Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010/08/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session
AGENDA AUGUST 23, 2010 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Closed Executive Session ---Threatened Litigation by Ames Construction Relating to Hwy. 7 and Wooddale Project (Westwood Room) 2. 7:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 13 3. 7:05 p.m. Friends of the Arts Annual Update 4. 7:35 p.m. Civil Space and Community Recreation Planning 5. 8:20 p.m. Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park 6. 9:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal) 9:10 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 7. July 2010 Monthly Financial Report 8. Property Acquisition Update - 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply property) 9. West Suburban Housing Partners - Urban Park - Private Activity Revenue Bonds Refinancing 10. Green Step Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement 11. Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of Meeting Date: August 23, 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: CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION TITLE: Closed Executive Session – Threatened Litigation by Ames Construction Relating to the Hwy. 7 and Wooddale Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action is requested. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: City Attorney Tom Scott and Public Works Director Mike Rardin will discuss with the City Council litigation strategy and potential settlement of threatened litigation by Ames Construction in a Closed Executive Session. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None. Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: August 23, 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: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 13, 2010 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on September 13, 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 September 13, 2010. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for September 13, 2010 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Study Session, Monday, September 13, 2010 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Environmental Activities Update – Administrative Services (60 minutes) Discussion to provide an overview of the activities which have been undertaken relating to the environment since 2008. 3. Louisiana Court Refinancing – Community Development (45 minutes) Follow-up with Council on refinancing of Louisiana Court. 4. 7015 Walker St. Purchase Agreement – Community Development (30 minutes) Discuss details of the proposed purchase agreement. 5. Communications/Meeting Check-in – 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: Rental License Amendments for Provisional License Eliot School Design Guidelines End of Meeting: 8:55 p.m. Meeting Date: August 23, 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: Friends of the Arts Annual Update. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the activities of Friends of the Arts? BACKGROUND: The City of St. Louis Park has been working with Friends of the Arts in a partnership since 2006 to further the arts in the community. Beginning in 2006, the city has contributed $20,000 to Friends of the Arts annually. Representatives of Friends of the Arts will be in attendance at the study session to provide their annual update. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Payments to Friends of the Arts in the amount of $20,000 annually were approved February 6, 2006 to promote art events and related activities that create an awareness and appreciation for arts. Staff recommends continuing supporting FOTA by contributing $20,000 for 2011. This allocation is included in the proposed 2011 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Continuing our partnership with Friends of the Arts is consistent with our Strategic Directions. St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. Attachments: Friends of the Arts Annual Report Prepared by: Cindy W. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Friends of the Arts Annual Update Page 2 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Friends of the Arts Annual Update Page 3 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Friends of the Arts Annual Update Page 4 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Friends of the Arts Annual Update Page 5 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 3) Subject: Friends of the Arts Annual Update Page 6 Meeting Date: August 23, 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: Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests feedback on a proposed process for advancing the exploration of the creation of civic and/or recreational facilities in the community (see attached process outline). POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want staff to begin the process of further determining what additional civic and/or recreational facilities residents would like to see in the community? BACKGROUND: At a recent Study Session the City Council asked that staff present a proposal for moving forward on the exploration of creating additional civic and/or recreational facilities in the community. Undertaking such an effort originates from the 2005/06 Vision St. Louis Park process and the resulting Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council. If the City were to undertake a significant civic facility type project(s) in the future it will be important that it be grounded in strong community support and data that demonstrates the problem we are trying to solve or the opportunity we are trying to address. The results of the Vision process certainly demonstrate strong community interest and support in this matter. As a result, the process outlined in the attached document is intended to build off the results of Vision and go much deeper in identifying more specifically what is missing in the community from a civic and or recreational facility perspective. Staff feels this is an important first step to take. By having the community specifically identify what is missing will provide the Council with good information on the types of facilities or amenities it should consider adding to the community. Once the City Council has this information, subsequent steps can be taken to bring the communities desires to fruition. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Please review attached document for details VISION CONSIDERATION: This topic is directly related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and one of the adopted Strategic Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” and the related Focus Area of “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use”. Attachments: Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning Process St. Louis Park Strategic Directions Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Subject: Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning Process Background During the 2005 -06 Vision process the City heard from its residents that “Gathering Places” were an important part of being a healthy community. One of the eight Vision Action Teams that worked on the “Gathering Place” theme, and the resulting “Book of Dreams”, developed the following vision statement about what the community should look like in the future: “St. Louis Park has many gathering places – including centers dedicated to recreation, youth activities, and the arts. Parks and shopping centers also serve as key contact points where people can meet and fully experience the city’s many amenities” Subsequently, in 2007 the City Council reviewed in detail all of the recommendations provided by the eight Vision Action Teams and distilled them down to four Strategic Directions. One of the Strategic Directions and a specific focus area dealt with the concept of gathering places as follows (See attached Strategic Directions and Focus Areas): Strategic Direction – St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community Focus Area – Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use. The City Council has expressed an interest in going much deeper into the exploration of enhancing civic and or recreational space in the community and has asked staff to outline a process for moving forward. If the City were to undertake a significant civic facility type project(s) in the future it will be important that it be grounded in strong community support and data that demonstrates the problem we are trying to solve or the opportunity we are trying to address. The results of the Vision process certainly demonstrate strong community interest and support in this matter – which is good. As a result, the process outlined below is intended to build off the results of Vision and go much deeper in identifying more specifically what is missing in the community from a civic and or recreational facility perspective. By having the community specifically identify what is missing will provide the Council with good information on the type of facilities or amenities it should consider adding to the community. Once the City Council has this information, subsequent steps can be taken to bring the communities desires to fruition. One other important point of note. As the City focuses on the types of civic facilities or public spaces that are needed in the community, it will be important to be thinking of the community’s needs well into the future (20 plus years) rather than just the present or near term needs. The demographics of our City will change considerably in the years to come which means the facilities and the way we deliver services will need to change. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Subject: Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning Proposed Process Survey Tool The voice of the residents is critical. The main question we need answered from our residents is “What is missing in our civic facilities and public spaces that, if present, would make St. Louis Park a better community? Staff recommends hiring an independent firm to develop a survey, conduct focus groups, aid in the administration of the survey and present the results to the Council. Parks and Recreation and Communications staff will assist in marketing the survey and helping to tell the story about how this process is a follow up from Vision. Here are the steps proposed to be undertaken • Develop an online survey for residents. • Send a post card to all residents letting them know the City will be undertaking a process for determining what community civic facilities and public spaces are missing in our community (what is the problem or opportunity). • Hold four focus groups with residents of all ages from each ward to provide input. • Notify neighborhood leaders of the process and encourage them to get involved in the online survey or the focus groups. • Use the media, Park Perspective, etc to let people know about how they can be involved in the survey process. Having a consultant lead this is important in order to provide expertise in undertaking this effort and to provide a non-biased and objective report back to the City Council. Depending on the results of the on-line survey and focus groups it may be necessary to drill even deeper into this issue by undertaking a more statistically based survey utilizing a firm such as Decision Resources. Given that the City is scheduled to undertake another community survey in the next year, specific questions related to this matter could be included in a cost effective way. PRAC Involvement PRAC would be involved in developing the on-line survey and follow-up analysis. Members could also be in attendance at focus groups to assist and subsequently provide input to the Council on the results obtained. Timelines • Research consultants and send out RFP (September and early October) • Select consultant and begin to develop survey (October and November) • Collect information from the community thru surveys and focus groups (December and January) • Analyze data (February) • Report to Council (March) • Follow up as necessary with a community wide Decision resources survey (which the City does every 2-3 years) Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Subject: Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning Resource Allocation and Cost Estimate Despite the use of a consultant there will be a considerable amount of staff time spent administering this process. Cindy Walsh will be the main contact with her staff assisting. Staff from Administration and Communications will also be asked to assist. The cost estimate for hiring a consultant to help us with developing a survey tool, leading focus groups and analyzing the data is approximately $7,000--$12,000. As mentioned above, the City is due for anther community wide survey from a firm like Decision Resources. The cost for undertaking such a survey ranges from $20,000-$30,000 depending on the number of questions asked. Given that the City undertakes such a survey periodically anyway, this would be a cost effective way to obtain information regarding this matter. Issues that May Cloud the Process Keep in mind that there are issues that may cloud this process. The biggest of which are the economic times we are currently experiencing. Residents may not be willing to share ideas for fear of taxes being increased. It is important to keep communicating to the public that this is a long range planning tool and that this is not a commitment to building anything right now. The issue of turf and location of turf may also arise. That is okay. In fact, if it is a need in the community, this is a perfect place for that issue to be raised. St. Louis Park Strategic Directions 18 month Guide Adopted March 19, 2007 St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: • Conducting research to determine what makes a neighborhood organization strong, viable and sustainable with an aim toward increasing and strengthening neighborhoods. • Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails. • Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT. • Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for the community. • Increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility throughout the community. • Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use. • Directing the Human Rights Commission to examine the Diversity section of Vision St. Louis Park and develop goals/recommendations for actions St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Focus will be on: • Expanding energy efficiencies in the City’s operations. • Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best practices. • Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects, permits etc, encourage (and provide incentives where appropriate) green building design (LEED), creation of open spaces, environmental innovations etc. • Preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks. • Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. Focus will be on: • Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes. • Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics. • Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city. 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 23, 2010 (Item No. 4) Subject: Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning Page 5 Meeting Date: August 23, 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: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. This report is intended as a follow-up to the policy discussion regarding affordable housing held with the City Council at the July 12 Study Session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Are the key conclusions or directions from the July 12 Study Session discussion accurately captured in this report? • Does the City Council desire to change the current policies and strategies, or the relative emphasis given to the current polices and strategies, related to affordable housing in St. Louis Park? BACKGROUND: At the July 12 Study Session, staff provided the City Council with background information on the status of affordable housing in St. Louis Park and our current policies and programs. The request for the information grew out of a discussion about the West End and the developer’s interest in incorporating housing into the project area. The possibility of requiring an affordability component in the West End housing project, or other future housing developments, was raised and it was concluded that before the Council discussed possibly changing polices, a more complete picture of the affordable housing situation and how it relates to the City’s Vision, goals and policies would be appropriate. KEY DIRECTIONS FROM THE JULY 12 STUDY SESSION After review and discussion of the affordable housing information provided by staff, the Council indicated an interest in possibly expanding the City’s affordable housing efforts. Listed below is a summary of the key directions that the Council expressed an interest in pursuing further: 1. Establish a metric by which to measure our affordable housing success within the context of the housing goals established during the housing summit; and, which were adopted into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. Our goal is mixed-income neighborhoods and mixed-income buildings. Affordable housing should be dispersed in the community, not concentrated in limited areas. We should consider actions to reduce concentrations of affordable housing if needed. 