843 22,105 16,237 9,265 1,136 (8,203) (18,808) (30,736) (44,047) Misc/Other - 76,752 5,177 868 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,422,731 1,509,595 1,399,472 1,381,160 1,368,283 1,462,665 1,363,843 1,352,105 1,346,237 1,339,265 1,331,136 1,321,797 1,311,192 1,299,264 1,285,953 ExpendituresCapital Outlay 1,265,815 1,447,993 1,420,082 1,496,684 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,694,867 1,745,713 1,798,084 1,852,027 1,907,588 1,964,815 2,023,760 Total Expenditures1,265,815 1,447,993 1,420,082 1,496,684 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,694,867 1,745,713 1,798,084 1,852,027 1,907,588 1,964,815 2,023,760 Revenues less Expenditures156,916 61,602 (20,610) (115,524) 91,115 58,930 (586,902) (293,397) (348,630) (406,448) (466,949) (530,230) (596,395) (665,551) (737,806) Fund Balance - Beginning1,459,744 1,616,660 1,678,262 1,657,652 1,542,128 1,633,243 1,692,172 1,105,271 811,874 463,245 56,797 (410,152) (940,382) (1,536,777) (2,202,328) Fund Balance - Ending1,616,660 1,678,262 1,657,652 1,542,128 1,633,243 1,692,172 1,105,271 811,874 463,245 56,797 (410,152) (940,382) (1,536,777) (2,202,328) (2,940,135) Fund Balance Percentage111.65% 118.18% 110.75% 120.75% 116.35% 86.74% 67.17% 47.90% 26.54% 3.16% -22.15% -49.30% -78.21% -108.82%* Increase is equal to $0.75 per utility per month for all types except Large C/I, which is $6.00. Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 20
08/05/2010City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management Plan CURRENTUpdated August 2, 2010Capital Replacement Fund - Combines MBF, Tech Repl, & Equip Repl into a universal equipment replacement fundActual CIP2006 2007 2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020Actual Actual ActualActualProposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesProperty Tax Levy- - - - 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 Housing Authority 10,958 6,089 6,089 6,089 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 Transfers In- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - General Fund- - - 1,100,000 P&F Pension - - 875,135 - 2,124,865 40,125 30,125 110,125 620,925 37,625 80,000 - - 80,000 - Other Funds 127,664 172,139 82,060 3,984,127 5,500,000 255,000 - - - 225,000 - - - 8,000 - Equipment Replacement Charges 587,131 975,282 616,732 626,983 705,791 726,965 748,774 771,237 794,374 818,205 842,751 868,034 894,075 920,897 948,524 Bond Proceeds- - - - 5,500,000 5,500,000 - - - - - - - - - Other Revenue- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income 181,652 238,774 116,372 49,215 101,742 212,428 123,616 38,875 8,005 (22,201) (38,916) (86,128) (91,798) (169,195) (164,174) Misc/Other 102,338 109,350 215,445 91,148 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,009,743 1,501,634 1,911,833 5,857,562 14,282,201 7,084,320 1,252,318 1,270,040 1,773,107 1,408,432 1,233,638 1,131,709 1,152,080 1,189,505 1,134,153 Expenditures Supplies/Non-Capital/ServicesPC Hardware Replacement330,837 652,864 268,503 93,824 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 PC Software Replacement - - - 96,037 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Network Hardware - - - 44,989 125,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Annual Equip. Replace. Program 414,753 675,641 1,645,808 388,140 664,992 540,609 1,824,734 791,654 838,337 1,070,684 1,498,427 768,469 2,531,994 467,998 693,754 Current Facilities Constr/Renovation- - - 320,035 335,000 430,000 760,000 335,000 141,000 138,000 287,500 140,000 120,000 - 170,000 New Technology Purchases- - - 90,138 457,500 384,125 461,125 590,125 823,925 292,625 303,000 40,000 110,000 271,000 15,000 SCBA- - - - - - - - 400,000 - - - - - - Other4,292 287,436 185,017 - - - - - - - - - - - - New Buildings- - 875,135 5,342,439 9,657,561 7,624,865 - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures749,882 1,615,941 2,974,463 6,375,602 11,515,053 9,304,599 3,370,859 2,041,779 2,528,262 1,826,309 2,413,927 1,273,469 3,086,994 1,063,998 1,203,754 Revenues less Expenditures259,861 (114,307) (1,062,630) (518,040) 2,767,148 (2,220,279) (2,118,541) (771,739) (755,155) (417,877) (1,180,289) (141,760) (1,934,914) 125,507 (69,601) Cash Available at Year End4,477,416$ 4,184,467$ 3,103,558$ 2,949,287$ 5,716,435$ 3,496,156$ 1,377,615$ 605,875$ (149,280)$ (567,156)$ (1,747,445)$ (1,889,205)$ (3,824,119)$ (3,698,612)$ (3,768,213)$ 277.08% 140.68% 48.68%25.61%61.44% 103.72% 67.47% 23.96% -8.17% -23.50% -137.22% -61.20% -359.41% -307.26%Equip Repl Charges 2011-2020 8,333,836 Equip Repl Costs 2011-2020 (11,026,660) Facilities Costs 2011-2020(2,521,500) New Tech Costs 2011-2020 (3,290,925) PC/Network Costs 2011-2020 (3,250,000) SCBA(400,000) Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 21
08/05/2010City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management Plan CURRENT- With Additional Property Tax From Pavement Mgmt.Updated August 2, 2010Capital Replacement Fund - Combines MBF, Tech Repl, & Equip Repl into a universal equipment replacement fundActual CIP2006 2007 2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020Actual Actual ActualActualProposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesProperty Tax Levy- - - - 338,300 753,300 753,300 753,300 753,300 753,300 753,300 753,300 753,300 753,300 753,300 Housing Authority 10,958 6,089 6,089 6,089 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 Transfers In- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - General Fund- - - 1,100,000 P&F Pension - - 875,135 - 2,124,865 40,125 30,125 110,125 620,925 37,625 80,000 - - 80,000 - Other Funds 127,664 172,139 82,060 3,984,127 5,500,000 255,000 - - - 225,000 - - - 8,000 - Equipment Replacement Charges 587,131 975,282 616,732 626,983 705,791 726,965 748,774 771,237 794,374 818,205 842,751 868,034 894,075 920,897 948,524 Bond Proceeds- - - - 5,500,000 5,500,000 - - - - - - - - - Other Revenue- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income 181,652 238,774 116,372 49,215 103,147 213,889 141,736 74,320 61,468 50,000 52,773 25,829 41,237 (14,238) 13,580 Misc/Other 102,338 109,350 215,445 91,148 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,009,743 1,501,634 1,911,833 5,857,562 14,283,606 7,500,782 1,685,438 1,720,484 2,241,570 1,895,633 1,740,327 1,658,666 1,700,115 1,759,462 1,726,907 Expenditures Supplies/Non-Capital/ServicesPC Hardware Replacement330,837 652,864 268,503 93,824 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 PC Software Replacement - - - 96,037 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Network Hardware - - - 44,989 125,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Annual Equip. Replace. Program 414,753 675,641 1,645,808 388,140 664,992 540,609 1,824,734 791,654 838,337 1,070,684 1,498,427 768,469 2,531,994 467,998 693,754 Current Facilities Constr/Renovation- - - 284,902 335,000 430,000 760,000 335,000 141,000 138,000 287,500 140,000 120,000 - 170,000 New Technology Purchases- - - 90,138 457,500 384,125 461,125 590,125 823,925 292,625 303,000 40,000 110,000 271,000 15,000 SCBA- - - - - - - - 400,000 - - - - - - Other4,292 287,436 185,017 - - - - - - - - - - - - New Buildings- - 875,135 5,342,439 9,657,561 7,624,865 - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures749,882 1,615,941 2,974,463 6,340,469 11,515,053 9,304,599 3,370,859 2,041,779 2,528,262 1,826,309 2,413,927 1,273,469 3,086,994 1,063,998 1,203,754 Revenues less Expenditures259,861 (114,307) (1,062,630) (482,907) 2,768,553 (1,803,817) (1,685,421) (321,295) (286,692) 69,324 (673,600) 385,197 (1,386,879) 695,464 523,153 Cash Available at Year End4,477,416$ 4,184,467$ 3,103,558$ 2,949,287$ 5,717,840$ 3,914,023$ 2,228,602$ 1,907,307$ 1,620,615$ 1,689,939$ 1,016,339$ 1,401,536$ 14,657$ 710,121$ 1,233,274$ 277.08% 140.68% 48.95%25.61%61.45% 116.11% 109.15% 75.44% 88.74% 70.01% 79.81% 45.40% 1.38% 58.99%Equip Repl Charges 2011-2020 8,333,836 Equip Repl Costs 2011-2020 (11,026,660) Facilities Costs 2011-2020(2,521,500) New Tech Costs 2011-2020 (3,290,925) PC/Network Costs 2011-2020 (3,250,000) SCBA(400,000) Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 22