3. Affordable housing should be high quality housing and indistinguishable from other housing in SLP. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park 4. Housing property maintenance and management programs including Property Maintenance Certificate requirements, Rental Housing Licensing standards and Housing Improvement Areas should continue and are an important tool for maintaining quality housing and quality neighborhoods. 5. Affordable housing does not mean affordable housing just for families. Affordability of housing is important for everyone, including seniors, singles and couples. 6. Acquisition of problem properties should be considered. 7. Specific affordable housing programs/projects to consider: a. Acquisition of foreclosed properties for affordable housing; possibly creating a “rent to own” program as a means to help people of modest means own their own home. b. Explore methods for incorporating affordable housing into new housing developments as they occur in the future. An example is Section 8 housing units at Excelsior and Grand. Relation to Current Policies, Goals and Strategic Directions A number of the affordable housing initiatives identified at the July 12 Study Session are either current goals previously adopted by the Council or incorporated indirectly into the current goals. A review and discussion of each of the initiatives identified at the July 12 meeting is outlined below: 1. Establish a metric by which to measure our affordable housing success within the context of the housing goals established during the housing summit; and, which were adopted into our Comprehensive Plan, As one of the directives resulting from the Housing Summit, staff established a bi-annual Housing Activity Report that provides information to policy makers on the status of housing administered by the City and HA, along with a Matrix that quantifies the number of housing units by type, size and affordability. The Matrix tracks the City’s status in meeting the current Met Council affordability goals. The Matrix is a tool that can be modified to include additional data related to affordable housing initiatives identified by the Council. 2. Our goal is mixed-income neighborhoods and mixed-income buildings. Affordable housing should be dispersed in the community, not concentrated in limited areas. We should consider actions to reduce concentrations of affordable housing if needed. Promoting mixed income units disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one area of the City or any one development is currently one of the City’s adopted Housing Goals. This goal was developed as a result of the Housing Summit and adopted by the City in 2005. The location maps attached to the July 12 Study Session affordable housing report illustrated that both subsidized and market rate affordable housing is scattered throughout the City and that we our meeting our goal that low income developments not be concentrated in one area. In addition to ensuring that Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park affordable housing is scattered through the City, the Council expressed that their preferred choice for future development be mixed income buildings, similar to Excelsior and Grand, in which eighteen Section 8 Project Based Rental Assistance Voucher units are indistinguishable from other units within the development. The City will continue to seek opportunities to promote mixed income development where feasible. 3. Affordable housing should be high quality housing and indistinguishable from other housing in SLP. Although City goals do not specifically state that “affordable” housing should be of high quality and indistinguishable from other housing in SLP, the City’s affordable homeownership and rental housing is disbursed throughout the community, and in most cases, is indistinguishable from market rate housing. As noted in the July 12 staff report, 57% of the City’s owner occupied homes and an estimated minimum of 44% of rental units are affordable based on the Metropolitan Council’s definition, and the majority of these units are market rate. As noted above, the City further promotes quality housing by administering multiple housing rehab related programs providing technical and design assistance and financial incentives to motivate low- income homeowners to improve their property. The rental licensing program provides an opportunity for the City to ensure that the City’s rental stock is being properly maintained. The majority of the “subsidized” homeownership and rental units are indistinguishable from market rate housing. One of City’s largest affordable housing resources, the Section 8 Voucher Program, which assists approximately 300 families, enables low income households to reside in market rate units while paying rents based on income. There is nothing that distinguishes program participants from market rate renters except the amount of rent they pay. In addition to the Section 8 Voucher Program, the HA owns and manages 147 Public Housing units. The HA is committed to its Vision Statement that “the public housing stock is well- maintained and a positive community asset”. Typically, the HA invests over $250,000 in capital improvements annually in its Public Housing properties. The City’s efforts to preserve existing affordable housing have been significant over the past decade. Over 1,900 units have received some measure of City related financial assistance to rehab and preserve the units over the past decade. Over $43.3 million has been invested in affordable housing in St. Louis Park over the past ten years. Efforts will continue to be taken to develop, promote and facilitate programming to ensure that affordable housing continues to be a vital community asset that is indistinguishable from market rate housing. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park 4. Housing property maintenance and management programs including Property Maintenance Certificate requirements, Rental Housing Licensing standards and Housing Improvement Areas should continue and are an important tool for maintaining quality housing and quality neighborhoods. Preserving quality housing and neighborhoods was one of seven primary categories identified at the Housing Summit, and again, reinforced through the Visioning process. Goals developed and adopted as part of the Housing Summit include: • Ensure housing is safe and well maintained. • Preserve and enhance housing quality through proactive promotional and educational activities and housing programs related to home rehab, code, and design and safety issues. The 2009 adopted Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Plan reiterates the City’s Vision which is that St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. The focus of the City’s strategies related to this Vision includes: • Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes. • Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics. The City has developed and administers a significant number of programs related to achieving the City’s property maintenance associated goals. Programs range from the City’s rental licensing and Citywide Inspection programs to the many programs providing technical and design information and financial incentives to maintain, expand and rehab properties. In addition to continuing current programming and creating enhanced programming to respond to newly identified needs, we can take further steps to ensure that City programs are effective in helping us meet our housing goals, and doing so in a manner that is not only efficient and cost effective, but one that our residents find helpful and valuable. 5. Affordable housing does not mean affordable housing just for families. Affordability of housing is important for everyone, including seniors, singles and couples. Several of the City’s adopted housing goals address the Council’s directive that affordable housing is not just for families but that the City is committed to providing housing, including affordable housing, to meet the needs of households with diverse characteristics. Goals developed and adopted as part of the Housing Summit include: • Promote & facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today and in the future. • The City should establish target numbers of units by housing types needed to ensure life cycle housing options, with housing types disbursed throughout the city. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park • Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of affordable housing for low and moderate income households. • Promote and facilitate more housing options for seniors. The City’s housing stock is quite diverse already and our housing programs help all types of households, singles, couples, large families. We will continue efforts to promote and facilitate a mix of housing choices, including affordable housing, to address the needs of diverse household types. We will be challenged in the future to create new affordable housing units because of the limited development opportunities and high cost of new development especially redevelopment. Further work could be done to explore technologies or potential programs that would make it possible to incorporate affordable housing into future redevelopment projects. Although, the following directives or initiatives identified by the Council are not expressly incorporated into our current goals or visioning strategies, initiatives have occurred in some of these areas either through particular City programs or as a result of the City’s current practices. Still, other of these initiatives would require possible new or revised strategies. 6. Acquisition of problem properties should be considered. Acquisition of “problem” properties is consistent with the City’s Vision to provide a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. In particular, the City’s adopted housing goal states that the City will “Ensure housing is safe and well maintained” and one of the three housing strategies adopted by the Council as a result of the 2006 Visioning process is “Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics”. Historically, there have been several examples in which the City took the initiative to proactively address “problem” properties. In the early 2000s, the City purchased a number of blighted properties through its Home Renewal Program. Upon purchase, the homes were demolished and the vacant lot was sold for development of a large single family home on the property. When housing prices began to escalate, a competitive market for these dilapidated homes developed, both as renovation and tear down opportunities. The escalating sale prices and the increased interest from the private market eliminated the need for the City to facilitate the redevelopment. Both Louisiana Court and Meadowbrook Manor are examples in which the City intervened to address multi-family properties with deteriorating social and physical conditions. Although we did not acquire the properties, the City facilitated the acquisition and financing of Louisiana Court. If the City wants to become more proactive in addressing problem properties, policies, guidelines and funding would need to be established for when and how to acquire or facilitate remedy to the problem property. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 6 Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park 7. a. Consider affordable housing programs/projects to address foreclosed homes. The Council discussed the possibility of developing a program using foreclosed properties for affordable housing, and possibly creating a “rent to own” program as a means to help people of modest means own their own home. The following status update of foreclosed homes in SLP is intended to inform Council and address the question: What is the “problem and/or opportunity of using foreclosed homes for affordable housing”? • St. Louis Park is relatively fortunate in that the rate of foreclosures is relatively modest, and does not appear to be a significant problem. In 2010, similar to the national trend, St. Louis Park is experiencing increasing numbers foreclosures. The initial wave of foreclosures in 2006-08 was primarily related to lending practices and inflated housing values; while current foreclosures are believed to be primarily related to loss of employment and underemployment. From 2006 through the first half of 2010, the number of foreclosed sf detached homes has varied from 56 – 78 – 93 – 63 – 58. There is also an uptick in the number of condominium units in foreclosure in 2010. Fortunately, other than 12 units held by the developer of West Oaks (located near Park Tavern), the foreclosed condo units are scattered throughout the city with no one association experiencing a higher rate than others. 56 78 93 63 58 20 9 30 27 41 00 10 2 12 76 87 133 92 111 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2006 2007 2008 2009 1st Half 2010 YearNumber Residential Sherrif SalesSingle Family Detached Condos Townhomes Total • The housing market is St. Louis Park is relatively strong as evidenced by the sale of foreclosed single family homes. Foreclosed homes are selling in the private sector at a price slightly below estimated market values. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 7 Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park According to the Hennepin County Property Information database, of the 63 foreclosed single family properties in 2009, two-thirds, or 42 homes, have been sold primarily to owner occupants. Some of the homes have been sold to investors who are maintaining the property while bringing them to physical conditions that allow FHA qualifying buyers to purchase them. This is a good turn-over rate. Staff contacted several active, established St. Louis Park real estate agents to gain a better understanding of sales of foreclosed homes. All the agents agreed that the length of time a home is on the market depends on location and house condition. They all agreed that St. Louis Park is considered a very desirable location with well maintained properties. They believe there are few unmaintained vacant foreclosed properties on the market in SLP. Rather, they see a steady turn-over of foreclosed single family homes. However, turn-over in the condo sector is not occurring as quickly as the rate of single family homes due to the weakened condo market. How many vacant foreclosed homes exist in the city? • Current Status. Of the approximately 90 single family homes that have gone through sheriff sales in 2009-10, and not sold to new owners, staff has identified 46 confirmed vacant foreclosed homes with the remainder believed to be occupied. Of these possible vacant homes, ten homes have identified exterior maintenance issues being addressed through current City procedures of handling “problem properties” through the Inspections, Police and Utility departments. • Homes that have gone through the sheriff sale, but are still in the redemption period are generally occupied. (See Foreclosure Process in MN Attachment). Are there problem vacant foreclosed homes? The City developed a Foreclosure Work Group composed of staff from all departments in 2006 to proactively respond to the pending foreclosure situation. This team tracks, monitors and responds to issues related to foreclosed homes. The proactive efforts include: the Assessing Department identifies and tracks foreclosures via Hennepin County Sherriff Sales; the Inspection Department reviews foreclosed properties, determining if Point of Sale inspections have been conducted and corrections addressed and also conduct visual surveys to determine if properties are vacant, and if exterior maintenance problems exist; the Utilities Department monitors status of water shut offs during winter months and receives notification from gas & electric companies regarding power shut- offs; the Police Department addresses behavior problems when they occur and the Fire Department addresses relevant property issues as they arise. In addition to these proactive activities, staff responds to residents’ complaints regarding property nuisance issues of all properties, including foreclosed properties. As foreclosures increase in 2010 it is important to continue this watchdog effort. To this end the Inspections Department has refined its Report a Problem line and the Foreclosure Work Group continues to meet on a regular basis. The City also actively promotes foreclosure prevention Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 