08/05/2010City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanCURRENT WITH ADDITIONAL REVENUE NEEDEDUpdated August 2, 2010Park Improvement Fund - This fund covers capital expenditures for the replacement and improvement of park facilities2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Actual Actual Actual Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues General Property Taxes 1,010,000 1,010,000 695,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 Additional Revenue Needed150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 IntergovernmentalState Grants 388 - 14,900 - - - - - - - - - - - Hennepin County Grants 200,000 School District Contibutions 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 Charges For ServicesCost Reimbursement 15,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - MiscellaneousRent Revenue 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Transfers InOther Funds - - 107,097 - - - - - - - - - - - Other RevenueInterest Income 41,982 70,388 46,196 39,755 33,491 30,223 32,227 38,952 42,051 29,812 29,188 23,512 25,002 24,723 Park Dedication Fee 554,725 1,258,285 241,855 - 101,620 - - - - - - - - - Tree Replacement18,090 2,250 - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc/Other 28,934 12,000 23,000 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,722,821 2,406,625 1,181,750 903,457 1,348,813 1,043,925 1,045,929 1,052,654 1,055,753 1,043,514 1,042,890 1,037,214 1,038,704 1,038,425 Expenditures Capital OutlayTree Replacement 57,863 51,037 56,082 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Parks/Rec Ctr1,140,448 966,852 1,382,146 1,154,000 1,449,500 881,000 647,000 835,000 1,605,000 1,012,000 1,264,000 900,000 990,000 1,487,000 Other Insurance/Taxes 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 Transfers Out- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures1,198,311 1,020,589 1,440,928 1,216,700 1,512,200 943,700 709,700 897,700 1,667,700 1,074,700 1,326,700 962,700 1,052,700 1,549,700 Revenues less Expenditures524,5101,386,036(259,178) (313,243) (163,387)100,225336,229154,954(611,947) (31,186) (283,810)74,514(13,996) (511,275)Equity Transfer from General FundFund Balance - Beginning 336,406 860,916 2,246,952 1,987,774 1,674,532 1,511,144 1,611,369 1,947,598 2,102,552 1,490,605 1,459,420 1,175,610 1,250,124 1,236,129 Fund Balance - Ending860,916 2,246,952 1,987,774 1,674,532 1,511,144 1,611,369 1,947,598 2,102,552 1,490,605 1,459,420 1,175,610 1,250,124 1,236,129 724,853 Fund Balance Percentage84.35% 155.94% 163.37% 110.73% 160.13% 227.05% 216.95% 126.07% 138.70% 110.00% 122.12% 118.75% 79.77%Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 23
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKRESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXESASSUMES STRATIFIED MARKET VALUE CHANGES0.68% LEVY INCREASEFOR THE 2011 PRELIMINARY LEVY AMOUNTProperty Value Tax Capacity 37.116 36.884 Market Value Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent2010 2011 2010 2011 Tax Capacity Rate Homestead Credit 2010 2011 Increase Increase2010 2011150,000 140,0001,500 1,400 556.74 516.38 (88.11) (90.88) 468.63 425.49-43.13 -7.7%200,000 190,0002,000 1,900 742.32 700.80 (71.41) (74.28) 670.91 626.51-44.40 -6.0%250,000 240,0002,500 2,400 927.90 885.22 (54.71) (57.69) 873.19 827.53-45.66 -4.9%300,000 290,0003,000 2,900 1,113.48 1,069.64 (38.01) (41.09) 1,075.47 1,028.55-46.93 -4.2%350,000 340,0003,500 3,400 1,299.06 1,254.06 (21.30) (24.49) 1,277.76 1,229.57-48.19 -3.7%400,000 385,0004,000 3,850 1,484.64 1,420.03 (4.60) (9.55) 1,480.04 1,410.48-69.56 -4.7%500,000 480,0005,000 4,800 1,855.80 1,770.43 - - 1,855.80 1,770.43-85.37 -4.6%600,000 575,0006,250 5,938 2,319.75 2,189.99 - - 2,319.75 2,189.99-129.76 -5.6%700,000 670,0007,500 7,125 2,783.70 2,627.99 - - 2,783.70 2,627.99-155.72 -5.6%Assumptions:2010 and 2011 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information. Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 24
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKRESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXESASSUMES STRATIFIED MARKET VALUE CHANGES2.95% LEVY INCREASEFOR THE 2011 PRELIMINARY LEVY AMOUNTProperty Value Tax Capacity 37.116 37.703 Market Value Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent2010 2011 2010 2011 Tax Capacity Rate Homestead Credit 2010 2011 Increase Increase2010 2011150,000 140,0001,500 1,400 556.74 527.84 (88.11) (92.90) 468.63 434.94-33.68 -6.1%200,000 190,0002,000 1,900 742.32 716.36 (71.41) (75.93) 670.91 640.42-30.49 -4.1%250,000 240,0002,500 2,400 927.90 904.87 (54.71) (58.97) 873.19 845.90-27.29 -2.9%300,000 290,0003,000 2,900 1,113.48 1,093.39 (38.01) (42.00) 1,075.47 1,051.39-24.09 -2.2%350,000 340,0003,500 3,400 1,299.06 1,281.90 (21.30) (25.03) 1,277.76 1,256.87-20.89 -1.6%400,000 385,0004,000 3,850 1,484.64 1,451.57 (4.60) (9.77) 1,480.04 1,441.80-38.24 -2.6%500,000 480,0005,000 4,800 1,855.80 1,809.74 - - 1,855.80 1,809.74-46.06 -2.5%600,000 575,0006,250 5,938 2,319.75 2,238.62 - - 2,319.75 2,238.62-81.13 -3.5%700,000 670,0007,500 7,125 2,783.70 2,686.34 - - 2,783.70 2,686.34-97.36 -3.5%Assumptions:2010 and 2011 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information. Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 25
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKRESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXESASSUMES STRATIFIED MARKET VALUE CHANGES4.88% LEVY INCREASEFOR THE 2011 PRELIMINARY LEVY AMOUNTProperty Value Tax Capacity 37.116 38.411 Market Value Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent2010 2011 2010 2011 Tax Capacity Rate Homestead Credit 2010 2011 Increase Increase2010 2011150,000 140,0001,500 1,400 556.74 537.75 (88.11) (94.64) 468.63 443.11-25.52 -4.6%200,000 190,0002,000 1,900 742.32 729.81 (71.41) (77.36) 670.91 652.45-18.46 -2.5%250,000 240,0002,500 2,400 927.90 921.86 (54.71) (60.07) 873.19 861.79-11.40 -1.2%300,000 290,0003,000 2,900 1,113.48 1,113.92 (38.01) (42.79) 1,075.47 1,071.13-4.34 -0.4%350,000 340,0003,500 3,400 1,299.06 1,305.97 (21.30) (25.50) 1,277.76 1,280.472.71 0.2%400,000 385,0004,000 3,850 1,484.64 1,478.82 (4.60) (9.95) 1,480.04 1,468.88-11.16 -0.8%500,000 480,0005,000 4,800 1,855.80 1,843.73 - - 1,855.80 1,843.73-12.07 -0.7%600,000 575,0006,250 5,938 2,319.75 2,280.65 - - 2,319.75 2,280.65-39.10 -1.7%700,000 670,0007,500 7,125 2,783.70 2,736.78 - - 2,783.70 2,736.78-46.92 -1.7%Assumptions:2010 and 2011 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information. Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 26
Our Vision
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and
responsibility in all areas of city business.
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts,
culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including
implementation where appropriate.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 27
Our Mission
Deliver responsive
municipal services
to ensure a safe, welcoming
and vital community now
and in the future.
Our Values
Respect
We are stewards
of the public trust
who treat our colleagues
and those we serve courteously,
openly and equitably.
Contribution
We are committed
to lifelong learning, personal
accountability and collaboration
to ensure our best contribution
to this community.