8 Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park counseling services to its residents. The Home Ownership Center has developed a marketing piece specific to St. Louis Park. This piece is mailed to all residents that are in arrears of utility payments, as well as publicized in print and electronic media. How is the City currently accessing the foreclosed home market to develop affordable housing opportunities? The City’s Live Where You Work homebuyer assistant program provides an additional $1,000 to residents purchasing vacant foreclosed homes for owner occupancy. Income eligibility for this program is 120% or below of median area household income. The City also partners with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHALT), to assist low income buyers to purchase long term affordable single family homes. WHALT pursues purchase of foreclosed homes if possible. The city provides a $25,000 - $35,000 financial contribution to assist with acquisition and rehab for each of these homes, along with a $25,000 line of credit per home. The City is beginning a partnership with Twin Cities Community Land Bank (TCCLB) which will allow the City the first right to purchase properties directly from the lender at a slightly discounted price. The city would purchase the property and WHALT, as the City’s developer would purchase, rehab, and recruit low income families to purchase the homes. The added affordability benefit of partnering with WHALT is that with the land lease, long term affordability is achieved. Additional Program Options The city could develop a soft second mortgage program, much along the lines of the Live Where You Work Program, where a deferred loan could be offered to modest income buyers of foreclosed properties to address needed improvements. This would be limited to owner occupants only. If the City were to establish a rent to buy program, a significant capital outlay would be required to fund acquisition, rehab, and ongoing operating and administrative costs. The acquisition costs, though discounted from market rate homes, are still high and there would most likely be additional rehab costs. The average estimated market value of homes foreclosed in 2010 is $225,000. It is unlikely the rent revenues from low-income owners could cover all the costs of a rent to buy program. Staff believes it would be more cost effective for the City to continue working with WHALT to purchase foreclosed homes for affordable homeownership opportunities. One of the City’s ongoing housing programs strength is to leverage City funds with existing partners that can effectively assist the City in meeting housing goals Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 9 Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park 7. b. Explore methods for incorporating affordable housing into new housing developments as they occur in the future. An example is Section 8 housing units at Excelsior and Grand. The City could become more proactive in requiring affordable housing in new developments and to support the creation of affordable housing as new developments occur in the City. City staff could work with potential developers to identify possible funding partners, acknowledging that City funds would likely be required as well. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Affordable 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. Staff will be available to further discuss the affordable housing directives listed above and to respond to any questions related to the August 9 Study Session report regarding the 2011 – 2020 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Affordable and Life Cycle housing goals. Attachments: Foreclosure Process in Minnesota July 12 Staff Report Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Kathy Larsen, Housing Program Coordinator Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Foreclosure Process in Minnesota Foreclosure by Advertisement Receive default notice. Phone calls and collection efforts continue. Lender calls and sends a letter Account forwarded to foreclosing attorney (legal fees accrue). Receive Preforeclosure Notice. Sheriff’s Sale date scheduled by attorney. (Date published for 6 consecutive weeks.) Occupant served with notice of Sheriff’s Sale Deadline to bring mortgage current Vacate Face eviction Sale date scheduled You maintain the right to stay in your home Redemption Period [To redeem the property you must pay off the entire Sheriff’s Sale amount + interest and fees] Typically 6 months. May be 12 months if agricultural. May be shortened to 5 weeks if property is abandoned or sale was postponed by homeowner. Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 - OR - NOTE: This document represents the most common foreclosure process in MN and may vary. Information is not presented as legal advice. © 2010 Minnesota Home Ownership Center Redemption period ENDS Redemption period BEGINS Sheriff’s Sale Ev ict io n To speak with a foreclosure counselor in your area, contact the Minnesota Home Ownership Center at (866) 462-6466 or www.hocmn.org OPTION: MN state law allows homeowners to postpone Sheriff’s Sale in return for shortened redemption period. Must file for postponement between date sale is published and 15 days prior to Sale. Missed payment notice Preforeclo s u re notice Missed payments 6 weeks before sale 4 weeks before sale Sheriff’s Sale Default/ intent to foreclose notice Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 10 Meeting Date: 071210 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: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council regarding affordable housing in the City and provide background information for the Council’s policy discussion. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to maintain or change the current policies and strategies related to affordable housing in St. Louis Park? Does the City Council desire additional information to assist with its policy discussion? BACKGROUND: At the April 26 Study Session the City Council requested background information on the status and need for affordable housing in St. Louis Park and our current policies and programs. The request grew out of a discussion about the West End and the developer’s interest in incorporating housing into the project area. The possibility of requiring an affordability component in the West End housing project, or other future housing developments, was raised and it was concluded that before the Council discussed possibly changing polices, a more complete picture of the affordable housing situation and how it relates to the City’s Vision, goals and policies would be appropriate. The following questions raised by the City Council, and the corresponding responses, are intended to inform and guide the Council’s discussion. 1. What is the definition of affordable and work force housing? The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing as affordable if it costs the occupant no more than 30% of their income for gross housing costs, including utilities and taxes and insurance for owners. Although the term frequently applies to rental housing for those in the lower income ranges, the concept applies to both renters and owners in all income ranges. The Metropolitan Council establishes annual affordability guidelines; the 2009 guidelines are: a. Owner occupied housing is affordable if the value is below $233,000 for a four person household earning 80% or less of the median area income, or $64,400 annually. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 11 b. Rental housing is considered affordable if monthly rent and utilities for a 2 bedroom unit is at or below $943, for a household earning 50% or less of the median area income or $41,950 annually. “Subsidized affordable housing” is subsidized by government and/or non profits that provide affordable housing for low income residents. It is characterized by housing with rent and income restrictions, or units with rent based on income. Section 8 Rental Assistance Housing Vouchers are different from subsidized buildings, in that rental assistance is provided to individuals renting in private market housing. “Market rate affordable housing” can be both private sector rental and owner occupied units that are affordable without governmental subsidies. “Work force housing” is loosely defined as owner occupied homes affordable to workers that live and work in a community. Mn Housing Finance Agency uses an income guideline for their workforce ownership programs where the monthly carrying costs of a home does not exceed 30–35% for a household with an income of $83,900 (2009). 2. Where is affordable housing located in the community? The location maps (attached) illustrate that both subsidized and market rate affordable housing is scattered throughout the city, and that we are meeting our goal that low income developments not be concentrated in one area. The maps also show that more affordable owner occupied units are located in the central, older portion of the City. The maps show the location of: a. Affordable subsidized rental and owner occupied housing b. Affordable market rate owner occupied housing c. Rental apartment buildings. Of the owners responding to the 2009 SLPHA Rental Study, the average rents of all but 3 bedroom units are below the affordability guideline established by Met Council for rental housing. 3. What are the City’s policies and strategic directions on affordable housing? Comprehensive Plan and Vision The 2009 adopted Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Plan reiterates the City’s Vision which is 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: a. Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes. b. Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics. c. Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city. This Vision for Housing reflects Vision St. Louis Park, the City’s Strategic Plan, and the results of the 2003-2005 Housing Summit. During the City’s 2006 visioning process, housing was identified as one of eight specific vision areas for the community. The Vision action team for housing, which consisted of 17 citizens and City staff, developed the Vision for Housing based on the information gathered during the extensive interview process that occurred as part of the visioning process. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 12 The City’s housing goals, strategies, and initiatives also evolved during the 2003-2005 Housing Summit process and were adopted by the City Council in March 2005. The Housing Summit’s goal was to educate, revisit, and consider any necessary changes to the City’s housing policies, strategies, and goals. A series of meetings were held between the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board, County Commissioner, and a business representative. The discussions that were held at these meetings and subsequent changes made to the City’s housing goals, strategies, and initiatives have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. The City’s 12 housing goals encompass seven broad categories: Housing Production; Housing Condition and Preservation; Owner/Rental Ratio; Affordable, Workforce, and Supportive Housing; Large Homes for Families; Senior Housing; and Land Use. Below are the affordable housing goals and strategic directions. The City’s Established Affordable, Workforce and Supportive Housing Goals are: a. Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Future affordability goals negotiated with the Metropolitan Council should reflect the average percentages of other first ring suburbs in Hennepin County. b. Mixed income units should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one area of the City or any one development. c. Strategies to achieve these goals are: i) Explore partnerships to encourage the private development of housing for employment growth related to expansions such as Park Nicollet and Methodist Hospital. ii) Continue acceptance and limited financial support of transitional and supportive housing programs for specialized groups and affordable multifamily housing providers. The City Established the St. Louis Park Housing Authority In addition to the City’s policies and goals, the St. Louis Park Housing Authority develops, integrates, and operates housing and housing assistance programs to ensure the availability of safe, affordable and desirable housing options that meet the diverse, lifecycle housing needs of all of the residents of St. Louis Park The primary function of the HA is to administer the federally assisted rental assistance programs and City authorized programs created to promote preservation, maintenance and expansion of all housing including the Move up in the Park Program. 4. How much affordable housing is in the City? a. Affordable Owner Occupied Housing Numbers. Based on City property assessment data, fifty seven percent, or 8,581 units, of owner occupied units are affordable. Affordable ownership, based on the Metro Council’s definition, is housing affordable to households at or below 80% of the median area income. In 2009 this housing value was $233,000. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 13 b. Affordable Rental Housing Numbers. i) The number of affordable rental units is an estimate based on known subsidized units and data from the SLPHA’s Annual Rental Study. The 2009 SLPHA annual rental study is not inclusive of all rental property since responses were received from owners representing seventy percent of the multifamily buildings. Rents are considered affordable based on unit size and household income; for a 2 bedroom unit, this is $943 for households at or below 50% of the median area income, or $41,950 annually. The reported average monthly rent for a 2 bedroom apartment is $895. ii) An estimated forty four percent, 3,796 affordable rental units are affordable, with: • 791 subsidized units • 325 rental units affordable through use of Sec 8 Housing Voucher, • 2,680 market rate affordable units as reported from owners representing 70% of apartments in the city –this is likely an undercount. c. There are 858 subsidized units (rental and owner occupied) available to very low income residents and 325 Section 8 Housing Vouchers, see attached table. The waiting lists for HA subsidized units indicate a need for housing for very low income residents: i) The HA opened the waiting list for Hamilton House in February, 2010 and received over 1,000 requests for applications. ii) The most recent opening for the Section 8 Housing Voucher waiting list was in 2005 when over 3,000 applications were requested. The HA has not issued a voucher from the general waiting list in the past two years. 5. How do the numbers of affordable units relate to the City’s Vision, Strategic Directions and Met Council goals? a. The City’s Vision is that St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock by focusing on the following strategic directions: i) Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes; ii) Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics; iii) Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city. Because St. Louis Park is a fully developed community, the major emphasis has been to preserve affordable units primarily through physical improvements to properties occupied by low and moderate income households. The Table of “City Support of New and Existing Affordable Housing from 2000-2010” shows that over 1,900 units occupied by low and moderate income households, have received some measure of City related financial assistance to rehab and preserve the units. See Attachment. Affordable ownership opportunities have increased (12 units) through partnerships with the Homes Within Reach Housing Land Trust and the Live Where You Work Program. The City has continued limited financial support of transitional and supportive housing programs for specialized groups and affordable multifamily housing providers. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 14 b. How well does St. Louis Park meet the established affordable, workforce and supportive housing goals? i) There is less affordable housing in the City in 2010 than there was in 2000, both in numbers and as a percentage of housing units. The loss of affordable units is reflective of market forces and the significant increase in housing values that occurred in the 2000s. Housing prices at the lower end increased in value and a number new housing units with rents and housing values at the upper end have been added. Although there has been a decline in the City’s housing values in recent years, values have been retained better than many communities. ii) Affordable ownership opportunities have increased (12 units) through partnerships with the Homes Within Reach Housing Land Trust and the Live Where You Work Program. The City has continued limited financial support of transitional and supportive housing programs for specialized groups and affordable multifamily housing providers. c. How do we meet the Met Council goals for affordable housing? Our current goals were negotiated with the Met Council for the period 1996-2010. The goal was that 76-79% of owner occupied housing be affordable, and 59-63% of rental housing be affordable. In 2000 we met this goal, while in 2010 we do not, with 57% of owner occupied housing affordable and approximately 45% of rental housing affordable. The Met Council is updating each community’s affordable and life cycle housing goals for the coming decade (2011-2020). The City will need to negotiate and adopt new goals with the Met Council by September 1, 2010 in order to remain eligible for grants and loans made through the Livable Communities Act. At this time, the Met Council has indicated SLP should create 328 to 501 affordable and life cycle housing units by 2020 to meet the regional needs. This will be discussed with Council in greater detail at a subsequent meeting. 6. How do we relate to other communities from an affordable housing perspective? The following charts for ownership and rental compare the percentages of affordable housing in 2000 and 2010 for St. Louis Park and neighboring communities. a. Affordable ownership comparisons with other communities Fifty-seven percent of the owner occupied units in St. Louis Park have values considered affordable by Met Council’s definition. The two charts below show how St. Louis Park compares with neighboring communities as well as changes over the past 10 years. In 2000 over 80% of owned homes were considered affordable; in 2010 the percentage has dropped to 57%. Of the cities noted below St. Louis Park, Bloomington, Golden Valley and Edina, have the least number of less affordable ownership units. It should be noted that although all but one of the other communities also experienced a decrease in the number of affordable units, St. Louis Park’s decrease was the largest percentage. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 15 Affordable Ownership of St. Louis Park and Neighboring Communities in 2000 and 2010 Data Source: 2000 Met Council. 2010 Hennepin County, St. Louis Park and Edina Assessing Departments Percentage of Ownership Units Affordble to Households with 80% Median Area Income 2000 31% 61% 71% 80% 83% 96% 97% 97% 98% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Edina Golden Valley Bloomington St. Louis Park Hopkins Richfield Crystal Robbinsdale Brooklyn Center Percentage of Ownership Units Affordble to Households with 80% Median Area Income 2010 24% 47% 57% 66% 78% 92% 93% 94% 99% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Edina Golden Valley St. Louis Park Bloomington Hopkins Crystal Robbinsdale Richfield Brooklyn Center b. Publicly assisted affordable rental unit comparison with other communities. There are 791subsidized rental units and 325 Section 8 Housing Vouchers, for a total of 1,116 assisted units or 5% of the total SLP housing stock. Regionally, the Met Council and more recently HousingLink track this information, the agencies count differently. In 2000, the Met Council tallied publicly assisted rental units and Section 8 Housing Vouchers, while HousingLink tallies only subsidized rental units. So the numbers are not quite comparing apples to apples. Nonetheless the two charts do illustrate how SLP ranks with other Hennepin County suburbs. Percentage of Publicly Assisted Rental Units in St. Louis Park and Neighboring Communities in 2000 and 2008 Publicly Subisdized Rental Units as % of Total Housing 2000 2.3% 3.2% 3.3% 5.4% 5.5% 5.8% 6.6% 8.5% 9.3% 10.8% 12.5% 3.3% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0% Edina Bloomington Golden Valley Crystal St. Louis Park Columbia Heights Fridley Hopkins New Hope Richfield Robbinsdale Brooklyn Center Publicly Subisdized Rental Units as % of Total Housing 2008 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 2.0% 2.2% 2.4% 2.9% 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 7.9% 1.7% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% Golden Valley Crystal Richfield Edina New Hope Bloomington Columbia Heights Fridley Hopkins St. Louis Park Brooklyn Center Robbinsdale Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 16 7. What has been the trend of affordable housing in SLP over the last 10 years? In St. Louis Park, and metro wide, new construction of affordable housing has become more difficult because of limited availability of funding. Availability of funding for federal housing rental assistance programs is also limited. In the latter part of this decade, much of the federal and state housing dollars have been directed at addressing the foreclosure problem and preservation of existing multifamily affordable rental properties. In the early part of the decade there was significant construction of condominiums and townhomes which resulted in 2,135 new housing units, primarily condos, townhomes and apartments in SLP. Of the new housing units constructed, 90 are affordable. Over the past decade the focus in St. Louis Park has been preserving existing affordable housing through: low income loan and grant programs; the Housing Improvement Area program to maintain affordable condominiums and townhomes; and developing affordable home ownership through programs like WHALT (West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust) and the Live Where You Work Program. 8. How much affordable housing has the City incented or created in the last 10 years and what financial tools were used? The City has a history of leveraging funding with other entities to incent, create and preserve affordable housing. Because St. Louis Park is a fully developed community, an emphasis has been on preserving affordable units while creating new units within parameters of city policy and market forces. a. Affordable units created in past decade. Ninety newly constructed affordable units have been added to the city’s housing stock over the past decade; sixty-seven of which received some type of city related assistance as noted in the following table. New Construction of Affordable Units from 2000-2010 Affordable units # Type Financial Assistance Urban Park Apts. 23 MF rental Tax Credits, No City Funds Excelsior & Grand 18 MF rental SLPHA - Project Based Section 8 Vail Place 7 MF rental/supportive CDBG, Sec 8 and other funders Aquila Commons 42 MF Co-op ownership TIF b. The City’s efforts to preserve existing affordable housing have been significant over the past decade. The attached Table of “City Support of New and Existing Affordable Housing from 2000-2010 outlines tools and amount expended and shows that over 1,900 units have received some measure of City related financial assistance to rehab and preserve the units. Funding tools include: SLPHA, CDBG, GO Bonds, Housing Rehab Fund, TIF, County and MN Housing and Met Council. Over 43.3 million has been invested in affordable housing in St. Louis Park over the past ten years. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 17 9. What are the incentives or programs the federal, state, county and city have to promote affordable housing? Federal a. Tax Credits. The federal tax credit program has become the primary source of funding for the creation of new housing units. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is a dollar-for-dollar tax credit in the US for affordable housing investments. It was created to give incentives for the utilization of private equity in the development of affordable housing aimed at low-income Americans. LIHTC accounts for nearly 90% of all affordable rental housing created in the United States today. The Urban Park Apartments were developed using this tool. LIHTC were also used to fund PPL/Louisiana Court. b. HUD provides limited affordable housing resources in the form of HUD financing for the creation of new developments. c. Funds such as HOME and CDBG are used for the preservation of existing affordable housing and are allocated through the County. SLP has received about $200,000 annually for many years. d. The rental subsidy programs designated for participants meeting specific categories, i.e. Shelter Plus Care provides rental assistance and services for homeless persons with disabilities, HOPWA for persons with HIV, Family Unification Vouchers for families that need housing to reunite parents and children, and Section 8 vouchers for nonelderly persons with disabilities. e. The federal home mortgage interest deduction promotes home ownership for both market rate and affordable ownership. It is estimated that in 2012, the federal deduction will be over two and one-half times larger than HUD’s budget. State a. The State of Minnesota’s market value homestead credit (MVHC) provides financial incentive to homeowners based on home value. It is a state mandated property tax reduction program which is based on valuation. The credit is progressive in that lower value homes receive larger tax credits than higher value homes. The credit equal 0.4% of the taxable market value with a maximum credit of $304. The credit begins to phase out at a taxable market value of $76,000 and is effectively negated as the taxable value approaches $414,000. St. Louis Park was to have received $630,000 to $640,000 in 2008 and 2009 from the state, but the governor’s unallotment cut this funding. In 2010 payments to cities for the MVHC have been cut from the State’s budget which results in the City paying this unfunded mandate that assists owners of lower valued homes. b. The MN Housing Finance Agency offers products and services to help Minnesotans buy and fix up homes and supports the development and preservation of affordable rental housing by offering financing and on-going asset management of affordable rental housing developments. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 18 MN Housing works collaboratively with the Met Council and Family Housing Fund on annual RFPs. St. Louis Park has successfully submitted RFPs to leverage funds with MN Housing to improve owner occupied homes for low and moderate income residents, and capital improvements for the SLPHA properties. In addition the affordable housing providers in SLP have all used MN Housing Funds. MN Housing also allocates the federal Low Income Tax Credits through an annual request process and administers the First Time Home Buyer program. c. TIF Housing Districts. State TIF statutes allow cities to create TIF districts to fund affordable housing projects. The Park Center TIF district generates about $120,000 annually that can be used for affordable housing purposed anywhere in SLP. County Hennepin County funds and administers housing programs including Affordable Housing Incentive Funds, HOME, CDBG and Neighborhood Stabilization Programs for dealing with foreclosed properties. The County accesses county, state and federal funds for their programs. City SLP has the authority to establish TIF housing districts and can also use TIF dollars in other types of districts to assist new housing developments. In some cases in may be possible to provide assistance to support creating affordable housing. The City also has the HRA levy, Housing Rehab Funds and GO Bonds to assist with affordable housing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Affordable 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. Attachments: Location Maps Table. Affordable Subsidized Housing in SLP Table. City Support of New and Existing Affordable Housing from 2000- 2010 Background Data for Market Rate Affordable Housing Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Program Coordinator Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 19 Legend Single Family Detached Homes Condos, Townhomes and Co-ops 2010 Affordable Market Rate Owner Occupied Units Fifty-seven percent of the City's owner occupied units are affordable based on the Met Council's guideline of affordable housing value in 2009 of $233,000 or less. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 20 3 394 394 100 7 100 7 100 7 169 169 3 25 5 20 5 Legend MULTIFAMILY OWNERSHIP MULTIFAMILY RENTAL SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL MunicipalBoundary 2010 Affordable Subsidized Housing This map illustrates that affordable housing is located throughout the city and not concentrated in any one area. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 21 3 394 394 100 7 100 7 100 7 169 169 3 25 5 20 5 Legend Apartment Building / Complex Location MunicipalBoundary 2010 Apartment Buildings and Complexes The average reported monthly rent in the City is below the Met Council's guideline for affordable rents. In SLP the average two bedroom apartment rents for $895, while the affordable guideline rent is $943. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 22 Affordable Subsidized Housing in St. Louis Park - 2010 Affordable Rental Housing Type of Housing Number of Units Address Project for Pride in Living Tax Credit 117 2704,05,11,17,22, 27, 30, 41, 42, 54 Louisiana Court and 2740 & 2750 Louisiana Ave S Park Glen Townhomes Tax Credit 34 4400 Park Glen Road Urban Parks Apartments Tax Credit 23 3601 Phillips Parkway 174 Lou Park Project Based Sec. 8 32 1351 Hampshire Ave S Oak Park Village Project Based Sec. 8 100 7276 ½ Oak Park Village Dr Menorah Plaza Project Based Sec. 8 45 3600 Phillips Parkway Menorah West Project Based Sec. 8 151 4925 Minnetonka Blvd. 328 Public Housing – HA Low Income 147 2400 Nevada Ave MHOP – LC/HA Low Income 12 2704,05,11,17,22, 27, 30, 41, 42, 54 Louisiana Court and 2740 & 2750 Louisiana Ave S 159 Project Based Section 8 - HA • Excelsior & Grand Low Income/2 Bedroom Units 18 3820 Grand Way • Vail Place Supportive 7 3725 Sumter Ave S • Wayside Supportive 20 1341 and 1349 Jersey Ave S 45 Shelter Plus Care • Perspectives Supportive 11 2753, 59, 60, 68 Louisiana Court • Comm. Involvement Program Supportive 5* 2825 Alabama Ave S, 3603 Rhode Island Ave S, 1452 Idaho Ave S 16 Perspectives (non S+C units) Support/Transitional and Permanent 41 2753, 59, 60, 68 Louisiana Court Community Involvement Program Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 23 (non S + C units) • Kelly Apartments Supportive/HUD 42 6 3384 Library Lane • Single Room Occupancy Supportive/HUD 811 & County 22 See Attached List 69 Total 791 * can change – up to 11 Affordable Homeownership Type of Housing Number of Units Address Homes Within Reach Land Trust 7 Habitat for Humanity Assisted/work equity 8 Aquila Commons Limited Equity Coop 42 8200 West 33rd St Total 67 Perspectives – a total of 56 units; 4 are resident managers Scattered Site Affordable Units/Homes: Community Involvement Program (29 units throughout city) plus Kelly apt noted above) Homes Within Reach (7 units) Habitat for Humanity (8 units) SLPHA Scattered Sites (37 units) Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 24 SLPHA FundedCity FundedState FundedNew Affordable UnitsPreservation of Existing UnitsOperating & Capital ImprovementShelter Plus CareHousing Assistance PaymentCDBGGO BondsHousing Rehab FundLine of CreditTIFLivable Communties GrantMet Council LHIAMN HousingRental HousingPublic Housing (PH) Hamilton House108$5,172,549$333,000 Scattered Sites37$65,000 12 MHOP units PPL/Lou CrtSection 8 Project Based Rental Vail Place7$19,504,716$25,000 Wayside House20$214,150 Excelsior & Grand18Section 8 Tenant Based Rental 223Community Involvement Programs (11 units Shelter + Care)29$215,881$128,800Perspectives (11 units Shelter +Care)52$421,019$157,350Project for Pride in Living/ Lou Crt128$446,750$4,414,900$1,000,000$353,000MF Owner Occupied Aquila Commons Coop42$1,050,000Condominiums 742$3,935,195$3,813,969SF Owner OccupiedEmergancy Repair Grant120$484,283Defered Home Improvement Loan41$511,935Discount Mn Housing Loan 80% MAI 373$657,545$25,000$28,760Property Inspection/ Rehab Loans27$147,007$147,007Homes within Reach7$34,000$50,000Live Where You Work5$13,500TOTAL721907$5,172,549$636,900$19,504,716$2,067,268$8,350,095$4,632,021$50,000$1,050,000$1,000,000$378,000$508,767$43,350,316Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis ParkPage 25 Background Data for Market Rate Affordable Housing Rental – Data from the 2009 St. Louis Park Rental Study, 70% of apartment units represented in survey. Table 1. Affordability of Market Rate Rental (non – subsidized rentals) 2009 SLPHA Rental Study - Market Rate Affordable Units from 70% of all MF rental units 2009 SLPHA Rental Study - Rents in St. Louis Park (includes utilities) Unit Size Reported Affordable MF Rental Units Reported Total MF Rental Units Unit Size Average Rent Median Rent Met Council Affordable Rent eff 130 155 eff $589 $550 $733 1BR 1,385 2,012 1BR $703 $648 $786 2BR 1,084 1,656 2BR $895 $775 $943 3BR 81 1,142 3BR $1,142 $1,065 $1,090 Total 2680 4965 % 54% 100% Owner Occupied Housing – Data from SLP Assessing based on 2010 Estimated Market Values Table 2. Number of Market Rate Affordable Owner Occupied Housing Units # Units At or less than $171,000 60% MAI At or less than $233,000 80% MAI At or less than $298,125 MN Housing 1st Time Homebuyer SF detached 11,634 417 5831 8831 Condos & Townhomes 3,446 1964 2750 3171 Totals 15,080 2,381 8,581 12,002 Percentage 16% 57%80% SLP Assessing 2010 EMV Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 5) Subject: Affordable Housing in St. Louis Park Page 26 Meeting Date: August 23, 2010 Agenda Item #: 6 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Communications/Meeting Check-In (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 23, 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: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use of tax levy dollars. For the month of July, actual expenditures should generally run about 58% of the annual budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 56% of the adopted budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 57%. Both are consistent when comparing the prior year expenditures through July. Certain revenues tend to be harder to gauge in this same way due to the timing of when they are received. Significant variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion of reasons for the variance. General Fund Revenues: • License and permit revenues are at 74.5% of budget through the month of July. There are several reasons for this, one of which is that most of the 2010 liquor license and business license renewal payments were collected in the early part of the year. In addition to this, overall license revenues are exceeding the total annual budget by almost 9% or $56,000 as of July. Many new restaurants and businesses have opened in 2010 that weren’t all anticipated when the revenue budget was prepared. This has caused both Food & Beverage and Liquor license revenues to increase and exceed budget. Rental license revenues are also up because more homeowners are renting out their homes as it has become more difficult to sell in the current real estate market. When looking at strictly permit revenue through July, it is at 61% of budget. This is substantially lower than the 74% of budget at this same point in time in 2009, but still exceeds budget by 3% through July. Staff will continue to monitor the permit revenues closely throughout the rest of the year. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report • The Human Resources budget shows that 100% of the training revenue has been received for the year under Charges for Services. This reflects that the 2010 University of Park program fees have been billed out for all external participants. • Other recoveries revenue under the Police Department will exceed budget in 2010 by as much as $20,000. This is due to a process improvement that has been implemented in 2010 to better handle and account for Property Room cases. Expenditures: • The Public Works Administration budget for Services and Other Charges is at 85% of budget through July. This is due to progress payments made in May and July totaling $13,850 for a Pavement Distress Survey. The contract is now paid in full. Staff has discussed this expenditure and determined that it will remain in the General Fund and will not be funded by the Pavement Management Fund. • The Finance budget for Services and Other Charges is exceeding budget at 63%. This is due to additional audit fees that were incurred for preparation of the St. Louis Park Housing Authority’s Real Estate Assessment Center submission, which is a required annual report to HUD. Due to staffing challenges, the Finance Department outsourced the preparation of this report in 2010. • Personal Services expenditures appear to exceed budget in a few General Fund departments. These departments, such as Administration, Community Development, Information Resources, and Finance have portions of staff time that will be allocated later this year to the EDA and the Utility Funds. Parks and Recreation Revenues: • Some Park & Rec revenues, such as Charges for Services under Organized Recreation, Rec Center, and Westwood, are exceeding budget through July. This is typical for this time of year due to the seasonal nature of these revenues and is consistent with prior year. Expenditures: • The Organized Recreation budget for Services and Other Charges is at 73% of budget. This is because the full 2010 Community Education contribution in the amount of $187,000 was paid to the School District in January, which is consistent with prior years. • Personal Services expenditures appear to exceed budget in the Environment Division, as portions of staff time will be allocated to the Utility Funds. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being stewards of financial resources. Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:36:17R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 01000 GENERAL FUND 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,889,605.00- 7,556,184.48- 7,556,184.48- 7,333,420.52- 50.75 |14,653,275.00-7,208,993.31- 49.20 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,294,768.00- 165,420.18- 1,710,324.10- 584,443.90- 74.53 |2,515,000.00-1,971,121.35- 78.37 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,750.00- 22,987.32- 175,629.44- 136,120.56- 56.34 |312,000.00-193,499.90- 62.02 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,598,787.00- 258,037.00- 803,613.10- 795,173.90- 50.26 |1,647,214.00-758,684.36- 46.06 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,138,018.00- 105,209.81- 440,747.65- 697,270.35- 38.73 |1,201,900.00-394,542.36- 32.83 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00- 13,230.90- 74,357.35- 25,642.65- 74.36 |100,000.00-96,215.57- 96.22 4001 REVENUES 20,332,928.00-8,121,069.69-10,760,856.12-9,572,071.88-52.92 |20,429,389.00-10,623,056.85-52.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,132,004.00 1,488,192.73 10,612,073.20 7,519,930.80 58.53 |18,496,154.00 11,297,672.65 61.08 6210 SUPPLIES 846,535.00 73,155.46 428,608.94 417,926.06 50.63 |766,135.00 299,945.20 39.15 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 67,775.00 2,678.29 50,097.63 17,677.37 73.92 |70,775.00 23,488.64 33.19 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,922,858.00 243,764.04 1,775,503.43 2,147,354.57 45.26 |4,160,215.00 1,928,808.67 46.36 6001 EXPENDITURES 22,969,172.00 1,807,790.52 12,866,283.20 10,102,888.80 56.02 |23,493,279.00 13,549,915.16 57.68 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 1,507,231.18- 1,076,593.82- 58.33 |2,678,910.00-1,533,530.74- 57.24 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-457.38- 17,235.80- 15,735.80 1,149.05 |2,000.00-3,449.80- 172.49 8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-90,335.10- 25.81 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2.00-2.00-2.00 |4,520.00- 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 125.00- 3,203.00-3,203.00 |3,225.00- 8200 MISC REVENUE 100.00-35.54-64.46- 35.54 |307.50- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,785,425.00-215,903.12-1,465,960.09-1,319,464.91-52.63 |3,030,910.00-1,635,368.14-53.96 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71 8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,181.00 181,181.00 |181,000.00 78.76 .04 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,881.24 11,708.67 7,291.33 61.62 |19,000.00 13,448.28 70.78 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,181.00 1,881.24 11,708.67 188,472.33 5.85 |200,000.00 13,527.75 6.76 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 51,000.00 6,527,301.05-651,175.66 600,175.66-1,276.82 |232,980.00 1,305,017.92 560.14 01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 6,527,301.05-651,175.66 600,175.66-1,276.82 |232,980.00 1,305,017.92 560.14 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 3 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:36:17R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,014,872.00- 2,007,436.00- 2,007,436.00- 2,007,436.00- 50.00 |4,073,118.00-2,036,559.00- 50.00 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-110.00-622.00-5,653.00-9.91 |5,835.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 71,219.00-8,767.44- 49,249.35- 21,969.65- 69.15 |55,702.00-33,474.51- 60.10 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,073,900.00- 181,359.08- 684,311.65- 389,588.35- 63.72 |1,141,598.00-672,390.14- 58.90 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 906,900.00- 72,022.63- 422,701.27- 484,198.73- 46.61 |883,000.00-441,523.51- 50.00 4001 REVENUES 6,073,166.00-2,269,695.15-3,164,320.27-2,908,845.73-52.10 |6,153,418.00-3,189,782.16-51.84 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,440,416.00 382,884.00 2,046,997.29 1,393,418.71 59.50 |3,503,813.00 2,216,169.49 63.25 6210 SUPPLIES 906,881.00 85,675.66 426,696.95 480,184.05 47.05 |872,131.00 447,057.30 51.26 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,681.57 561.57- 113.63 |4,120.00 3,909.36 94.89 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,712,749.00 143,107.61 984,620.96 728,128.04 57.49 |1,703,002.00 972,100.74 57.08 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |15,352.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 6,071,166.00 611,667.27 3,462,996.77 2,608,169.23 57.04 |6,098,418.00 3,639,236.89 59.68 8001 OTHER INCOME 8065 SALE OF SALVAGE 1,500.00- 1,500.00-1,500.00 | 8100 INTEREST |760.08- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,000.00-301.13- 5,857.69-7,142.31- 45.06 |12,000.00-5,865.00- 48.88 8200 MISC RECEIPTS 5,440.00-5,440.00 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 13,000.00-1,801.13-12,797.69-202.31-98.44 |12,000.00-6,625.08-55.21 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|6.98 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 3,728.33 13,008.37 1,991.63 86.72 |11,717.96 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 3,728.33 13,047.37 1,952.63 86.98 |11,724.94 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,656,100.68-298,926.18 298,926.18-|67,000.00-454,554.59 678.44- 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 1,656,100.68-298,926.18 298,926.18-|67,000.00-454,554.59 678.44- Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 4 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 01000 GENERAL FUND 100 GENERAL 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,889,605.00- 7,556,184.48- 7,556,184.48- 7,333,420.52- 50.75 |14,653,275.00-7,208,993.31- 49.20 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00- 22,602.50- 22,602.50- 22,602.50- 50.00 |45,205.00-22,602.50- 50.00 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 11.45-158.94-158.94 |370.19- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 49,840.35- 35,159.65- 58.64 |85,000.00-49,815.10- 58.61 4001 REVENUES 15,019,810.00-7,585,881.76-7,628,786.27-7,391,023.73-50.79 |14,783,480.00-7,281,781.10-49.26 6001 EXPENDITURES 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 33,828.04 33,828.04-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 33,828.04 33,828.04-| 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 1,507,231.18- 1,076,593.82- 58.33 |2,678,910.00-1,533,530.74- 57.24 8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-90,332.49- 25.81 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |500.00 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,783,825.00-215,318.74-1,445,483.75-1,338,341.25-51.92 |3,028,910.00-1,623,363.23-53.60 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |1,277.54 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00 1,277.54 .71 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 17,622,954.00-7,801,200.50-9,040,441.98-8,582,512.02-51.30 |17,632,390.00-8,903,866.79-50.50 100 GENERAL 17,622,954.00-7,801,200.50-9,040,441.98-8,582,512.02-51.30 |17,632,390.00-8,903,866.79-50.50 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 5 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 110 ADMINISTRATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 183,360.00-3,933.28- 195,227.45- 11,867.45 106.47 |215,500.00-160,643.33- 74.54 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00-6,000.00- 75.00 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |947.30- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 78.42-545.79-545.79 |97.00- 4001 REVENUES 191,360.00-4,011.70-195,773.24-4,413.24 102.31 |223,500.00-167,687.63-75.03 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 444,400.00 53,189.16 297,923.23 146,476.77 67.04 |531,500.00 325,241.91 61.19 6210 SUPPLIES 3,100.00 302.31 1,739.58 1,360.42 56.12 |3,700.00 1,949.91 52.70 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 476,972.00 2,217.55 178,676.98 298,295.02 37.46 |455,635.00 222,643.03 48.86 6001 EXPENDITURES 924,472.00 55,709.02 478,339.79 446,132.21 51.74 |990,835.00 549,834.85 55.49 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE |307.50- 8001 OTHER INCOME |307.50- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |4.86 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |5.57 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 733,112.00 51,697.32 282,566.55 450,545.45 38.54 |767,335.00 381,845.29 49.76 110 ADMINISTRATION 733,112.00 51,697.32 282,566.55 450,545.45 38.54 |767,335.00 381,845.29 49.76 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 6 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 120 FINANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 48,318.00-8,053.00- 28,576.38- 19,741.62- 59.14 |50,000.00-23,807.25- 47.61 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00-150.00-150.00 | 4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-8,203.00-28,726.38-19,591.62-59.45 |50,000.00-23,807.25-47.61 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 920,800.00 90,498.11 613,064.95 307,735.05 66.58 |937,200.00 612,833.82 65.39 6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 347.18 1,740.43 2,484.57 41.19 |4,225.00 1,490.67 35.28 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 152,905.00 31,431.46 96,047.15 56,857.85 62.81 |162,555.00 85,785.93 52.77 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,077,930.00 122,276.75 710,852.53 367,077.47 65.95 |1,103,980.00 700,110.42 63.42 8001 OTHER INCOME 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 125.00- 3,025.00-3,025.00 |3,225.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 125.00-3,025.00-3,025.00 |3,225.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00 21.84 4.37 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 .01-500.01 |500.00 22.97 4.59 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 .01-1,000.01 |1,000.00 44.81 4.48 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,030,612.00 113,948.75 679,101.14 351,510.86 65.89 |1,054,980.00 673,122.98 63.80 120 FINANCE 1,030,612.00 113,948.75 679,101.14 351,510.86 65.89 |1,054,980.00 673,122.98 63.80 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 7 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 9,000.00-9,026.00-26.00 100.29 |9,000.00-5,461.00- 60.68 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 264.00-264.00 |30.00- 4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-9,290.00-290.00 103.22 |9,000.00-5,491.00-61.01 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 482,400.00 39,297.36 280,400.17 201,999.83 58.13 |481,000.00 298,407.98 62.04 6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 176.15 840.28 1,159.72 42.01 |2,000.00 1,331.19 66.56 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 4,922.42 68,120.90 92,429.10 42.43 |160,550.00 68,829.97 42.87 6001 EXPENDITURES 644,950.00 44,395.93 349,361.35 295,588.65 54.17 |643,550.00 368,569.14 57.27 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 635,950.00 44,395.93 340,071.35 295,878.65 53.47 |634,550.00 363,078.14 57.22 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 635,950.00 44,395.93 340,071.35 295,878.65 53.47 |634,550.00 363,078.14 57.22 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 8 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 9,000.00-1,355.00- 8,130.00-870.00- 90.33 |12,000.00-7,725.00- 64.38 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 594,000.00- 89,297.94- 330,071.44- 263,928.56- 55.57 |585,000.00-294,323.87- 50.31 4001 REVENUES 603,000.00-90,652.94-338,201.44-264,798.56-56.09 |597,000.00-302,048.87-50.59 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,001,700.00 112,861.50 811,561.41 190,138.59 81.02 |1,023,000.00 636,104.36 62.18 6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 60.42 281.58 1,418.42 16.56 |3,000.00 434.47 14.48 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 47,750.00 291.80 2,176.51 45,573.49 4.56 |56,750.00 13,701.50 24.14 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,051,150.00 113,213.72 814,019.50 237,130.50 77.44 |1,083,750.00 650,240.33 60.00 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 448,150.00 22,560.78 475,818.06 27,668.06-106.17 |486,750.00 348,191.46 71.53 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 448,150.00 22,560.78 475,818.06 27,668.06-106.17 |486,750.00 348,191.46 71.53 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 9 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 43,000.00-17,250.00- 25,750.00- 40.12 |8,200.