Stewardship
We are responsible
for our community’s human,
environmental and fi nancial resources.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 28
City of St. Louis Park
2011 Budget
Guiding Principles for 2010 - 2011 Business Analysis
• Suggestions are sustainable.
• Solutions are responsible.
• We must continue to maintain trust and credibility both internally and externally.
• Continue to focus on Mission delivery. Make sure we keep delivering those things that maintain
and grow the strength and viability of the community.
• We must adapt, be willing to change and shift to be fiscally strong while being innovative in
meeting the community needs.
• Continue to think “City First”, then Department.
• Understand and accept that changes in our business and shifts in service delivery may not appear
fair and equitable to all.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 29
Meeting Date: August 9, 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:
Fire Stations Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is required. Staff would like to discuss several policy questions related to the fire
station design, and update City Council on the fire stations site and building planning, project
schedule and cost estimates.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
There are several policy issues related to the fire station plans that need direction from City Council
now or in the near future. The specific policy questions include:
• Is the City Council willing to consider a project budget larger than originally anticipated?
• Is City Council comfortable with the current schematic designs and with proceeding to the next
design phase?
• Should the “alternate” apparatus bays be built now or planned as later additions?
o Direction from City Council is needed, as it impacts many details in the next design phase.
• Should the City pursue allowing two-way traffic on Oxford Street?
o The current one-way restriction negatively impacts access and circulation for Fire Station #1
and has generated some complaints.
• Should the City investigate the suitability, costs, and payback of using geothermal renewable
energy systems at the fire stations?
• Should storage space for City elections equipment and records be built at Station #1?
o The City has unmet records and election equipment storage needs. Staff is still considering
options to accommodate the storage needs. Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson
Construction prepared a cost estimate to provide the storage space in a basement at Fire
Station #1.
o Direction may be needed from the City Council in the near future. If staff concludes a
basement in Station #1 is a competitive option and worthy of City Council consideration,
staff will request direction at an upcoming meeting.
BACKGROUND:
A Fire Station Needs Assessment Study and Report in November 2006 verified general concerns that
both existing fire stations have extensive building and operational deficiencies. From a long-term
facilities planning perspective, City Council concluded that public funds would be most efficiently
used through the construction of new facilities rather than renovating existing structures through
extensive remodeling and additions.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Fire Stations Project
From 2007 to 2008 the City explored various site options and scenarios for building a single central
fire station or two new fire stations. In 2009, the City Council concluded that building new fire
stations in essentially the same locations as the existing stations would be the best solution. The sites
are not perfect, which was understood at the time they were selected, and present several challenges
for the design and construction, but the team of staff and consultants are working to best meet the
goals for these facilities.
The City hired Kraus-Anderson Construction to serve as the agency construction manager for the
project in February 2010. The team of KKE Architects, Bonestroo and SRF Consulting Group were
hired to provide architectural and engineering services for the project in April 2010.
There have been two community meetings for the fire stations project in 2010. Community
support for keeping the fire stations in the existing locations has been very strong. Those attending
the neighborhood meetings have been primarily residents that live very near the stations. The city
staff and consultant team used the input from these meetings to help shape the design. Also, the
team has deliberately shared and responded to the community input at each neighborhood meeting.
At this time the Fire Stations Project is nearing the end of the initial design phase (schematic design).
Schematic design includes reviewing the building program, initial site planning, establishing a
building footprint, and organizing the interior floor plan to understand general locations and
adjacencies needed for daily operations.
The next phase will be design development. In the design development phase, the stormwater
management, grading, utility and landscaping plans will take shape. The Fire Department and
architects will review the floor plan in detail and figure out what needs to fit into each room. Also,
the mechanical engineers begin to size and design the heating cooling, air conditioning and
ventilation systems. Energy modeling and evaluating various options will also occur in the design
development phase.
TOPICS TO DISCUSS:
The city staff, architect, and construction manager will begin the study session with a 20-minute
presentation to the City Council to help explain the building program, site plans, building images,
and cost estimates provided in the attached Schematic Design Report. Staff did not include all the
appendices of the Schematic Design Report, but they are available upon request.
The remaining time will be devoted to City Council questions and discussion on the main policy
issues: Budget, Design, Program and Traffic Circulation.
Budget
The Capital Improvement Plan budgeted $14 million for the two stations. The City has been using
the 2006 space needs study, and subsequent updates to it, for budgeting purposes. The 2006 study
looked at the fire station current needs and the needs over the next 10 years. These estimates have
proved to be fairly accurate, but were not based on the actual site plans.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Fire Stations Project
The current site plans try to account for fire station needs 20+ years into the future. City Council
comments at the June study session supported taking a longer term view. This approach recognizes
the new fire stations will be fixtures in the community for 60 years or more, and that it would be
disruptive to the adjacent parks and neighbors and more expensive to add onto the stations later.
Also, the City anticipates financing the station over a 20-year term, and it may be undesirable to
build additions onto the stations before they are paid off.
Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson prepared cost estimates based on the current schematic
design plans prepared by KKE architects.
Base (Both Stations): $14,686,977∗
Optional Bays: + $414,500
Alternate City Storage + $395,550
Alternate Geothermal Systems + $302,000
Grand Total $15,799,027
The estimates above highlight the project costs for two “base” fire stations plus three alternates. The
“base” refers to the current and 10-year station needs that were identified in the 2006 space needs
study and affirmed in the current planning effort. The alternates would add to the “base” design and
construction costs, and include:
• Two optional 20 ft. X 80 ft. apparatus bays to provide flexibility for future equipment (one at
each station site)
• 3,000 square feet of basement space in Fire Station #1 for City records and election equipment
storage that is not related to Fire Station operations
• An allowance for the cost to explore and install Geothermal renewable energy systems at both
stations
The single biggest factor that has resulted in higher costs for the “base” plans from the original $14
million estimate was the revised estimates for site preparation. There were not errors in previous
estimates; rather the current site plans simply require more site work than previously anticipated in
order to meet the defined project goals. For example, more fill is needed at Station #2 to
accommodate the drive-through bay design and there are added retaining walls to accommodate
three drive-through bays and parking for the training (meeting) room at Station #1.
Kraus-Anderson Construction will provide complete estimates again at the end of the design
development phase and again at the end of the construction documents phase. These future
estimates will be closer to the time that the City goes out for bids, and will have the benefit of far
more detailed architectural, civil and structural plans.
In addition, staff is aware of the City Council’s concern about having bids come in much higher
than the cost estimates. At staff’s request, KKE Architects provided a bid to have another third party
provide cost estimates at the end of the design development phase.
*Project costs include hard costs, soft costs and owner costs. Owner costs include land acquisition, furniture,
fixtures, equipment, etc. Costs associated with issuing bonds for the stations are not included.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Fire Stations Project
Design
The attached Schematic Design Report provides a narrative and graphic summary of the project
goals, program, design, cost estimates and schedule. The design has been refined since the
presentation to City Council in June, but the general design direction did not change. The City
Council at the June 21, 2010 study session did not express any major concerns with the site plans for
the two stations, but three members were absent. Staff would like to know that City Council is
comfortable with the design direction, so we can confidently proceed into the design development
phase and share the plans with the community for more input.
The only major change to the Station #1 plan since the June study session was eliminating an
optional driveway that was shown on the north side of the building and connected Wooddale
Avenue and the parking lot west of the building. This choice improves the site plan in several ways.
It adds green space. It avoids having a driveway directly onto Wooddale Avenue between (and too
close to) the Oxford and Wooddale cul-de-sac intersections. It also eliminated a driveway onto the
Wooddale Avenue cul-de-sac that was too close to the intersection. The result of eliminating the
optional driveway is that the station relies on Oxford Street as its main driveway entrance for the
public and the majority of the return (non-emergency response) trips for fire trucks.
City Council may notice that the site plan for Station #2 begins to explore changing the boundary
line between Walgreens and the Fire Station/Park. This may allow separating the driveway accesses
or reorganizing the shared parking or providing additional green space. These options will be
considered in the next design phase.
Program
As the project moves into the design development phase, staff needs to know if the optional
apparatus bays and storage space should be included in the project. These components affect the size
and scope of the project, and will affect the size and design of the building mechanical systems. Staff
would like direction on these items soon, so that these options do not unnecessarily complicate and
delay the next design phase.