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,443.67- 10,193.67-4,806.33- 67.96 |15,000.00-10,000.00- 66.67 4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,443.67-27,443.67-30,556.33-47.32 |23,200.00-10,000.00-43.10 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 546,200.00 35,623.79 291,231.17 254,968.83 53.32 |534,000.00 325,483.69 60.95 6210 SUPPLIES 86,150.00 10,293.10 35,863.12 50,286.88 41.63 |90,500.00 20,125.69 22.24 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 2,678.29 11,885.25 14,114.75 45.71 |26,000.00 4,917.61 18.91 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 423,392.00 27,119.32 192,004.29 231,387.71 45.35 |502,942.00 241,399.96 48.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,081,742.00 75,714.50 530,983.83 550,758.17 49.09 |1,153,442.00 591,926.95 51.32 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE |37.02 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 34.00 34.00-|203.10 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 34.00 34.00-|240.12 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,023,742.00 74,270.83 503,574.16 520,167.84 49.19 |1,130,242.00 582,167.07 51.51 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,023,742.00 74,270.83 503,574.16 520,167.84 49.19 |1,130,242.00 582,167.07 51.51 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 10 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |1,277.42- 4001 REVENUES |1,277.42- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 516,850.00 42,990.15 329,528.78 187,321.22 63.76 |562,500.00 360,761.91 64.14 6210 SUPPLIES 23,500.00 1,784.82 15,710.80 7,789.20 66.85 |30,800.00 11,218.79 36.42 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 23,556.10 23,556.10-|2,931.46 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,316.00 55,968.22 463,049.50 397,266.50 53.82 |877,970.00 420,494.77 47.89 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,400,666.00 100,743.19 831,845.18 568,820.82 59.39 |1,471,270.00 795,406.93 54.06 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE 35.54-35.54 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 35.54-35.54 | 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17.35 17.35-|72.98 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17.35 17.35-|72.98 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,400,666.00 100,743.19 831,826.99 568,839.01 59.39 |1,471,270.00 794,202.49 53.98 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,400,666.00 100,743.19 831,826.99 568,839.01 59.39 |1,471,270.00 794,202.49 53.98 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 11 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,000.00-500.00-500.00-2,500.00- 16.67 |3,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-500.00-500.00-2,500.00-16.67 |3,000.00- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 188,280.00 14,742.07 85,262.70 103,017.30 45.29 |184,980.00 100,279.55 54.21 6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 | 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 93,525.00 12,577.00 44,067.98 49,457.02 47.12 |104,245.00 100,882.39 96.77 6001 EXPENDITURES 281,905.00 27,319.07 129,330.68 152,574.32 45.88 |289,225.00 201,161.94 69.55 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |16.49 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |16.49 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 278,905.00 26,819.07 128,830.68 150,074.32 46.19 |286,225.00 201,178.43 70.29 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 278,905.00 26,819.07 128,830.68 150,074.32 46.19 |286,225.00 201,178.43 70.29 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 12 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 160 POLICE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,200.00-1,200.00 | 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 22,987.32- 175,490.01- 128,009.99- 57.82 |303,500.00-187,499.90- 61.78 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 800,582.00- 43,454.10- 287,819.40- 512,762.60- 35.95 |809,009.00-272,063.43- 33.63 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-5,699.00- 41,789.75- 67,910.25- 38.09 |109,700.00-52,648.52- 47.99 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 4,530.54- 13,839.53- 13,839.53 |36,370.47- 4001 REVENUES 1,213,782.00-76,670.96-520,138.69-693,643.31-42.85 |1,222,209.00-548,582.32-44.88 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,609,294.00 525,187.08 3,744,274.35 2,865,019.65 56.65 |6,546,794.00 3,999,742.35 61.09 6210 SUPPLIES 141,050.00 6,486.51 50,457.57 90,592.43 35.77 |150,900.00 48,661.19 32.25 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,775.00 12,056.28 21,718.72 35.70 |35,775.00 13,153.64 36.77 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 521,783.00 34,494.72 231,990.17 289,792.83 44.46 |547,053.00 245,198.13 44.82 6001 EXPENDITURES 7,305,902.00 566,168.31 4,038,778.37 3,267,123.63 55.28 |7,280,522.00 4,306,755.31 59.15 8001 OTHER INCOME 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-457.38- 17,235.80- 15,735.80 1,149.05 |2,000.00-3,449.80- 172.49 8100 INTEREST |2.61- 8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-457.38-17,235.80-15,735.80 1,149.05 |2,000.00-3,452.41-172.62 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE |500.00 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 18.14 140.90 359.10 28.18 |500.00 131.85 26.37 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 500.00 18.14 140.90 359.10 28.18 |1,000.00 131.85 13.19 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,091,120.00 489,058.11 3,501,544.78 2,589,575.22 57.49 |6,057,313.00 3,754,852.43 61.99 160 POLICE 6,091,120.00 489,058.11 3,501,544.78 2,589,575.22 57.49 |6,057,313.00 3,754,852.43 61.99 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 13 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,700.00 6,163.13 44,543.55 32,156.45 58.08 |76,500.00 47,340.21 61.88 6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 4,564.98 4,140.02 52.44 |8,705.00 4,743.96 54.50 6001 EXPENDITURES 86,255.00 6,163.13 49,108.53 37,146.47 56.93 |86,055.00 52,084.17 60.52 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,255.00 6,163.13 49,108.53 37,146.47 56.93 |86,055.00 52,084.17 60.52 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,255.00 6,163.13 49,108.53 37,146.47 56.93 |86,055.00 52,084.17 60.52 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 14 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 165 FIRE PROTECTION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-1,462.99- 18,825.50- 21,174.50- 47.06 |50,000.00-24,796.34- 49.59 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-1,250.00 13,381.20- 286,618.80-4.46 |300,000.00-8,048.63- 2.68 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-1,955.00- 11,462.35-7,462.35 286.56 |4,000.00-14,128.00- 353.20 4001 REVENUES 344,000.00-2,167.99-43,669.05-300,330.95-12.69 |354,000.00-46,972.97-13.27 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,826,180.00 207,354.22 1,546,941.98 1,279,238.02 54.74 |2,815,680.00 1,672,924.26 59.41 6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 468.86 12,277.19 59,532.81 17.10 |71,810.00 22,499.53 31.33 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 2,600.00 2,400.00 52.00 |5,000.00 1,790.93 35.82 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 219,183.00 10,036.06 74,968.74 144,214.26 34.20 |224,183.00 93,091.27 41.52 6001 EXPENDITURES 3,122,173.00 217,859.14 1,636,787.91 1,485,385.09 52.42 |3,116,673.00 1,790,305.99 57.44 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2.00-2.00-2.00 |5,020.00- 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 178.00-178.00 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 2.00-180.00-180.00 |5,020.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,778,173.00 215,689.15 1,592,938.86 1,185,234.14 57.34 |2,762,673.00 1,738,313.02 62.92 165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,778,173.00 215,689.15 1,592,938.86 1,185,234.14 57.34 |2,762,673.00 1,738,313.02 62.92 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 15 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,987,288.00- 152,988.91- 1,449,359.15- 537,928.85- 72.93 |2,162,500.00-1,729,856.68- 79.99 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 15.00-267.00-267.00 |2,179.11- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 23.36-69.80-69.80 | 4001 REVENUES 1,987,288.00-153,027.27-1,449,695.95-537,592.05-72.95 |2,162,500.00-1,732,035.79-80.09 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,713,100.00 132,040.69 951,523.44 761,576.56 55.54 |1,915,500.00 1,145,889.18 59.82 6210 SUPPLIES 21,500.00 195.82 3,020.38 18,479.62 14.05 |22,300.00 7,418.52 33.27 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 63,627.00 2,718.75 34,400.48 29,226.52 54.07 |71,627.00 25,647.55 35.81 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,798,227.00 134,955.26 988,944.30 809,282.70 55.00 |2,009,427.00 1,178,955.25 58.67 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC RECEIPTS 100.00-100.00-| 8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-100.00-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE |19.90 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,863.10 11,516.43 6,483.57 63.98 |18,000.00 11,696.75 64.98 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,863.10 11,516.43 6,483.57 63.98 |18,000.00 11,716.65 65.09 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 171,161.00-16,208.91-449,235.22-278,074.22 262.46 |135,073.00-541,363.89-400.79 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 171,161.00-16,208.91-449,235.22-278,074.22 262.46 |135,073.00-541,363.89-400.79 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 16 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 825,800.00 67,466.44 496,498.92 329,301.08 60.12 |826,500.00 551,934.49 66.78 6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 514.92 1,620.04 2,379.96 40.50 |4,500.00 2,501.69 55.59 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 24,100.00 3,250.50 20,590.87 3,509.13 85.44 |22,950.00 6,355.70 27.69 6001 EXPENDITURES 854,900.00 71,231.86 518,709.83 336,190.17 60.67 |854,950.00 560,791.88 65.59 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |21.74 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |21.74 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,900.00 71,231.86 518,709.83 336,190.17 60.67 |854,950.00 560,813.62 65.60 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,900.00 71,231.86 518,709.83 336,190.17 60.67 |854,950.00 560,813.62 65.60 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 17 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-5,650.00- 37,372.00- 37,628.00- 49.83 |75,000.00-47,650.00- 63.53 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-100.00- 1,600.00- 328,400.00-.48 |436,000.00-250.00- .06 4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-5,750.00-38,972.00-366,028.00-9.62 |511,000.00-47,900.00-9.37 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 750,000.00 65,920.04 417,602.84 332,397.16 55.68 |844,000.00 455,470.19 53.97 6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 251.05 4,027.17 3,022.83 57.12 |7,050.00 1,828.12 25.93 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 695.00 34.75 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 2,049.83 16,147.16 54,602.84 22.82 |70,750.00 23,662.29 33.44 6001 EXPENDITURES 829,800.00 68,220.92 437,777.17 392,022.83 52.76 |923,800.00 481,655.60 52.14 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 424,800.00 62,470.92 398,805.17 25,994.83 93.88 |412,800.00 433,755.60 105.08 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 424,800.00 62,470.92 398,805.17 25,994.83 93.88 |412,800.00 433,755.60 105.08 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 18 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 120.00-30.00-210.00-90.00 175.00 |450.00- 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 250.00-139.43-110.57- 55.77 |500.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00- 192,730.40- 479,310.00- 29,310.00 106.51 |490,000.00-455,022.50- 92.86 4001 REVENUES 450,370.00-192,760.40-479,659.43-29,289.43 106.50 |490,500.00-455,472.50-92.86 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,230,300.00 94,858.99 701,715.71 528,584.29 57.04 |1,217,000.00 765,258.75 62.88 6210 SUPPLIES 479,500.00 52,274.32 301,030.80 178,469.20 62.78 |374,500.00 180,485.43 48.19 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 799,300.00 56,686.41 314,869.68 484,430.32 39.39 |894,300.00 376,372.22 42.09 6001 EXPENDITURES 2,509,100.00 203,819.72 1,317,616.19 1,191,483.81 52.51 |2,485,800.00 1,322,116.40 53.19 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,058,730.00 11,059.32 837,956.76 1,220,773.24 40.70 |1,995,300.00 866,643.90 43.43 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,058,730.00 11,059.32 837,956.76 1,220,773.24 40.70 |1,995,300.00 866,643.90 43.43 01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 6,527,301.05-651,175.66 600,175.66-1,276.82 |232,980.00 1,305,017.92 560.14 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 19 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,014,872.00- 2,007,436.00- 2,007,436.00- 2,007,436.00- 50.00 |4,073,118.00-2,036,559.00- 50.00 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-22,351.00- 22,351.00- 50.00 |44,702.00-22,351.00- 50.00 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 261,000.00-7,063.80- 181,002.48- 79,997.52- 69.35 |259,298.00-181,840.30- 70.13 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-3,213.00- 14,112.00- 17,288.00- 44.94 |34,000.00-11,679.80- 34.35 4001 REVENUES 4,351,974.00-2,017,712.80-2,224,901.48-2,127,072.52-51.12 |4,411,118.00-2,252,430.10-51.06 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 715,280.00 75,336.48 407,632.41 307,647.59 56.99 |729,162.00 458,789.51 62.92 6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 7,851.72 20,755.16 38,695.84 34.91 |59,451.00 23,580.03 39.66 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,677.00 28,653.85 333,274.40 122,402.60 73.14 |502,597.00 340,119.16 67.67 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,230,408.00 111,842.05 761,661.97 468,746.03 61.90 |1,291,210.00 822,488.70 63.70 8001 OTHER INCOME 8100 INTEREST |760.08- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-301.13- 4,651.13- 10,348.87- 31.01 |14,000.00-3,250.00- 23.21 8200 MISC REVENUE 5,440.00-5,440.00 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-301.13-10,091.13-4,908.87-67.27 |14,000.00-4,010.08-28.64 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|3.79 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 3,681.73 12,621.26 2,378.74 84.14 |11,319.65 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 3,681.73 12,660.26 2,339.74 84.40 |11,323.44 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,121,566.00-1,902,490.15-1,460,670.38-1,660,895.62-46.79 |3,133,908.00-1,422,628.04-45.39 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,121,566.00-1,902,490.15-1,460,670.38-1,660,895.62-46.79 |3,133,908.00-1,422,628.04-45.39 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 20 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 201 RECREATION CENTER 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 630,000.00- 164,043.56- 408,227.93- 221,772.07- 64.80 |679,000.00-397,186.89- 58.50 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 744,500.00- 54,532.06- 328,269.93- 416,230.07- 44.09 |722,000.00-339,513.05- 47.02 4001 REVENUES 1,374,500.00-218,575.62-736,497.86-638,002.14-53.58 |1,401,000.00-736,699.94-52.58 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 785,638.00 119,797.87 444,248.69 341,389.31 56.55 |792,467.00 516,430.12 65.17 6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 35,964.66 111,781.32 58,568.68 65.62 |170,350.00 128,127.54 75.21 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 480,870.00 51,411.46 265,331.06 215,538.94 55.18 |491,950.00 231,508.93 47.06 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,436,858.00 207,173.99 821,361.07 615,496.93 57.16 |1,454,767.00 876,066.59 60.22 8001 OTHER INCOME 8065 SALE OF SALVAGE 1,500.00- 1,500.00-1,500.00 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-1,500.00-1,500.00 | 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |3.19 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |3.19 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 62,358.00 12,901.63-83,363.21 21,005.21-133.68 |53,767.00 139,369.84 259.21 201 RECREATION CENTER 62,358.00 12,901.63-83,363.21 21,005.21-133.68 |53,767.00 139,369.84 259.21 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 21 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-110.00-622.00-5,653.00-9.91 |5,835.