Apparatus Bays: Due to the challenges of grading the site and the proximity of the station to park
uses at Northside Park staff is strongly recommending that an additional (fourth) apparatus bay be
built at Station #2. Staff also recommends building an additional 20 feet x 80 feet apparatus bay on
the south side of Station #1, as it would provide flexibility to meet future station needs. Excluding
the bay would save some construction costs now. However, if the decision is made to add the bay in
the future, it would more expensive than if it was included in the original building.
Please note that the bays at Station #1 are varying sizes and do not represent a vast expansion of
storage area from the 2006 space needs study. The plans simply divided the apparatus bays area into
different sizes. This helped provide the maneuvering space needed on-site to avoid backing trucks
up from Wooddale Avenue and maintained more convenient accessibility to vehicles and equipment,
rather than storing them in a tandem configuration.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Fire Stations Project
City Storage: While the cost estimates to provide storage space in the basement of the Fire Station
#1 is presented in the Schematic Design Report, city staff is still exploring various options to solve
the City’s records and election equipment storage needs. Staff’s goal is to complete the review and
make a recommendation to City Council within the next three to five weeks.
Geothermal System: It will cost approximately $30,000 to test and explore using geothermal systems
at the two fire stations. Based on City Council and community interest in general regarding
renewable energy and environmental stewardship, staff intends to proceed with this investigation.
Following the investigation, City Council should be able to make an informed decision about using
a geothermal renewable energy system at the two stations knowing how much land it would take,
what the energy savings would be, how many years would it take to pay back the initial investment,
etc.
Traffic Circulation
As mentioned earlier in the report, the Station #1 site plan relies on Oxford Street as the main public
driveway entrance and would also handle most of the fire truck trips returning (non-emergency
response) to the site and accessing the three drive-through bays. This site plan and other factors
leads staff to recommend City Council consider allowing two-way traffic on Oxford Street. Below is
a list of some of the reasons staff supports this change:
• The proposed site plan for Fire Station #1 places the main public entrance and public parking on
the north side of the site. People visiting the station would have a convenient access from
Wooddale Avenue.
• The three drive-through bays proposed for Fire Station #1 would access from Oxford Street.
Having good access to Oxford Street via Wooddale Avenue would reduce the number of fire
truck trips that have to pass through the surrounding residential neighborhood.
• Traffic currently cuts through the Village in the Park development’s private road. Village in the
Park has installed speed humps in hopes of reducing cut through traffic and traffic speeds, with
limited effect. Having access to Alabama Avenue and points west via Oxford Street could reduce
cut through traffic on this private road.
• Some traffic cuts through the Aldersgate United Methodist Church parking lot to get to areas
south of the Wooddale Avenue cul-de-sac. Having access to Alabama Avenue via Oxford Street
may reduce the cut through traffic on the church property.
• In order to accommodate the Village in the Park project, the City vacated 37th Street. At the
time 37th Street was vacated, staff noted that it was heavily used by Elmwood Neighborhood
residents for access. Staff recommended changing Oxford Street to two-way to provide access
into the neighborhood.
• There are many complaints from Elmwood Neighborhood residents about the intersection of
36th Street and Wooddale Avenue. Of specific concern, is the visibility and geometry of the
intersection for northbound Wooddale Avenue traffic turning left onto westbound 36th Street.
This is the key public access to Alabama and the Elmwood neighborhood from the north and
east. There have been 20 accidents reported at this intersection in the past three years. If
Oxford Street is changed to a two-way, fewer trips would have to use the 36th Street and
Wooddale Avenue intersection to access the Elmwood Neighborhood.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Fire Stations Project
• Staff could conduct more research to understand why Oxford Street was originally changed to a
one-way street, and why it has remained one-way. Staff suspects it relates to past and present
concerns about traffic passing through the neighborhood. There may have been truck traffic
through the neighborhood from Minnesota Rubber before it was redeveloped for Village in the
Park. Alabama Avenue is a MSA road and may have served as an important truck route between
Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 7 before the railroad bridge over Louisiana Avenue was
constructed. Also, traffic may pass between Highway 100 and Excelsior Boulevard in order to
avoid traffic on Excelsior Boulevard at Highway 100.
Staff asks that City Council consider allowing two-way traffic on Oxford Street and direct staff to
pursue community input on this proposal. This could be pursued either as part of the Fire Station
process or separate from it.
If Oxford Street remains one-way, more fire trucks returning to the station would have to pass
through the neighborhood via Alabama Avenue to use the drive through bays. Also, it may cause
confusion for fire station visitors. Fire Administration will be moving to this station, so there will be
more customers visiting the site. The public would also need to access the station via Alabama
Avenue.
NEXT STEPS:
• The design development phase will get underway.
• City staff will complete its review of City storage needs and space options. If the
recommendations from the effort include pursuing a basement at Fire Station #1, staff would
present that option to City Council for direction/action.
• The next community meeting will be scheduled to review the current station plans. The
meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, September 16, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The CIP planned $14 million dollars for the fire stations project. The current schematic design cost
estimate for the “base” stations is $14,686,977. If the project scope is expanded to include all three
alternates described in the report, the estimate is increased to $15,799,027.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Engaging the community in the design process, minimizing negative impacts of the stations on
surrounding residents, designing energy efficient buildings that meet or exceed the City’s green
building policy, and building an aesthetically pleasing building relate to all four Vision St. Louis
Park Strategic directions.
Attachment: Schematic Design Report (excluding some Appendices)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
Two New Fire Stations
August 9, 2010
Contact: Michael Clark | p: 612.596.4872 | mclark@kke.com • www.kke.com
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Page 7
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations TABLE OF CONTENTS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 2 Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................. 6 SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS .............................................................................................................................. 8 BUDGET SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 17 .Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 8
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations INTRODUCTION Schematic Design Report _________________________ 3 BACKGROUND Both of the City of St. Louis Park’s fire stations were built over 40 years ago and have not had any major remodeling efforts other than maintenance. They have several deficiencies that have led the City to decide to replace them with new and more modern facilities. The deficiencies include: • Lack of space: The department has grown much over the past 40 years and no new space has been added to the stations. • Additional demands for hazardous materials response, medical and emergency preparedness have increased space needs and demands on the fire stations in general. • Structural Deficiencies: Salt and corrosion has caused failure in the apparatus bay support structures. New fire trucks have continued to get heavier. Previous structural studies have determined replacement to be the best option. • Gender Equity: The existing facilities lack separate sleeping quarters, bathrooms, and locker facilities for women. • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The existing facilities are not accessible to the handicapped. The existing stations are to be replaced with two new facilities. The new stations are to be located at the same locations as the existing although each stations site will be expanded as follows: • Station No. 1 (South Station): Three residential properties have been purchased to the south of the existing station. • Station No. 2 (North Station): As part of a renovation effort at Northside Park, additional property will be added to Station No. 2. This project will determine how much property is to be added and how that will integrate with the park planning. PLANNING PROCESS Department and City Input: To assist the Architects in the planning process, the City appointed an extensive planning committee (Working Group). The Working Group is made up of members of the Fire Department as well as representatives of many City Departments including, Parks, Engineering, Planning, Information Resources, Community Development and Finance. This group is charged with providing the Architects and Engineers with direction, as well as reporting back to department heads and making formal recommendations for the City Staff and Council to consider. Neighborhood Meeting Process: The planning process also includes meetings with the neighborhoods that include the fire stations or will be impacted by the construction. These neighborhood groups include: Elmwood, Willow, Eliot and Eliot View. The meetings were sparsely attended; mostly by immediate neighbors of the sites. Some of the comments heard from the neighborhood meetings include: Station No. 1: • Concerns about buffering the station from the residential properties to the south and west. • Concerns about changing the one‐way traffic on Oxford Street. Some were in favor, others listed as a concern. • A desire was indicated for sustainable design initiatives. • Protect of existing trees where possible. • Training noise and activity are a concern. • Are there alternatives to large parking lots? Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 9
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations INTRODUCTION Schematic Design Report _________________________ 4 Station No. 2: • Some saw the station as a better use of property than the ice rink. • There is concern with the new location of the drives affecting houses across the street. • A desire was indicated for sustainable design initiatives. • Will there be community meeting space, polling or voting? • Exiting from Walgreens is difficult. Can this be improved? There are additional neighborhood meetings planned in future phases to continue the process of informing and gathering com‐ment from those most affected by the project. Architectural Space Program A preliminary space program was developed with a previous study. That study was reviewed as an initial part of this phase of the project. While the work of the previous study was mostly validated by the KKE program review, it was determined that the previous study had only planned for ten years of growth. The Working Group determined that this project should solve the department’s space needs for twenty years if possible. In order to accomplish this goal, the project will need to add an additional apparatus bay at each station. These additional bays have been determined to be outside of the scope and budget of the project and are being directed to the City Council for their consideration as a potential add to the project. The City has also suggested that additional space may be needed at the fire stations for general city storage as well as storage of voting equipment. This space is also outside of the scope and budget of the project and will be directed to the City Council for consideration as a potential add to the project. Interactive Planning with the Parks Department The Parks Department has been an integral part of the planning process due to the relationship that the fire station sites have to City parks. SRF Consulting Group has been hired by both KKE Architects for the Fire Stations project and by the Parks Department for planning the Parks Department’s revisions to Northside Park. This interaction has allowed the design team to maximize the project benefits for both the Northside Park and Station No. 2. Some of the shared benefits include: • Tighter arrangement of ball diamonds creates a more lively and interactive park arrangement and allows for the additional area needed at Station no. 2 for the drive through bays. • The two projects will share storm water retention and management areas at the south end of the park and west of the fire station. Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 10
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations INTRODUCTION Schematic Design Report _________________________ 5 Sustainability In keeping with the City of St Louis Park Green Building Policy, the following strategies have been incorporated into the Schematic Design of Station Nos. 1 and 2. Both LEED and B3 are being considered as tools for design. Either a LEED or B3 checklist of the intended credits are to be submitted to the City during planning and / or prior to the permit application. Sustainable site strategies include but are not limited to the following: • Develop on previously developed land. • Reduce water use for landscaping by 50% with the use of drought tolerant landscaping, hydro‐zoning plantings, high efficiency irrigation systems, and the potential use of gray water irrigation systems. • Provide on‐site storm water management through the use of rainwater gardens, infiltration ponds and below grade collection of storm water. • Reduce Heat Island effect by providing high Solar Reflectivity Index paving, such as concrete and / or shade for impervious site materials. • Reduce hardscape on site by proving parking that supports the minimum number of parking stalls and space required to support operations and response to public safety. Sustainable building strategies include but are not limited to addressing the following: • Outdoor air delivery monitoring and use of CO2 sensors in the mechanical design. • Incorporate Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan requirements into the project specification. • Use of Low‐emitting materials such as adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, carpets and composite woods. • Provide indoor chemical and pollution control to promote Indoor Air quality. • Integrate solutions that allow Controllability of lighting and thermal systems to improve occupant comfort and reduce energy consumption. • Design systems to promote Thermal comfort of occupants. • Provide Daylighting to 75% and views to 90% of all regularly occupied spaces where possible. In upcoming project phases the project will utilize Excel Energy’s Design Assist Program to investigate appropriate pay backs and rebates for the incorporation of energy saving technologies such as geothermal systems, lighting controls, T‐5 lighting systems, etc. Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 11
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations PROJECT DESCRIPTION Schematic Design Report _________________________ 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION STATION NO. 1 (SOUTH STATION) The major building components to be located at Station No. 1 include the following: • Fire Department Administration Offices • Station Administration Offices • Living Quarters • Training (Classroom and Tactical) • Apparatus bays Station No. 1 (South Station) is located at 3750 Wooddale Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN. It acts as a border between the residential properties of the Elmwood Neighborhood and commercial pro‐perties to the north and east. There is also a church directly to the east. Traffic patterns surrounding the site are a major design considera‐tion. Wooddale Avenue is a concern as this is an exit ramp from Highway 100. Oxford Street is one way to the east and Goodrich Street does not connect to the major traffic arteries such as Wooddale Avenue that would allow for better response to the north and east from this station. Another major consideration is the grade change across the site. There is an upward slope of as much as eight feet from Wooddale Avenue to Goodrich Street, and more from Oxford Street to Goodrich Street. Finally, drive‐through bays are considered to be a critical design element for the Fire Department. Station No. 1 has been designed with 7 bays of varying sizes, three of which are drive through. An additional bay has been shown in current renditions of the design to show Department needs for expansion beyond the year 2020. Additional considerations include keeping all turning, backing and maneuvering of the fire trucks on the property and off of surrounding city streets and eliminate grade changes at driveways and approaches. Design Solutions incorporated into the design of Station No. 1 include: • Placement of the Fire Administration and Station Adminis‐tration offices along Wooddale Avenue for easy location by the public and convenient access. • Fire Administration, Station Administration, Training and Living Quarters have been designed to be a two‐story structure creating a relationship to similar size commercial and residential properties to the north and east and reducing the site impact and maintaining green space on the sites. • Apparatus bays to the south on the site have been designed to be recessed into the rising grades to reduce their impact on the residential neighborhood to the south and west and provide a buffer from the more active portions of the facility. • Fire truck egress from the station will primarily be onto the Wooddale Avenue cul‐de‐sac to the east to take advantage of lesser traffic concerns and access to major traffic arteries north and east of the site. Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 12
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations PROJECT DESCRIPTION Schematic Design Report _________________________ 7 • Primary responder access will be from Wooddale Avenue cul‐de‐sac with parking at the south side of the site. • Primary public access will be from Oxford Street with public parking at the north side of the site. • Fire Trucks will be returning to the station from Oxford Street. • The facility has been designed using a majority of class one materials on all facades of the building. • Sustainable principals have been incorporated where appro‐priate and to meet the City’s ordinances. See the Sustain‐ability section of this report for more details. • The Training/Meeting Room will be constructed as a back up Emergency Operations Center. It will also be available for public use. STATION NO. 2 (NORTH STATION) The major building components to be located at Station No. 2 include: • Station Administration Offices • Living Quarters • Apparatus bays Station No. 2 is located at 2262 Louisiana Avenue, St Louis Park, MN. It shares its site with Northside Park. A major design con‐sideration for this facility has been its integration into the park. Additional land has been made available for the expanded station, but the design must allow for the required functions of the park as well, most specifically the creation of three baseball diamonds. Some other driving forces in the design of this facility include: • Providing drive‐through apparatus bays. • Locating the driveways as far north of the intersection of Louisiana Avenue and Cedar Lake Road as possible. • Keeping all turning, backing and maneuvering of the fire trucks on the property and off of surrounding city streets. • Eliminate grade changes at driveways and approaches. • If possible, utilizing parking spaces and shared driveways located at the south and west of the site. Design Solutions incorporated into Station No. 2 include: • Placing Station Administration at East side of the site along Louisiana Avenue for ease of access to the public. • Placing the Apparatus Bays to the west on the property to create larger turning radii for the trucks leaving and returning to the site. • Driveways will be to the north end, keeping this critical function as far north of the Louisiana Avenue, Cedar Lake Road Intersection and allowing for more level driveways. • The expanded site footprint has been designed to integrate into the renovated park plan with a minimal impact. The two projects will share storm water basin/treatment areas. • The southern portions of the property will be designed to allow for better utilization of the shared parking and driveways at the Walgreens property. • The facility has been designed using a majority of class one materials on all facades of the building. • Sustainable principals have been incorporated where appro‐priate and to meet the City’s ordinances. See the Sustain‐ability section of this report for more details. Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 13
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 8 STATION 1 – CONCEPT IMAGE LOOKING SOUTHStudy Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 14
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 9 STATION 1 – CONCEPT IMAGE LOOKING WESTStudy Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 15
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 10 STATION 1 – SITE PLAN Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 16
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 11 STATION 1 – CONCEPT PLAN Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 17
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 12 STATION 1 – CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONSStudy Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 18
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 13 STATION 2 – CONCEPT IMAGE LOOKING NORTHStudy Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 19
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 14 STATION 2 – SITE PLAN Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 20
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 15 STATION 2 – CONCEPT PLAN Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 21
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS Schematic Design Report _________________________ 16 STATION 2 – CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONSStudy Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 22
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations BUDGET SUMMARY Schematic Design Report _________________________ 17 Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 23
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 18 • ARCHITECTURAL SPACE PROGRAM • CONSTRUCTION OUTLINE • BUDGET ESTIMATE • PROJECT SCHEDULE • NEIGBORHOOD MEETINGS SUMMARY • NORTHSIDE PARK PLAN Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 24
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 58 PROJECT SCHEDULE Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 25
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 59 TasksAttendingDateRemarksPacket Due/NotificationCity Coucil Schematic Design Report8/9/2010Property Surveys1Design Development Phase Kick‐off Working Group 8/16/2010 1 ‐ 3:30pm Review Council Comments/mtgReview design goals and progress2Conceptual Storm Water Design Working Group 8/23/2010 1 ‐ 3:30pm Concept site plans3 Sustainability ProgramWorking Group 8/30/2010 1 ‐3:30 pm Excel Energy Design Assist Program4No Meeting ‐ Labor Day9/6/2010Labor Day5 Mechanical SystemsWorking Group 9/13/2010 1‐3:30 pm System description/controls/etc.City Council UpdateNeighborhood Meeting No. 39/16/2010Site and building plans with imagery Notice Due 8/306 Architectural Design Development Working Group 9/20/2010 1‐3:30 pm Training Applications/tower/etc.7 Electrical Systems Working Group 9/27/2010 1‐3:30 Systems descriptions/data/comm/etc.8 Sustainability ProgramWorking Group 10/4/2010 1‐3:30 pm Bundling discussionsWeidt GroupCity Council Update9 Architectural Design Development Working Group 10/11/2010 1‐3:30 pm Interior/Exterior MaterialsPricing Package to KA10/18/2010Pricing due 7/9/109 Architectural Design Development Working Group 10/25/2010 1‐3:30 Resolve Outstanding Issues10 Council Presentation Review Design Team11/1/2010 1‐3:3011 Council Presentation Working Group 11/8/2010 1‐3:30pm Review Pricing/Budget ReconciliationDesign Development Schedule Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 26
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 60 Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 27
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 61 Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 28
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 62 NEIGBORHOOD MEETINGS SUMMARY Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 29
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 70 Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 30
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 71 Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 31
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 72 NORTHSIDE PARK PLAN Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 32
City of St. Louis Park, MN Two New Fire Stations APPENDICES Schematic Design Report _________________________ 73 Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Fire Stations ProjectPage 33
Meeting Date: August 9, 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:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office Zoning District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss the zoning ordinance text amendments for Multiple-Family Residential in the Office
Zoning District.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to amend the ordinance provisions for multiple-family residential in the
Office zoning district?
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Proposed is a zoning ordinance amendment related to allowing multiple-family residential in the
Office zoning district. The purpose of the amendment is to allow a residential building to be solely
residential in use, versus requiring different uses on the first and second floors, and to remove the
density restriction of 75 units per acres.
Residential Zoning in the Office Zoning District
Multiple-family residential is allowed in the Office zoning district only by PUD. There are
conditions in the zoning text for allowing residential building. It is proposed some of these specific
provisions be amended.
Multiple-family housing uses are not currently allowed to be more than 25% of the first and second
floors, and these provisions are proposed for deletion.
For density, the allowance in the Office district is 50 units per acre, with an increase allowed of 50%
- or up to 75 units per acre. The proposal is to allow higher density in specific PUDs by City
Council approval.
The office zones are the most appropriate areas in the city for the highest density residential areas
because:
• Highest density in terms of allowable office development
• Major roadways are in place
• Transit service is in place.
• Adds a mixed-use component to office parks
• Allows day and night time uses in an area
• Allows the opportunity for people to live and work in the same area.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the Office Zoning District
Ordinance Provisions
In order to look specifically at an area in order to consider additional density, the following
provisions (4-6) are proposed in addition to the existing ones:
hf. 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.
Ideas for Additional Provisions:
4. The buildings are located in an area that is appropriate for urban development, and
has supportive services and amenities including transit, a high-quality pedestrian
environment, restaurants, retail shops, community gathering spaces and
entertainment and recreation opportunities.
5. The buildings are located a minimum of 500 feet from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned
property.
6. Traffic analysis shows that the adequate levels of service standards can be met as
defined by the City Zoning Administrator.
Areas Zoned for Office
There are 5 sites zoned for office within the city (please see attached maps): West End area, Shelard
Park, Park-Nicollet Clinic, Melrose Institute (correction: only the Melrose site is zoned office; the
city-owned Bass Lake site is not zoned for Office, it is zoned RC, High density multiple family), and
an office building on Highway 100. The only Office zoned areas that have undeveloped sites are the
West End and Park Nicollet’s parking lot on Excelsior Boulevard.
Areas: Undeveloped sites:
Shelard Park None
Hwy 100 office building None
Bass Lake None
Park Nicollet Parking lot on Excelsior Blvd
West End Hotel/multiple family site and office areas,
(plus site south of Home Depot)
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the Office Zoning District
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Office Zone Maps
Zoning for Multiple-Family Residential and Definitions for Uses
Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the Office Zoning District
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the Office Zoning District
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the Office Zoning District
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the Office Zoning District
Zoning for Multiple-Family Residential
Approval Max Density Max Height
R-4 CUP 30 units/acre 3 stories or 40 feet
R-C Permitted w/conditions 50 units/acre 6 stories or 75 feet
O PUD 75 units/acre 20 stories or 240 feet
Definitions: Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance by how they are allowed:
Permitted use Administrative approval Building permit
• Conditions in ordinance
Permitted with conditions Administrative approval Building permit
• Conditions in ordinance
Conditional Use Permit
(CUP)
Requires City Council
approval
Requires a public hearing
Requires Resolution of approval
• Conditions in ordinance
• Additional conditions may be added
Planned Unit Development
(PUD)
Requires City Council
approval
Requires a public hearing
Requires Resolution of approval
• Conditions in ordinance
• Additional conditions may be added
• Modifications may be made
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the Office Zoning District
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-223(e)(1)
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 10-22-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-223(e)(1) is hereby amended by
deleting stricken language.
(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.
fd. 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.
ge. All buildings are located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curbline of internal
private roadways or parking lots.
hf. 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:
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the Office Zoning District
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.
ig. 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.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 10-22-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing July 21, 2010
First Reading August 2, 2010
Second Reading
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: August 2, 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:
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: August 9, 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:
Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with proposed
ordinance amendments to City Code Chapter 15 Gambling Ordinance regarding charitable
gambling regulations in St. Louis Park. The Public Hearing and First Reading is tentatively
scheduled for the September 7, 2010 City Council meeting. Please advise staff of any questions or
concerns you might have regarding this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to proceed with the proposed ordinance amendments to increase the local
gambling tax to 1.25% and to require a 10% contribution fund with an exception for those
establishments who contribute 100% of their profits in St. Louis Park?
BACKGROUND:
Study Session discussions were held on this topic on April 12 and June 28 and an open house
meeting was held April 28 with charitable gambling managers. At these meetings, discussion took
place regarding lawful charitable gambling regulations, gambling authority, gambling proceed
expenditures, and gambling operations in St. Louis Park. Concerns and questions were raised by
Council members regarding charitable gambling and whether proceed expenditures are benefiting St.
Louis Park, and what legal authority the city has over lawful gambling requirements.
At the June 28 Study Session the City Council directed staff to do two things (see attached minutes):
• Analyze the expense involved in administering charitable gambling activities and make
recommendations regarding adjustments which should be made to the local gambling tax to
fully cover these expenses; and
• Prepare an ordinance amendment to require a 10% contribution to the City (as allowed by
law) from charitable gambling organizations with an exemption for those who contribute a
designated percentage of their proceeds to eligible St. Louis Park entities.
Based upon this direction Staff and the City Attorney have prepared the following ordinance
amendments (see attached draft ordinance):
Section 15-8 will include new language to require gambling organizations to contribute to a Fund
administered and regulated by the City, for distribution by the city for lawful purposes authorized
under Minnesota Statute in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the organization's net profits
derived from lawful gambling. Staff recommends organizations that expend 100% of its lawful
purposes expenditures within the city of St. Louis Park be exempt from making the 10%
contribution.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Section 15-9 will increase the local gambling tax to 0.0125 percent (one and one quarter percent)
from 0.0010 percent (one tenth of one percent) to cover administrative expenses of the City of St.
Louis Park.
ANALYSIS:
10% City Contribution Fund
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 to be spent only for charitable contributions allowed by state law.
As noted earlier, it is proposed that an exemption to the 10% contribution be provided to those
organizations that provide 100% of the lawful purpose expenditures in St. Louis Park. As noted
below in the section titled “City Attorney Legal Opinion on 10% Contribution”, an exemption
could be provided for those organizations that expend all or a high percentage of their net profits on
activities in St. Louis Park. Staff is suggesting 100% to insure as little question as possible regarding
an exemption provision and also to provide for the ease of administration in determining whether an
exemption is applicable for a charitable gambling operator in the city.
There are a number of allowable purposes for the 10% Contribution Fund for Council to consider.
An estimate Staff prepared based on 2009 actual data shows that as much as $35,000-$40,000 could
potentially be contributed to the fund each year. However, based on the exemption percentage
proposed, the exemption could substantially reduce this amount. Based on the proposed exemption
and recent history it is estimated the City would receive approximately $20,000 per year via the 10%
contribution requirement.
Cities who establish a 10% Contribution Fund must file a report each year on or before March 15th
with the State Gambling Control Board to report the amount received and a detail listing of how the
funds were disbursed. A reasonable fund balance can be carried forward to the following year.
A list of examples for how the 10% funds could potentially be used is provided below. Some
allowable purposes listed could have a positive impact on the City’s Budget.
• Support of public or private schools which could include funding for the Volunteer
Coordinator position.
• Establishment of a scholarship fund.
• Activities for youth which could include funding or scholarship assistance for Park &
Recreation summer camps.
• Facilities for youth which could include our support of Teens Alone.
• St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) which could provide partial funding for the
city’s annual budgeted contribution from the General Fund to STEP ($35,000 in 2010,
$40,000 in 2011)
• Friends of the Arts staff position - funding in the amount of $20,000 is budgeted in the
Housing Rehabilitation Fund.
• Police and Fire expenditures for equipment and training.
• Trail maintenance and projects for the benefit of the public at large.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
All disbursements from the 10% Contribution Fund must meet one of the following criteria:
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
City Attorney Legal Opinion on 10% contribution
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.
Local Gambling Tax
Under State Statute, Minnesota Cities may impose a local gambling tax of up to 3% on licensed
organizations. The tax is calculated on the gross profits (gross receipts less prizes paid out), and the
tax can be imposed only to the extent necessary to cover costs incurred by the City to regulate
gambling activities.
Allowable expenses that can be covered by this tax include the following:
• Salary & benefits of the City Clerk, administrative and finance staff, and police officers for
hours spent performing duties relating to the regulation of lawful gambling.
• Professional services for legal advice on gambling issues.
• Gambling training, conferences, and reference materials.
• Other reasonable overhead expenses.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Cities who impose a local gambling tax must file a report each year on or before March 15th with
the State Gambling Control Board to report the amount of tax collected and a detailed accounting
of the expenses incurred. A reasonable fund balance can be carried forward to the following year
with an appropriate explanation of how it will be used.
Staff has completed an analysis to estimate staff time typically spent over the course of a year on
gambling and the total expense incurred by the City. A list of the normal duties performed by City
Staff relating to regulation of gambling are provided below:
• Review application materials and conduct background checks for raffles, new premises
permits, and changes in managers.
• Make random compliance visits to each establishment with pull tab sales.
• Provide information to educate the organizations and establishments on City requirements
and to assist them with gambling questions.
• Obtain legal advice when necessary.
• Review the required monthly reports filed by the organizations.
• Prepare the annual report for the Gambling Control Board.
At present, the City is collecting a local tax of one tenth of 1% (.001). For the first six months of
2010, this equated to $546.23.
Based on past experience and staff’s analysis, the City can justify annual costs of approximately
$10,000 to $12,000 for the activities indicated above. Therefore, staff recommends to Council that
the local gambling tax rate should be increased to 1.25% (.0125) in order to cover these
administrative costs.
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
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.
St. Louis Park Gambling Establishments Past Donations
1. Community Charities operates at the American Legion, Park Tavern, and Texa-Tonka Lanes
since 2002. Past donations to St. Louis Park include the following:
• Community Foundation $200,000
• Parktacular $20,000
• Youth Bowling $12,000
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Subject: Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
• Youth Baseball $10,000
• Park Nicollet Foundation $7,500
• STEP $7,000
• Fire Department fire engine restoration $5,000
• Westwood Nature Center $2,000
2. St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association operates at Bunny’s since 1992. Past donations to
St. Louis Park include:
• Rec Center Hockey Ice Time $174,000 in 2009
• Rec Center Hockey Ice Time $72,500 in 2008
3. Hopkins Raspberry Festival currently operates at McCoy’s since March 2010. Past donations to
St. Louis Park from other premise locations include:
• Parktacular $38,000
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Projections from Finance Division calculations indicate revenue of approximately $20,000 per year
if the city required a 10% contribution fund and the proposed exemption plus revenue of
approximately $10 to $12,000 a year to defray administrative expenses.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Proposed Draft Ordinance
June 28 Meeting Minutes
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Darla Monson, Finance Accountant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Subject: Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. _____-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
CONCERNING GAMBLING
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 15-8 of the City Code is hereby amended to provide as follows:
Sec. 15-8. Distribution of Proceeds
(a) Each organization licensed to conduct gambling within the city shall contribute to a fund
administered and regulated by the City, for distribution by the city for lawful purposes authorized
under Minnesota Statute an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the organization's net profits
derived from lawful gambling. For purposes of this section, net profits are profits less amounts
expended for allowable expenses. Organizations that expend 100 percent of its lawful purposes
expenditures within the city of St. Louis Park are exempt from making the 10 percent contribution
to the city.
(b) Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the city must expend 90 percent of its
lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area. The
contribution required in subsection (a) above shall be considered as part of the 90 percent
expenditure. This section applies only to lawful purpose expenditures of gross profits derived from
lawful gambling conducted on a premises within the city. At the end of each organization's fiscal
year, each organization must file with the city a report prepared by an independent certified public
accountant documenting compliance with the requirements of this section. In addition, each
organization must submit monthly to the city a completed Schedule C/D-LG1010.
SECTION 2. Section 15-9 of the City Code is hereby amended to provide as follows:
Sec. 15-9. Local tax.
Any organization authorized to conduct lawful gambling shall pay to the city on a monthly basis a
local gambling tax in the amount of 0.0010 percent (one tenth of one percent) 0.0125 percent (one
and one quarter percent) of the gross receipts of a licensed organization from all lawful gambling less
prizes actually paid out by the organization. Payment shall be made no later than 25 days after the
end of the preceding month and shall be accompanied by a copy of the monthly return filed with the
Minnesota Department of Revenue.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after its
publication.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Subject: Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Notice of Public Hearing Published August 26, 2010
Public Hearing First Reading September 7, 2010
Second Reading September 20, 2010
Summary Ordinance Published September 30, 2010
Ordinance takes effect October 15, 2010
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 8
Subject: Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ___-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
CONCERNING GAMBLING
This ordinance amends the gambling licensing provisions for the City of St. Louis Park regarding
local gambling tax and distribution of proceeds. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after
publication.
Adopted by the City Council September 20, 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: September 30, 2010
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 9
Subject: Proposed Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Excerpts from June 28 Study Session Minutes:
2. Charitable Gambling Regulations
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and stated that staff recently met with the City’s current
gambling managers to receive comments; it was the consensus of the eight people attending the
meeting that no changes were needed to the current gambling requirements in the City. She also
presented the City Attorney’s opinion with respect to the 10% contribution fund requiring
organizations to expend a designated percentage or all of its net profits in the City.
Councilmember Sanger requested clarification regarding the limits of the City’s authority with
respect to designating who receives the proceeds from charitable gambling.
Ms. Stroth stated that the limitations on charitable gambling proceeds are outlined in the statutes.
She explained that if the City were to adopt a 10% City contribution fund, the fund would be
subject to the same limitations contained in the statutes.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the City Council has the authority to narrow the trade area so that
proceeds are all allocated within St. Louis Park, without creating the 10% City contribution fund.
Ms. Stroth replied that state law does not allow cities the authority to narrow the trade area or to
authorize what specific lawful purpose expenditures must be in the trade area. As defined by state
law, the trade area includes all cities contiguous to the city of St. Louis Park.
Mr. Scott stated that if an organization donated 100% of its net profits in St. Louis Park, that
organization could be exempted from the 10% contribution requirement.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the goal is to have charitable gambling proceeds accrue to the
benefit of the City and organizations within the City.
Councilmember Omodt stated that there have been complaints received in the past that some
charitable gambling proceeds from organizations in the City are directed to Hopkins, and the
Council has to answer to residents who question why gambling proceeds are not going to
organizations in the City. He added that two gambling managers have commented that they are
working with an outside organization and that they were not having the best experience with them.
Councilmember Sanger requested additional information regarding the City’s administrative costs to
cover charitable gambling in the City, and to consider increasing the City’s current 1/10 of 1% local
tax. She stated that she is also supportive of a 10% contribution fund with an exemption for those
organizations who already contribute all of their proceeds to St. Louis Park charities.
Discussion took place regarding the various gambling regulations and local authority.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to analyze and present Council with data
regarding the City’s administrative costs, recommendations regarding an increase in the local
gambling tax, and to prepare an ordinance amendment requiring a 10% contribution fund with an
exemption for those organizations who contribute a designated percentage of their proceeds to St.
Louis Park charities.
Meeting Date: August 9, 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:
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account: Affordable and Life
Cycle Housing Goals for 2011 – 2020.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report provides the Council with information related to
adoption of affordable housing goals for calendar years 2011 to 2020. At a subsequent meeting, the
Council will be asked to approve a resolution electing to continue to participate in the Local
Housing Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and agree
to the affordable and life-cycle housing goals as determined by the Metropolitan Council for
calendar years 2011 and 2020.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The Council needs to determine if it wishes to continue to participate in the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account, and if so, it is willing to adopt affordable and
life-cycle housing goals as developed by the Metropolitan Council.
BACKGROUND:
St. Louis Park previously elected to be a participant in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
Local Housing Incentives Account (LCA LHIA). Participation is voluntary and provides the City
with the opportunity to compete for grants and loans to support activities that help the City meet its
affordable and life-cycle housing goals, clean up polluted sites, and support demonstration projects
linking jobs, housing and transit. The City has been the successful recipient of numerous grants
since 1996. (Attachment A)
The City’s previously adopted LCA LHIA affordable and life-cycle housing goals were negotiated
with the Met Council for the period 1996 – 2010. At that time, the goals framework was not based
upon analysis of households with a housing need, limited household income or housing condition.
It was based solely upon keeping the production of new affordable units at a level similar or better
than the existing situation in the community between 1996 and 2010. A community’s benchmark
was a percentage range in each of six categories that represented the average for all communities at a
similar stage of development.
The Met Council is taking a new approach in setting the 2011 to 2020 goals. The Met Council is
setting goals for each community based on their share of the region’s projected affordable housing
needs. If the City elects to continue its participation in the LCA beyond, it must establish new
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account
affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the next decade. For the City of St. Louis Park, the Met
Council has determined the fair share of the region’s affordable housing and life-cycle need for 2011-
2020 as follows:
Affordable Housing Goal: 326 to 501 units
Life-Cycle Housing Goal: 500 to 1000 units
The Metropolitan Council considers a unit affordable if it is priced at or below 30% of gross income
of a household earning 60% of the Twin Cities' median family income (or $50,400 for a family of 4
in 2010).
Life-cycle housing is a very general category that simply means the City expects to accommodate 500
– 1000 dwelling units over the next decade and that these units will include a variety of housing
types and densities to meet resident’s changing housing needs and preferences that change over our
life times.
The Council arrived at these numbers by under going a study to determine the affordable housing
need in the Metropolitan Area during the decade 2011 - 2020. The study determines each
community’s share of the metropolitan area’s regional need. In determining the overall affordable
housing need for the Twin Cities, the Metropolitan Council tied forecasted affordable housing need
to four criteria related to household growth potential, ratio of local low-wage jobs to low-wage
workers, current provision of affordable housing, and transit service. These four criteria are addressed
in the formula through the following questions:
1. How much household growth is a community planning to absorb from 2010 to 2020?
2. What is the relative balance of low-wage jobs based in the area vs. low-wage working
residents?
3. To what extent does a community offer affordable housing now?
4. What level of transit service is available in a community?
By following this approach, the Metropolitan Council is allocating the region’s forecasted affordable
housing need in a manner that is consistent with overall goals to guide growth within the urbanized
portion of the Twin Cities.
Although the Met Council fully supports the need for the total number of new affordable units over
the next decade, it also acknowledges the reality of limited funding available to create new affordable
housing opportunities. This is the reason that the Council has established its LCA affordable
housing goal for the City as a range of 326 to 501 units for the period 2011 to 2020. The low end
of the range represents the number of units that can be accomplished at currently available funding
levels region wide.
Regarding the City’s life-cycle goal to diversify the type and density of housing to meet resident’s
changing housing needs and preferences, the Met Council asks the City to establish a goal range of
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account
500 to 1000 units over the next decade. The low end of the range represents the community’s total
share of the region’s affordable housing need and the high end is the potential number of units
permitted by the land use guiding in the City’s 2030 Plan Update for medium, high, mixed use,
redevelopment, TOD or similarly named residential development, or the total forecasted household
growth for the community to 2020, whichever number is less.
The affordable and life-cycle goal information is provided to assist communities in determining the
housing goals and objectives to be included in the housing element of their comprehensive land use
plans. Although adoption of the goals does not commit the City in any way to achieve the targets
established by the Met Council, conveying need numbers to communities is meant to help cities
plan their role in addressing their share of the forecasted regional affordable housing need. Foremost
among these efforts, from the Met Council’s perspective, is the guiding of sufficient land for the
development of new housing that may provide the opportunity for the production of affordable
units.
The City’s currently planned redevelopment areas have a sufficient amount of land designated for
medium and high density residential to accommodate a minimum of 650 housing units, with the
potential of more than 1,600 housing units, depending upon the density at which these sites are
developed. These future housing units provide adequate opportunity to develop affordable housing
that would meet the community’s share of the region’s future projected affordable housing needs.
To make official the City’s decision to continue participation in the LCA, the Met Council is asking
the City to adopt these new affordable and life-cycle housing goal ranges, by passing a resolution that
incorporates the numbers described above. The resolution will be presented for Council approval
the beginning of September. Additionally, before December 1, 2010 the City must develop a
Housing Action Plan outlining the steps the City will take to help meet its LCA goals. In a recent
meeting held by Met Council staff, cities were instructed that much, if not all of this Action Plan
can be taken from the housing implementation section of the City’s Comprehensive 2030 Plan
Update that was recently approved by both the City Council and the Met Council. Again, Met
Council staff emphasized that participation in the program is voluntary and that adoption of the
new goals does not obligate the City to achieve the goals and that it is entirely up to the Council to
determine how aggressive they want to be in attaining the established goals.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time. Attachment A provides a list of funded LCA grants from 1996 to 2009
that the City has received.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Affordable and life cycle housing is addressed in the City’s Vision in that St. Louis Park is
committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. In particular, the City’s focus
will be on the three following strategies: remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-
occupied homes; property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics and;
working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account
There is no obligation by adopting the resolution electing to continue participation in the LCA
LHIA and agreeing to the affordable and life-cycle need projections for 2011 to 2020 as established
by the Met Council to achieve the goals.
Staff will plan to discuss this topic further with the Council as part of the follow-up discussion on
affordable housing goals and actions at the August 23 Study Session.
Attachments: A - Funded and Unfunded Projects/Grants
B - 2011 – 2010 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by City/Township
Draft Resolution Electing to Continue to Participating in the LHA Program
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Page 5
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Page 6
DRAFT RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN
THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM
UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
CALENDAR YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2020
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes sections
473.25 to 473.255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to
address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota
Statutes section 473.121; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base
Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local Housing
Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing Account, is intended to provide certain funding
and other assistance to metropolitan-area municipalities; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under
the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup
funding from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development unless the
municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under Minnesota
Statutes section 473.254; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council
to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that
municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as
provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and
WHEREAS, previously negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for municipalities
participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program expire in 2010; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality can participate in the Local Housing
Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects
to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program; (b) the Metropolitan Council and the
municipality successfully negotiate new affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality;
(c) the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the new negotiated affordable and life-cycle
housing goals for the municipality; and (d) the municipality establishes it has spent or will spend or
distribute to the Local Housing Incentives Account the required Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing
Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) for each year the municipality participates in the Local Housing
Incentives Account Program.
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Page 7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of St. Louis Park:
1. Elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act for calendar years 2011 through 2020.
2. Agrees to the following affordable and life-cycle housing goals for calendar years 2011
through 2020:
Affordable Housing Goals Range Life-Cycle Housing Goals Range
326 to 501 500 to 1000
3. Will prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council a plan identifying the actions it plans
to take to meet its established housing goals.
Approved: ______________, 2010.
By: By:
Mayor Clerk
Study Session Meeting of August 9, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Page 8