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-15.00-15.00- 10,485.00-.14 |10,700.00-130.00 1.21- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30,000.00-5,489.15- 17,135.03- 12,864.97- 57.12 |26,000.00-26,344.22- 101.32 4001 REVENUES 46,775.00-5,614.15-17,772.03-29,002.97-37.99 |36,700.00-32,049.22-87.33 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 926,500.00 97,028.27 586,404.90 340,095.10 63.29 |969,400.00 605,024.46 62.41 6210 SUPPLIES 97,755.00 7,063.92 58,015.86 39,739.14 59.35 |93,555.00 54,116.47 57.84 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,353.75 233.75- 105.67 |4,120.00 3,888.39 94.38 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 361,340.00 36,805.94 185,107.33 176,232.67 51.23 |369,510.00 182,107.47 49.28 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,396,715.00 140,898.13 833,881.84 562,833.16 59.70 |1,443,585.00 845,136.79 58.54 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,349,940.00 135,283.98 816,109.81 533,830.19 60.46 |1,406,885.00 813,087.57 57.79 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,349,940.00 135,283.98 816,109.81 533,830.19 60.46 |1,406,885.00 813,087.57 57.79 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 22 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,400.00-2,874.20- 70,543.74- 15,856.26- 81.65 |82,600.00-64,155.29- 77.67 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 400.00- 2,212.25-2,212.25 |177.00- 4001 REVENUES 86,400.00-3,274.20-72,755.99-13,644.01-84.21 |82,600.00-64,332.29-77.88 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 421,200.00 37,331.31 243,834.94 177,365.06 57.89 |420,586.00 266,118.66 63.27 6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 715.10 7,444.15 19,555.85 27.57 |26,700.00 10,279.38 38.50 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 327.82 327.82-| 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 45,250.00 2,498.40 16,329.57 28,920.43 36.09 |44,500.00 16,251.08 36.52 6001 EXPENDITURES 493,450.00 40,544.81 267,936.48 225,513.52 54.30 |491,786.00 292,649.12 59.51 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 1,860.00-1,860.00 |815.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 1,860.00-1,860.00 |815.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 46.60 387.11 387.11-|383.96 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 46.60 387.11 387.11-|383.96 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,050.00 37,317.21 193,707.60 213,342.40 47.59 |409,186.00 227,885.79 55.69 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,050.00 37,317.21 193,707.60 213,342.40 47.59 |409,186.00 227,885.79 55.69 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 23 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 204 ENVIRONMENT 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 8,300.00- 14,350.00- 14,350.00 | 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,000.00-7,362.52- 24,522.50- 61,477.50- 28.51 |110,000.00-20,216.89- 18.38 5200 MISCELLANEOUS |1,318.00- 4001 REVENUES 86,000.00-15,662.52-38,872.50-47,127.50-45.20 |110,000.00-21,534.89-19.58 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,648.00 15,270.40 83,601.26 25,046.74 76.95 |108,898.00 67,643.44 62.12 6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 103.33- 8,505.03 10,919.97 43.78 |19,425.00 12,014.99 61.85 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,470.00 17,673.88 110,821.58 112,648.42 49.59 |158,470.00 128,033.90 80.79 6001 EXPENDITURES 351,543.00 32,840.95 202,927.87 148,615.13 57.72 |286,793.00 207,692.33 72.42 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 653.44 1,346.56 32.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00- 90.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 653.44 1,346.56 32.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00-90.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 267,543.00 17,178.43 164,708.81 102,834.19 61.56 |178,793.00 184,357.44 103.11 204 ENVIRONMENT 267,543.00 17,178.43 164,708.81 102,834.19 61.56 |178,793.00 184,357.44 103.11 Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 24 8/17/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:43:36R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2010 20107/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 26,517.00-467.44- 12,548.35- 13,968.65- 47.32 |11,000.00-11,123.51- 101.12 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |9,120.77- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 60,972.06- 40,027.94- 60.37 |101,000.00-62,491.44- 61.87 4001 REVENUES 127,517.00-8,855.86-73,520.41-53,996.59-57.66 |112,000.00-82,735.72-73.87 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,150.00 38,119.67 281,275.09 201,874.91 58.22 |483,300.00 302,163.30 62.52 6210 SUPPLIES 532,900.00 34,183.59 220,195.43 312,704.57 41.32 |502,650.00 218,938.89 43.56 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |20.97 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 146,142.00 6,064.08 73,757.02 72,384.98 50.47 |135,975.00 74,080.20 54.48 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |8,352.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,162,192.00 78,367.34 575,227.54 586,964.46 49.50 |1,130,277.00 595,203.36 52.66 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |14.35 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |14.35 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,034,675.00 69,511.48 501,707.13 532,967.87 48.49 |1,018,277.00 512,481.99 50.33 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,034,675.00 69,511.48 501,707.13 532,967.87 48.49 |1,018,277.00 512,481.99 50.33 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 1,656,100.68-298,926.18 298,926.18-|67,000.00-454,554.59 678.44- Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: July 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 25 Meeting Date: August 23, 2010 Agenda Item #: 8 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Property Acquisition Update - 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply property). RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action at this time. This report is intended to provide an update regarding the EDA’s environmental investigation of the subject property. POLICY CONSIDERATION: This report is an update. Please let staff know if you have any questions or concerns. BACKGROUND: At the May 10th Study Session, the availability of 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply property) and the merits of the EDA potentially purchasing the property was discussed. It was the consensus of the EDA that staff should pursue a purchase agreement for the subject property and conduct an environmental investigation of the property. To that end, a purchase agreement was negotiated and both a phase I and phase II environmental investigation by AMEC Geomatrix was initiated. The proposed terms of a purchase agreement and preliminary results of the environmental analysis was reported to the EDA in a June 14th study session report. The proposed price for the property was $280,000. Current Status Since June 14th, AMEC Geomatrix completed the phase I and II analysis. While the results of the analysis showed nothing of great concern, some additional work is needed. The fact that this site is in the area where the MPCA is investigating VOC vapor concerns; and, the desirability of better understanding the extent and nature of the fill material on the site led AMEC to recommend further site investigation prior to bringing a purchase agreement to the EDA for its consideration. The results of AMEC’s environmental work to date and the need for further study have been discussed thoroughly with the 7015 property owners and their representatives. The owners have agreed to further reduce the price for their property to defray the bulk of the cost of the additional environmental analysis. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Subject: Property Acquisition Update - 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply property) Cost The estimated cost of the additional investigation is $20-25,000. An understanding has been reached with the property owner that the purchase price would be reduced by $20,000 for the cost of additional investigation. Schedule AMEC Geomatrix expects to conduct its additional site investigation activities by mid-September and report on its findings in October. Staff expects to share the findings of this additional investigation with the EDA in a subsequent study session. Staff will arrange to have a representative from AMEC Geomatrix present at that meeting to answer any questions the EDA may have. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The additional AMEC Geomatrix environmental analysis will cost $20-25,000 and be paid for from the City’s Development Fund. If the EDA proceeds with the purchase of the 7015 Walker property, $20,000 of the cost of this additional environmental work would be deducted from the purchase price of the property. If the EDA does not proceed with the acquisition the cost of the additional environmental work would not be reimbursed. VISION CONSIDERATION: This project supports the Strategic Directions of providing well-maintained neighborhoods, being a connected and engaged community, as well as promoting community aesthetics. Attachments: None Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager Meeting Date: August 23, 2010 Agenda Item #: 9 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: West Suburban Housing Partners – Urban Park – Private Activity Revenue Bonds Refinancing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council on a request from West Suburban Housing Partners VII Limited Partnership to refinance the private activity revenue bonds that were issued on May 1, 2002 for the 88-unit multifamily rental housing development now known as Urban Park located at 3601 Phillips Parkway. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to proceed with issuing the private activity revenue bonds as proposed? If so, the proposed process is consistent with the City’s approved policy for issuing private activity revenue bonds. BACKGROUND: The City of St. Louis Park issued private activity revenue bonds on behalf of West Suburban Housing Partners VII Limited Partnership (West Suburban) May 1, 2002. The proceeds were applied to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of an 88-unit multi-family rental housing development now known as Urban Park, which is located at 3601 Phillips Parkway in St. Louis Park. West Suburban is requesting that the City of St. Louis Park issue private activity revenue bonds for the purposes of refunding existing debt from the 2002 bond issue. The aggregate principal amount of the Series 2010 bonds will be an amount not to exceed approximately $9,075,000. The synopsis of the process for issuing these bonds will include this Study Session report on August 23, 2010. Next, if the City Council has no objections based on the report, a public hearing which is proposed for the regular City Council meeting of September 20, 2010 will be conducted. After the public hearing is closed, the City Council will be asked to consider a resolution authorizing issuance of the bonds. If the City Council approves the resolution, this would allow the bonds to be issued on a date agreed upon by the parties. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: West Suburban will provide the City with a new application, which will be on file in the City Clerk’s office, along with the required fee of $2,500 in accordance with our policy. These bonds are not obligations of the City in any respect, but rather are payable solely from revenues of the West Suburban. They will also pay a fee of 1/8th of one percent in two semi-annual payments to the City on based on the amount of bonds outstanding each year. These monies will be deposited in the City’s Housing Rehabilitation fund. Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Subject: West Suburban Housing Partners – Urban Park - Private Activity Revenue Bonds Refinancing VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable Attachment: None Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: August 23, 2010 Agenda Item #: 10 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. At an upcoming meeting the City Council will be asked to consider adopting a resolution to join the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) - Governments for Sustainability. Membership in ICLEI would allow the City to access software that enables the City to measure the communities overall carbon footprint. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City move forward with membership in ICLEI thereby providing the opportunity and tools necessary to advance the City’s environmental initiatives including measuring the communities overall carbon footprint? BACKGROUND: The opportunity to have the community’s carbon footprint measured evolved from the City’s E- group made up of City Staff. The E-group has also been the force behind the City’s participation in the GreenStep City Pilot program. The development of the GreenStep Cities program began in 2008. City Manager Tom Harmening served on the Advisory Committee that developed the framework for this effort. St. Louis Park was selected by the Urban Land Institute (ULI MN), and Mn Pollution Control Agency as one of the Council of Mayors (RCM) cities to participate in the pilot phase to help, along with four other cities, consultants; and, staff from the Mn Pollution Control Agency and ULI MN, in crafting the GreenStep program. A focus of the Greenstep pilot program focuses on best practices. The citywide E Group provided input regarding best practices to be adopted by the City. GreenStep Cities is an action-oriented voluntary program offering a cost-effective and simple pathway for cities to implement sustainable best practices that focus on greenhouse gas reduction. It includes best practices in the areas of: building and facilities, land use, transportation, environmental management and community and economic development. The Green Step pilot cities each chose the best practices they wanted to focus on; however they recognized that finding ways to measure results was an important element of any effort to reduce green house gases and our carbon footprint. The GreenStep pilot cities have worked with the LHB consulting team to jointly find a way to calculate the carbon footprint for each of the cities involved. The goal is for all five pilot cities to measure their carbon footprints and share information with one another. Falcon Heights and Edina, have already begun efforts to measure their carbon footprints. The other two pilot cities, Victoria and Bloomington, are not ready to more forward at this time. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Subject: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement Reason for Measuring the Community’s Carbon Footprint. The first step in being more energy efficient and reducing our carbon footprint is knowing what our carbon footprint is today. Measuring our community’s carbon footprint creates a baseline from which efforts to reduce the carbon footprint can be measured. It provides a method to evaluate our efforts and make comparisons with other communities and their programs. Measuring our carbon footprint will: • Deepen the understanding of opportunities to save energy and money, mitigate climate change, and manage risk in the face of future GHG emission regulations and oil insecurity. • Assist in promoting public understanding of the cities’ effects on climate change and increasing awareness of activities that can reduce carbon footprints. • Inform subsequent analyses, plans, and policy decisions by the cities and others. A necessary component of gathering and analyzing the data is an inventory-related software tool to manage the complex variety of uses. Rather than invest in costly software, the proposed approach is to access ICLEI software. The software makes it possible to comprehensively measure all forms of energy use in the community and converts energy uses like heating (BTUs), Kilowatt hours, solid waste tonnage and vehicle miles traveled to understandable and comparable units. ICLEI’s proprietary software can only be accessed for cities that are members of ICLEI. If the City proceeds, staff will hire LHB consulting to use the ICLEI software to calculate our carbon footprint and put in place the procedures so that we can largely do future measurements ourselves. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability Membership. ICLEI is an international association of local, national and regional government organizations who have made a commitment to sustainable development. They provide technical consulting, training, and information services to build capacity, share knowledge, and support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level. Their basic premise is that locally designed initiatives can provide an effective and cost-efficient way to achieve local, national, and global sustainability objectives. ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives'. The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at an inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York. They have over 1200 cities, towns, counties, and their associations as members today. As a non-profit association, ICLEI receives financial support for its operations and its programs from a membership fees and project funders. To join ICLEI the city needs to adopt a resolution stating we will join as members and pledge to take a leadership role in promoting public awareness of the causes and impacts of climate change. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Subject: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement The resolution also says we will undertake what ICLEI calls the “five milestones” to work to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. The five milestones are essentially basic steps you would use to implement any change. It is a performance-based approach that incorporates these five steps: 1. Establish a Baseline 2. Set a Target 3. Develop a Local Action Plan 4. Implement the Local Action Plan, 5. Measure Results The draft resolution is attached to this report. The City’s E Group has reviewed the merits of joining ICLEI and staff recommends the city join ICLEI and move forward with the measurement of its carbon foot print. The cost of membership is $600 per year. Membership can be reviewed after the first year to determine if continued membership is appropriate. Other nearby cities that are ICLEI members includes both Golden Valley and Edina. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of membership in ICLEI is $600. The cost of LHB conducting a carbon “footprint” assessment for the City is $7,000. GreenStep Cities and Urban Land Institute are pursuing assistance to help the cities of Edina, Falcon Heights, Victoria and St. Louis Park with funding the assessment. In the event that funding does not become available the maximum cost to the city would be $7,000 for the assessment and $600 for membership. The Housing Rehab Fund’s Green Remodeling Pilot’s unspent budgeted funds would be the funding source. VISION CONSIDERATION: City of St. Louis Park through Vision St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. The City of St. Louis Park strives to increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Participation in ICLEI and the carbon baseline assessment will be valuable tools to assist the City in demonstrating and promoting its environmental stewardship. Attachments: City Council Staff Report October 2009 Pilot within Pilot – Carbon Footprint Study Draft Resolution to Join ICLEI Prepared: Jim Vaughan, E Group Chair and Environmental Coordinator Kathy Larsen, E Group Vice-Chair and Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 4 Subject: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement Meeting Date: October 12, 2009 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: MN GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required. This report is for informational purposes. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The purpose of this update is informational and no policy considerations are required at this time. BACKGROUND: GreenStep Cities is a response to the increasing desire of many cities to implement energy efficiency and sustainable best practices. However, aside from Minneapolis and St. Paul, most Minnesota cities do not have the technical resources to develop a comprehensive set of actions that would help them meet this laudable goal. Through the MN Pollution Control Agency and numerous partners including the League of Minnesota Cities and the Urban Land Institute, the GreenStep Cites program was developed. GreenStep Cities is an action-oriented voluntary program offering a cost-effective and simple pathway for cities to implement sustainable best practices that focus on greenhouse gas reduction. GreenStep Cities includes the identification of best practices in the areas of: building and facilities, land use, transportation, environmental management and community and economic development. Development of the GreenStep Cities program began in 2008 and Tom Harmening served on the Advisory Committee that developed the framework for this effort. The Urban Land Institute (ULI MN) is now working with the Regional Council of Mayors (RCM) cities to implement the pilot phase. City staff has submitted a letter of interest for consideration as a pilot demonstration city (see attachment). FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Participation as a demonstration GreenStep City does not entail any financial reimbursement nor will it require city funds. Minimal staff time will be required to attend monthly meetings from October 2009 through June 2010. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 5 Subject: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement VISION CONSIDERATION: One of the City Councils adopted Strategic Directions states that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship and that we will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business”. Participation in the GreenStep Cities demonstration project is consistent with our vision and will be the next step in finding “a simple pathway leading to implementation of sustainable best practices….” NEXT STEPS: The Urban Land Institute plans to make their selection of five cities for participation in the demonstration project by October 9, 2009. Council will be kept apprised of the selection outcome. Attachments: GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project GreenStep Cities Letter of Interest Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 250 Third Avenue North, Ste 450 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 612-338-2029 Fax 612 338-2088 www.LHBcorp.com April 1, 2010 Revised April 20, 2010 PILOT WITHIN A PILOT – GREENSTEP CITIES PROJECT MEASURING ACTUAL CONSUMPTION OVERVIEW The GreenStep Cities program has begun and the leaders of five prominent Minnesota cities have stepped up to serve as Pilot Cities for the program—Edina, Bloomington, Saint Louis Park, Falcon Heights, and Victoria. These cities and their leaders have a reputation for environmental progressivity and a strong desire to continue to improve. An important next step is to measure actual performance and this is exactly where the Pilot within a Pilot GreenStep Cities Project (Project) steps up too. Goals of the Project: The goals of the Project are threefold: The five Pilot Cities will estimate the energy value and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with citywide energy consumption by people who live, work, learn, travel, and play within each city’s geographical boundaries. The analysis will cover two prior years (2008 and 2009) and then continue measuring for at least two years going forward (2010 and 2011). Analysis of the experiences of the five Pilot Cities will determine the feasibility of collecting this data for all GreenStep cities. The data must be transparent and able to be replicated, updated, and compared with other similar baseline assessments. Reasons for the Project: There are several reasons to go to this next level of participation. Most current environmental initiatives fall under the categories of adopting good intentions (plans and guidelines), predicting outcomes (modeling), and implementing strategies (best practices). The Project will involve measuring actual citywide outcomes. This will benefit the Pilot Cities because the resulting analyses will: Deepen the understanding of opportunities to save energy and money, mitigate climate change, and manage risk in the face of future GHG emission regulations and oil insecurity. Assist in promoting public understanding of the cities’ effects on climate change and increasing awareness of activities that can reduce carbon footprints. Inform subsequent analyses, plans, and policy decisions by the cities and others. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 10) Subject: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement Page 6 Pilot within a Pilot – GreenStep Cities Project Page 2 April 1, 2010 Serve as a model for other GreenStep cities. The Project will require measurement of electricity, natural gas, and water consumption and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is not as easy as it may seem since the metrics, the infrastructure, and all of the support systems were designed to collect revenue for the providers, not to measure cumulative usage. It will take the full cooperation of local and private utilities, as well as the cities and their staffs to assist the consultant team. The analysis should also include the GHG emissions associated with transportation (including vehicles, rail, and each city’s proportional share of airport- related emissions), solid waste management, and stormwater management. These metrics are even more difficult and will require cooperation of the state Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the railroads, and the various waste managers serving the cities. SCOPE OF WORK Participating cities will need to pay a fee to cover the cost of the consultant team. This fee will cover the following: Establish the feasibility of this approach. Collect the last two years of data for benchmarking. Establish a process for collecting data for the next two years. Evaluate the specific best management practices (BMP) selected by each city and correlate them to the outcomes being measured. Produce a final report that measures each metric individually (i.e. kBTUs, gallons, vehicle miles traveled, etc.) as well as in total dollars and tons of carbon. The report will include data on a per-capita basis as well. If a city elects, the consultant team can assist with the collection and analysis of the energy and GHG emissions associated with city buildings and operations for an additional fee. PROJECT TEAM LHB, Inc., working with J. Michael Orange Environmental Consulting, will conduct the work. Michael is a former city planner for the City of Minneapolis who has conducted similar studies for the cities of Minneapolis and Falcon Heights. LHB, Inc. is the state’s leading firm in sustainable design and energy efficiency. Each city will need to designate a primary staff contact to help with data collection. FEE The fee for this work will vary by city. We propose a fixed fee that will be paid to ULI. LHB will have an agreement with ULI and each city will have an agreement with ULI. In order to produce results that meet the third goal listed above (transparent and able to be replicated, updated, and compared with other similar baseline assessments), it’s important to use the internationally accepted measurement protocol. The organization that has produced this measurement tool, in collaboration with a wide variety of other international organizations including The Climate Institute, is the International Council on Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 10) Subject: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement Page 7 Pilot within a Pilot – GreenStep Cities Project Page 3 April 1, 2010 Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). ICLEI makes the tool available (along with many other services) free of charge to its member cities. For each city ICLEI1 costs will range from $600 to $1,200. The chart below indicates each City’s cost (fee to ULI), consultant’s match and total cost or value of the project. City’s Cost Consultant Team Match Total Cost Falcon Heights $1,800 $600 $2,400 Victoria $5,400 $1,800 $7,200 Edina $7,000 $2,500 $9,500 St. Louis Park $7,000 $2,500 $9,500 Bloomington $8,000 $3,000 $11,000 SCHEDULE We estimate the data collection phase for each city to take approximately 4-6 weeks. This schedule may vary, based upon the number of cities who elect to participate and the ability of the utilities to provide data in a timely manner. We are prepared to being this process on May 1, 2010. Please contact Caren Dewar at ULI with a notice to proceed no later than that date. An initial payment (50% of the total) will be due to ULI by June 1, 2010 and the final payment will be due at the time of the report, no later than October 1, 2010. Contact Rick Carter with any questions. It is important to note that this is very unique and different than what most cities in the country have done in terms of ―carbon footprinting‖ to date. Rather than just collecting data for the city’s own impact (i.e. city buildings, fleets, etc.), this study intends to measure the actual impact of most carbon producing activities within the city’s boundaries. LHB RICK CARTER, AIA, LEED AP SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT. c: LHB File No. 100169.PD; F102 M:\10Proj\100169\100 Financial\102 Agreements\100169AG040110 Greenstep Cities REVISED 042010.Doc 1 The fee for the City of Falcon Heights is to complete the City’s c urrent assessment to be comparable to those to be developed for the other Pilot Cities. The City of Edina is already a member of ICLEI. For U.S. cities, ICLEI membership is based on city population. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 10) Subject: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING UNDERTAKING ICLEI’S FIVE MILESTONES TO REDUCE ENERGY USE, GREENHOUSE GAS AND AIR POLLUTION EMMISSIONS IN THE CITY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park through Vision St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. The City of St. Louis Park strives to increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. WHEREAS, local government actions taken to reduce consumption of energy and natural resources and increase energy efficiency, provide multiple local benefits by decreasing air pollution, reducing energy expenditures, and saving money for the local government, its businesses, and its residents; and WHEREAS, energy consumption, specifically the burning of fossil fuels, accounts for more than 80% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability is a membership association of local governments committed to advancing climate protection, sustainable development and conserving resources for our future and the future of generations; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota will join ICLEI as a Full Member and pledges to take a leadership role in promoting public awareness about the causes and impacts of climate change. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will undertake ICLEI’s five milestones to reduce both greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions throughout the community, and specifically: • Conduct an carbon footprint inventory of government operations and the community as a whole to determine of the energy, water, refrigerant, solid waste, and transit use resources being used in the jurisdiction, • Establish a greenhouse gas emissions target reflective of the energy and resources used, • Develop an action plan with both existing and future actions, which when implemented will reduce energy, water, refrigerant, solid waste and fuel to meet the target, • Implement the action plan, and • Monitor and report progress. Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 10) Subject: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement Page 9 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park requests assistance from ICLEI as it progresses through these milestones. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Study Session Meeting of August 23, 2010 (Item No. 10) Subject: GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement Page 10 Meeting Date: August 23, 2010 Agenda Item #: 11 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or comments regarding the agenda topics proposed for an upcoming joint meeting with the Planning Commission? DESCRIPTION: Recently the Planning Commission and City Council have expressed a desire to have a joint meet to discuss issues of community significance and interest. Staff discussed this matter with the Planning Commission on August 18 and proposes the following: A joint meeting with the Planning Commission is proposed to be held at the September 27th City Council Study Session. The following are proposed agenda items: 1. Presentation of the Commercial Corridor Market Analysis by Jim McComb. This study was commissioned as a follow up to updating the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council directed staff to begin studying the small commercial nodes and corridors located around the city. These areas have had mixed success for retail development, and the intent for the McComb study was to help us set the stage for further study of each area. Jim will be present to summarize the results and talk through his analysis. 2. Discussion of the proposed Business Park zoning district. A new land use category, Business Park was developed as a part of updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This category applies to land around the LRT station areas. To implement the concept, a zoning district is being developed. Staff would like the City Council and Planning Commission to review proposed standards for this district. Materials for these two items will be sent out with the packet for the 9/27 meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Attachments: None Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager