HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/09/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
SEPTEMBER 27, 2010
5:30 – 6:20 p.m. Council Tour of Municipal Service Center (MSC)
Located at 7305 Oxford Street
Meet in Multi-Purpose Room on second floor
(1st door to right at top of the stairs/elevator).
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION - MSC Multi-Purpose Room
BBQ Dinner will be served during meeting.
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 11, 2010
2. 6:35 p.m. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
3. 8:20 p.m. Minnehaha Creek Discussion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
4. 9:20 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
9:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. August 2010 Monthly Financial Report
6. Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau
7. Project Report - W. 44th Street Reconstruction - Project 2005-0500
8. Update on Freight Rail Topics
9. Update on Hoigaard Village Project TIF Notes and Redevelopment Contract with Union
Land II LLC
10. Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 2nd & 3rd Quarter 2010
11. West End Apartments Parkland and Trail Dedication
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: September 27, 2010
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 4 and October 11, 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a special study session on October 4 and the
regularly scheduled Study Session on October 11, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for a special study session scheduled for October 4 and the regularly scheduled study session on
October 11, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for October 4 and October 11, 2010
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session
Special Study Session, Monday, October 4 at 6:30 PM
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Discuss Formation of St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau – Admin.
Services/Community Development (60 minutes)
Staff will provide an update on the public process undertaken to date and review drafts of
documents necessary to create a CVB.
Study Session, Monday, October 11, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Highway 100 Project Update – Public Works (45 minutes)
Staff will present information to Council regarding Mn/DOT rescoping efforts underway on
this project. Five concepts currently under consideration, a project description, and a new
schedule along with next steps will be made available for Council review, discussion and
comment.
3. MSC Project Close-Out – Inspections (30 minutes)
As a follow-up to the tour of the MSC the Council received on September 27, staff will
present a financial summary of the project and a final change order to consider.
4. 7015 Walker St. Purchase Agreement – Community Development (30 minutes)
Discuss details of the proposed purchase agreement.
5. Louisiana Court Refinance – Community Development (45 minutes)
Follow-up with Council on refinancing of Louisiana Court.
6. Communications and 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.
End of Meeting: 9:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: September 27, 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:
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss identified topics with Planning Commission; Provide direction as desired.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this study session item is for the City Council and Planning Commission to have an
opportunity to meet in general as well as have a specific discussion around three topics. The three
discussion topics are as follows:
1. Commercial Corridor Market Study – Presentation by Jim McComb –60 minutes
2. Supreme Court Variance Decision – Discussion with City Attorney Tom Scott –30 minutes
3. Business Park – Land Use and Zoning –15 minutes
BACKGROUND
1. Commercial Corridor Market Study
One of the key issues identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan was the future of the many small
commercial areas in the city. The Comprehensive Plan envisioned studying these commercial areas
to evaluate their viability, identify challenges and opportunities and create a vision for their long
term future success. As an initial step, the McComb Group, Ltd. was hired to conduct a market
analysis of ten commercial corridors and nodes in St. Louis Park; the summary of the report is
attached. Jim McComb is one of the premier retail market analysts in the Midwest. His firm has
over 30 years of experience analyzing market conditions for communities and commercial areas of all
sizes and types. McComb Group has done important work for the city in the past as well, including
market analyses related to the West End project. Jim McComb will present the findings from his
analysis of SLP’s commercial areas.
The 10 areas the McComb Group analyzed were grouped into four categories of retail nodes. The
areas studied are listed below and include:
Convenience Centers: Community Centers
Minnetonka Boulevard and Louisiana Avenue Excelsior Boulevard East
Minnetonka Boulevard and Dakota Avenue
Minnetonka and Highway 100 (Lake) Other:
Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 25 Excelsior Boulevard West
Lake Street and Walker Street Wayzata Boulevard
Neighborhood Centers:
Louisiana Avenue and Cedar Lake Road Texa-Tonka
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
The study objectives were to evaluate each study area to:
• determine its suitability for continued retail, food service or other commercial use,
• evaluate the ability of the existing buildings to accommodate existing businesses or new
businesses in a manner consistent with contemporary business needs, and
• identify potential uses that may be appropriate in study areas that are no longer suitable
for commercial use.
Of note in the Summary:
• The 10 commercial areas contain 260 business establishments (See Table i)
• 11% of the store fronts are vacant
• Map i shows the overlapping trade areas in the City
• Summarized in Table ii are:
o demographic profile,
o the number and type of business establishments,
o traffic counts, and
o average assessed value per square foot.
Overall, St. Louis Park’s small commercial areas have surplus retail space. The surplus space is often
in the wrong location or is not the right size or type of building for retailers seeking space. This
creates challenges for the future vitality of many of our commercial areas. Jim McComb will expand
on these points in his presentation.
The McComb market analysis provides critical background information to use in planning for the
city’s small commercial areas. The next steps will be to initiate a planning process involving the
businesses, property owners and neighborhoods from each of these areas. During the
Comprehensive Planning process priorities were set for which areas to address first. The Lake Street
area (Louisiana to Wooddale Avenue), Louisiana and Cedar Lake Rd, and Minnetonka Blvd
commercial areas were identified as the areas to work on first. Staff will prepare draft outlines of the
planning process for these areas for the City Council’s consideration at an upcoming study session.
2. Supreme Court Case on Variance Standards
In June, 2010 the State Supreme Court ruled on a zoning variance case that has implications for
cities in granting variances. The case applies the standard that the applicant must strictly show that
“the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use” as stated in state law. In effect, if the
property can be used for its intended use without the variance, a variance should not be granted.
Tom Scott, City Attorney, will be present at the meeting to discuss the implications for St. Louis
Park. A handout from the League of Minnesota Cities explaining variances is attached.
Over the past few years, variance requests in St. Louis Park have generally decreased (see the table
below) to a low number:
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 24 6 13 2 2 47
Planning Commission/City Council 7252 2 18
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
Variance requests for residential homes decreased significantly after 2006 when the city updated its
zoning ordinance to address many issues that were causing variance requests of homeowners. These
primarily related to garage setbacks and rear yards, and facilitated house additions.
Our low number of variance requests means the Supreme Court’s actions have less impact on us
than on other cities in Minnesota.
There is movement afoot to change the state legislation on variances. The League of Minnesota
Cities and others are meeting to determine what changes would ease the restrictions for cities. It is
expected that some legislative changes will be introduced next spring. It may be appropriate for the
city to wait to see if the legislature makes changes in the variance before the City decided to
undertake any changes in our own zoning ordinance to compensate for the Supreme Court’s ruling.
One change the city could consider would be to amend the PUD (Planned Unit Development)
provisions of the zoning ordinance. The PUD provisions provide a vehicle for modifying basic
zoning standards. The PUD ordinance could be modified to provide the City Council more
discretion to deny or approve requests for variations from basic zoning standards. While the city
approves some variations through the PUD now, the City Councils discretion to approve or deny a
PUD request is limited.
In addition to the Planning Commission and City Council, the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals
(BOZA) review variance requests. The Supreme Court ruling on variances will affect BOZA as well
as the Planning Commission and City Council. The BOZA is seeing very view variance requests
currently and unless the state legislature changes the variance laws, BOZA will likely see virtually no
variance requests in the future. Tom Scott has had informal conversations with BOZA regarding the
new variance standard; and, if we receive any new variance requests we will schedule a formal
discussion for the BOZA with Tom Scott regarding variance standards.
3. Business Park Zoning
The 2009 Comprehensive Plan update included the creation of a new land use category, “Business
Park.” The next step is to create a corresponding business park zoning district category in our
zoning ordinance. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the City Council and Planning
Commission an opportunity to ask questions and/or discuss the new district as they so choose.
A draft of the new ordinance element is being prepared and a public process involving meetings with
businesses and property owners similar to the process that preceded adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use category will be followed. The draft ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and a recommendation on the ordinance made to the City Council.
Attached is background information on the proposed new zoning district.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Commercial Corridor Market Analysis – Summary of Findings
Variances – Frequently Asked Questions – League of Minnesota Cities
Business Park Zoning District Attachment
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Findings
ST. LOUIS PARK
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
MARKET ANALYSIS
Prepared for
City of St. Louis Park
August 2010
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
St. Louis Park residents are served by a variety of shopping centers and shopping areas, many of
which evolved early in St. Louis Park’s history. The commercial corridors that are the subject of
this report are generally some, but not all, of the older shopping areas in St. Louis Park. They
have been joined by newer developments including Excelsior & Grand, Park Place Plaza, and
The Shops at West End. These newer centers bring retail store categories that did not have a
presence in St. Louis Park, i.e. Home Depot, Costco, etc., as well as stores that compete with
existing retail establishments. This evolution of retailing invariably adds more retail space to an
area where population and households are growing slowly, which means purchasing power is not
expanding as fast as retail space. This inevitably puts pressure on existing retail stores reducing
their sales performance and possibly their profitability. Older retail buildings seldom get torn
down, but continue to exist, seeking tenants to pay a reduced rent. In general, these spaces are
occupied by tenants that draw a small proportion of their sales from the immediate trade area and
attract the majority of their sales from customers outside the trade area seeking specialized
merchandise or services. Customers are attracted by the store’s merchandise or preference for a
provider. These stores have a destination character and are located in many St. Louis Park
shopping areas.
Ten commercial corridors contain a total of 260 retail stores and services as shown in Table i.
The number of retail stores and services in the commercial corridors range from six to 47. These
establishments compete with seven shopping areas in St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Hopkins, and
Minneapolis that contain 266 business establishments. Combined, these commercial corridors
and competitive areas contain 526 establishments. This compilation includes most, but not all,
retail and service establishments in the area.
While the number of business establishments in the commercial corridors and competitive
shopping areas are similar, 260 and 266, respectively, the mix of businesses are different. The
commercial corridors have 98 retail stores compared to 165 in the competitive shopping areas.
The commercial corridors have 162 services compared to 101 in the competitive shopping areas.
Retail stores represent 37.7 percent of the businesses in the commercial corridors compared to
62.0 percent in the competitive shopping areas. In the commercial corridors, 11.3 percent of the
store fronts are vacant compared to 6.7 percent in the competitive shopping areas.
SHOPPING AREA DESCRIPTIONS
The commercial corridors evaluated in this report range in size and type from convenience
centers to community center concentrations of retail stores. Distinguishing characteristics of
each type of shopping center are described below.
♦ Convenience Centers are small retail concentrations of 10,000 square feet to 30,000
square feet in size. Typical tenants include convenience stores, fast food, and a mix of
retailers and services, some of which may have destination characteristics. Convenience
centers have small trade areas and thrive on the volume of traffic that passes the shopping
area. Traffic counts on the main street and cross street are important to their success.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 6
Convenience centers include Minnetonka and Louisiana, Minnetonka and Dakota,
Minnetonka and TH-100, and Minnetonka and County Road 25.
Table i
COMPARISON OF ST. LOUIS PARK COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS AND COMPETITIVE SHOPPING AREAS
TENANT MIX, MARCH 2010
Commercial Competitive
Merchandise Category Corridors Shopping Areas Total
CONVENIENCE GOODS
Food Stores 1 6 7
Specialty Food Stores 2 8 10
Other Convenience Goods 11 16 27
Subtotal 14 30 44
FOOD SERVICE
Full Service 5 15 20
Limited Service 18 35 53
Snacks & Beverage Places 2 14 16
Subtotal 25 64 89
CONVENIENCE/GAS 11 4 15
SHOPPING GOODS
General Merchandise 1 6 7
Clothing and Accessories 4 9 13
Shoes 0 22
Home Furnishings 9 4 13
Home Appliances/Music 3 8 11
Other Shopping Goods 27 36 63
Subtotal 44 65 109
OTHER STORES
Building Materials/Garden 2 1 3
Motor Vehicles & Parts 2 1 3
Subtotal 4 2 6
Total Retail 98 165 263
SERVICES
Personal Care 18 22 40
Dry Cleaning/Laundry 9 4 13
Personal Services 18 13 31
Rental/Leasing 0 33
Recreation/Entertainment 5 6 11
Household Goods Repair 5 3 8
Automotive Services 10 5 15
Other Services 24 5 29
Financial 20133
Other Offices (Other than Financial)22 10 32
Medical 26 16 42
Other 314
Community 2 0 2
Total Services 162 101 263
TOTAL 260 266 526
Total with Vacant 293 285 576
VACANT 33 19 52
Vacant Percent 11.3%6.7%9.0%
Source: McComb Group, Ltd.
3
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 7
♦ Neighborhood Centers are typically anchored by one or more of the following stores:
supermarket, drug store, liquor store, and hardware store. Other tenants cluster around
these anchor stores to benefit from the shopper traffic attracted by the anchor stores.
Neighborhood centers can range from 30,000 square feet up to 100,000 square feet for
larger centers. They also attract services and tenants that have varying degrees of
destination characteristics. Shopping centers that are or were neighborhood centers
include: Louisiana and Cedar Lake Road, Texa-Tonka, and Lake and Walker, which has
since evolved into a convenience center. Many of the neighborhood centers, of which
Texa-Tonka is a good example, were anchored by supermarkets, drug stores, hardware
stores, and liquor stores. As shopping trends changed and supermarkets became larger,
these anchor stores no longer fit in the existing neighborhood centers and new
supermarkets were built elsewhere reducing sales at the existing centers. Almsted’s at
Louisiana and Cedar Lake Road is only the latest smaller supermarket to face
competition from a new, larger store (Rainbow) nearby. Without anchor stores, these
centers have difficulty attracting tenants to fill the retail spaces.
♦ Community Centers are larger concentrations of retail stores that are typically anchored
by supermarkets, discount stores, or other large retailers. Excelsior Boulevard East is
part of a community center that is anchored by Byerly’s, Target, and Hoigaards.
Community centers can range in size from 150,000 square feet to over 500,000 square
feet. Miracle Mile, in its original configuration, was a community center including
grocery, drug, hardware, liquor, and a general merchandise anchor. Due to its location
and strong traffic counts on Excelsior Boulevard, this area evolved into a viable
commercial/retail strip center with a wide variety of retail stores, food service, and
services.
♦ Lifestyle Centers, such as The Shops at West End, range in size from 100,000 square
feet up to 750,000 square feet. The smaller of these types of centers typically include one
or two anchor stores, a movie theater, and high energy restaurants and a mix of specialty
stores.
♦ Power Centers range in size from 300,000 square feet to over 1,000,000 square feet and
are tenanted with big box stores. Park Place Plaza, anchored by Costco, Home Depot,
Office Max, and PetSmart is a power center. Power centers typically have a relatively
small inline store component.
♦ Regional Malls are typically anchored by two or more department stores and contain a
wide variety of shopping goods stores. Knollwood Mall and environs are a regional mall
type concentration of retail stores.
These various types of shopping centers comprise the St. Louis Park competitive landscape in
which the commercial corridor retail areas compete.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 8
TRADE AREAS
Trade areas for each of the ten commercial corridors, shown on Map i, overlap with other trade
areas and illustrate the competitive environment, particularly in central St. Louis Park. The red
line is generally the area served by the commercial corridors. St. Louis Park retailers serve
portions of the adjacent communities of Golden Valley, Minneapolis, Edina, Hopkins, and
Minnetonka. The combined trade area has an estimated 2010 population of 74,398 and 36,111
households, as shown in Table ii. Average household income is $91,662. Characteristics of
each commercial corridor, summarized in Table ii, are discussed in the following pages.
Map i
COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS TRADE AREAS
CONVENIENCE CENTERS
Selected data on St. Louis Park convenience centers and other shopping areas are contained in
Table ii.
Minnetonka Boulevard and Louisiana Avenue
Retail and service establishments located at Minnetonka and Louisiana and Minnetonka and
Dakota share the same trade area. This trade area is the smallest of all the St. Louis Park trade
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 9
Table iiST. LOUIS PARK COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS SUMMARYCommunityConvenience CentersNeighborhood Centers CenterOtherCombinedMinnetonka Minnetonka Minnetonka Minnetonka Lake & Louisiana & Texa- Excelsior Excelsior Wayzata Trade& Louisiana & Dakota & TH-100 & CR 25 Walker Cedar Lake Tonka EastWest Blvd. AreaTrade Area2010 Population8,244 8,244 8,480 10,545 12,392 16,079 36,826 38,967 36,866 11,610 74,398 2010 Households3,691 3,691 4,254 5,879 5,933 7,428 17,960 19,303 17,940 5,427 36,111 2010 Average Household Income 64,129$ 64,129$ 74,486$ 125,401$ 59,439$ 68,206$ 69,035$ 98,067$ 82,790$ 89,494$ 91,662$ Employees Number1,703 1,703 4,180 7,013 19,793 8,180 27,242 39,366 45,988 26,255 82,921 White Collar Percent55.6 % 55.6 % 62.3 % 61.5 % 70.0 % 58.9 % 63.9 % 71.2 % 71.8 % 57.8 % 66.1 %Business EstablishmentsRetail3 4 5 10 11 5 13 22 10 15 98 Service5 2 4 12 22 15 18 25 37 22 162 Total8 6 9 22 33 20 31 47 47 37 260 Percent Service62.5 % 33.3 % 44.4 % 54.5 % 66.7 % 75.0 % 58.1 % 53.2 % 78.7 % 59.5 % 62.3 %Vacant- 4 - 1 6 4 7 6 4 1 33 Percent- % 40.0 % - % 4.3 % 15.4 % 16.7 % 18.4 % 11.3 % 7.8 % 2.6 % 11.3 %Retail/Service GLA13,188 22,599 20,651 104,103 227,170 76,122 109,983 226,492 226,924 358,872 Convenience/Destination (1 to 5)2.1 3.7 3.3 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.3 1.7 2.2 2.3 Retail3.0 4.8 4.8 3.5 3.0 4.4 3.5 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 Service1.6 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 Traffic CountsEast/West13,200 13,200 16,050 13,000 3,225 11,500 11,350 19,550 22,800 128,000 N/ANorth/South12,000 3,050 4,200 20,300 3,850 14,650 6,425 9,600 110,000 17,400 N/ABuildingsAvg. Assessors Value Per Sq Ft24.59$ 38.49$ 18.78$ 36.60$ 24.12$ 26.06$ 23.25$ 42.17$ 41.50$ 36.02$ 31.16$ Store Front (1 to 4)2.0 2.0 2.4 2.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.4 N/ASource: Scan/US, MN/DOT and McComb Group, Ltd.Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning CommissionPage 10
areas, with an estimated 8,244 people living in 3,691 households in 2010. There are an estimated
1,703 trade area employees, of which 56 percent are white collar.
The Minnetonka and Louisiana commercial corridor contains eight business establishments:
three (38 percent) are retail stores. This commercial corridor was fully occupied. This
commercial corridor contains about 13,200 square feet of gross building area, which is the
smallest of the shopping areas evaluated.
The convenience/destination rating of 3.0 for Minnetonka and Louisiana indicates that retail
stores in this area are equally convenience and destination driven. Services have a rating of 1.6
indicating that consumer traffic is more destination oriented.
Minnetonka Boulevard carries an average of 13,200 trips per day and Louisiana Avenue
contributed 12,000 average vehicle trips per day for a total of 25,200 vehicles.
Minnetonka and Louisiana commercial corridor average assessor’s value per square foot of
retail/service buildings is $24.59 per square foot, which is below the average for all the St. Louis
Park retail study areas. Store front appearance, rated on a scale of one to four, averaged 2.0.
This score is low and is influenced by the age and condition of buildings in the area.
Minnetonka and Louisiana commercial corridor’s primary strength is its high traffic counts on
both Minnetonka Boulevard and Louisiana Avenue which contributes to maintaining full
occupancy. Minnetonka and Louisiana has only one convenience store. The other businesses
have stronger destination characteristics.
Minnetonka Boulevard and Dakota Avenue
Retail and service establishments located at Minnetonka Boulevard and Dakota Avenue share
this trade area with Minnetonka Boulevard and Louisiana Avenue retailers. This trade area
contains an estimated 8,244 people living in 3,691 households in 2010. There are an estimated
1,703 trade area employees, of which 56 percent are white collar.
The Minnetonka and Dakota commercial corridor contains six business establishments: four
retail stores and two services. This commercial corridor had four vacancies (40 percent), the
highest vacancy rate within St. Louis Park’s commercial corridors.
The convenience/destination rating for Minnetonka and Dakota retail stores is 4.8, one of the
highest scores within St. Louis Park, clearly indicating that these retail stores are convenience
driven. Services in this area have a rating of 1.5 for two service establishments of strong
destination character.
Minnetonka Boulevard had an average of 13,200 vehicle trips per day, while Dakota Avenue
provided an additional 3,050 average daily trips for a total of 16,250 vehicles.
Minnetonka and Dakota commercial corridor average assessor’s value per square foot of
retail/service buildings is $38.49 per square foot, well above the average for all the St. Louis
Park retail commercial corridors. Store front appearance, rated on a scale of one to four,
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 11
averaged 2.0, and is influenced by the appearance of buildings on the south side of Louisiana.
The strip center building on the north side of Louisiana is relatively new and attractive.
The Minnetonka and Dakota commercial corridor suffers from low traffic counts, high vacancy,
and a lack of variety in tenants.
Food service is represented by three pizza establishments--the only area with more than one
pizza place. Businesses in this location must draw most of their customers from outside the trade
area and need to have destination characteristics. This retail area could benefit from a reduction
in retail space by redeveloping the land on the south side of Minnetonka Boulevard east and west
of Dakota Avenue. Businesses that appear to have potential would be those retailers and services
with strong destination characteristics that could attract customers from outside the trade area.
Minnetonka Boulevard and TH-100
The Minnetonka and TH-100 commercial corridor has St. Louis Park’s second smallest trade
area, serving 8,480 people living in 4,254 households in 2010. There are an estimated 4,180
trade area employees, of which 62 percent are white collar.
Minnetonka and TH-100 commercial corridor contains nine business establishments: five (56
percent) are retail stores. This area is one of the two commercial corridors in St. Louis Park that
has no vacancies. The convenience/destination rating for Minnetonka and TH-100 retail stores is
4.8 indicating a strong presence of convenience retailers. Services have a rating of 1.5 indicating
that destination is more important to their business. In 2008, Minnetonka Boulevard carried
16,050 average vehicle trips per day and Lake Street contributed 4,200 trips for a total of 20,050
trips. Traffic counts on TH-100 in 2008 were 119,000 vehicles per day.
Average assessor’s value per square foot of retail/service buildings is $18.78 per square foot, the
lowest average value for all the St. Louis Park retail commercial corridors. Store front
appearance, rated on a scale of one to four, averaged 2.4, indicating that many of this area’s
buildings are becoming dated.
The size of this commercial corridor trade area is limited due to its proximity to both Excelsior
Boulevard and the newly developed West End; however, this area continues to serve the retail
needs of trade area consumers and traffic entering and leaving TH-100.
The Minnetonka and TH-100 commercial corridor currently has many of the convenience retail
stores that are supportable. These businesses benefit from customers that live outside the trade
area and that access TH-100 at this location. Supportable space is heavily weighted toward
professional services.
Minnetonka and County Road 25
The Minnetonka and County Road 25 commercial corridor’s small trade area serves an estimated
10,545 people living in 5,879 households in 2010. Although the retail trade area for Minnetonka
Boulevard and County Road 25 is small, it has a very high average household income of
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 12
$125,401. Also, there are an estimated 7,013 trade area employees, of which 62 percent are
white collar.
The Minnetonka and County Road 25 commercial corridor contains 22 business establishments:
10 (45 percent) are retail stores. This retail area had one vacancy (four percent). The
convenience/destination rating for retail stores is 3.5 indicating a similar presence of
convenience and destination retailers. Services have a rating of 2.0 indicating that destination is
more important to their business.
In 2009, Minnetonka Boulevard carried 13,000 average vehicle trips per day west of France
Avenue and County Road 25 carried 20,300 trips for a total of 33,300 trips.
Average assessor’s value per square foot of retail/service buildings is $36.60 per square foot, one
of the highest average values for St. Louis Park commercial corridors. Store front appearance,
rated on a scale of one to four, averaged 2.7, the highest rating for St. Louis Park commercial
corridors.
The Minnetonka and County Road 25 commercial corridor benefits from high traffic counts on
Minnetonka Boulevard and County Road 25, and the high income of its trade area households.
This area has most of the store types that are supportable and consistent with its location. Many
of the existing store categories could support additional stores, but space is limited in this area.
Lake Street and Walker Street
Retail and service establishments in the Lake and Walker commercial corridor serve a relatively
small trade area with 12,392 people living in 5,933 households in 2010. The average household
income is $59,439, the lowest average household income of the St. Louis Park trade areas. There
are an estimated 19,793 trade area employees, of which 70 percent are white collar.
The Lake and Walker commercial corridor contains 33 business establishments: 11 (33 percent)
are retail stores. This retail area had three vacancies (eight percent). The
convenience/destination rating for retail stores is 3.0 indicating a presence of both convenience
and destination retailers. Services have a rating of 2.1 indicating that destination is more
important to their business.
In 2009, Walker Street carried 3,225 average vehicle trips per day, while Lake Street provided
3,850 average trips per day for a total of 7,075 trips, the lowest traffic counts of the commercial
corridors. Highway 7 carried 30,000 trips east of Louisiana Avenue, but this volume does not
appear to benefit the commercial corridor. This area has experienced reduced access from the
portion of the trade area south of Highway 7 as roadway improvements have been implemented.
Average assessor’s value per square foot of retail/service buildings is $24.12 per square foot,
well below the average for St. Louis Park commercial corridor. Store front appearance, rated on
a scale of one to four, averaged 1.8, which indicates that the buildings in this area are older with
dated store fronts, some of them are not maintained.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 13
The Lake Street and Walker Street commercial corridor is unique in that for most business
categories supportable space is less than the existing stores have. Also, the mix of businesses is
more diversified than the other shopping areas. One of the dominate tenant groups is the mix of
eight personal care, personal services, and health club establishments that serve as a personal
care destination. Most of the businesses have strong destination characteristics, which attract
customers from outside the trade area.
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
The commercial corridors include two shopping areas with neighborhood shopping centers.
Louisiana Avenue and Cedar Lake Road
Retail and service establishments in the Louisiana and Cedar Lake Road commercial corridor
serve a trade area with 16,079 people living in 7,428 households in 2010. There are an estimated
8,180 trade area employees, of which 59 percent are white collar.
This commercial corridor includes a neighborhood shopping center anchored by Almsted’s
SuperValu and 19 business establishments: five (25 percent) are retail establishments.
Walgreen’s recently constructed a new store and Snyder Drug closed. There were four vacant
spaces (17 percent). The convenience/destination rating for retail stores is 4.4 indicating that
most are convenience retailers. Services have a rating of 1.9 indicating that destination is more
important to their business. All of these businesses benefit from the 2009 traffic counts of
14,650 on Louisiana Avenue and Cedar Lake Road (11,500).
Average assessor’s value per square foot of retail/service buildings is $26.06 per square foot,
which is slightly below average for the St. Louis Park commercial corridors. Store front
appearance, rated on a scale of one to four, averaged 1.9. This score, one of he lowest scores for
the commercial corridors, is influenced by a number of unattractive buildings south of Cedar
Lake Road fronting on Louisiana Avenue.
The Louisiana and Cedar Lake Road commercial corridor currently has many of the convenience
retailers that are supportable. Almsted’s SuperValu is facing increased competition from the
recently opened Rainbow at The Shops at West End. Walgreen’s is a recent addition to the area
replacing a Snyder’s. There are a variety of services that could be attracted to the area. The strip
shopping center buildings south of the BNSF track on the east side of Louisiana are physically
obsolete and lack sufficient parking. Businesses in these buildings could relocate to vacant
spaces in the shopping center. This area should be redeveloped to a different use.
Texa-Tonka
The Texa-Tonka commercial corridor has the third largest retail trade area, serving 36,826
people living in 17,960 households in 2010. There are an estimated 27,242 trade area
employees, of which 64 percent are white collar.
This commercial corridor is anchored by Texa-Tonka Center, which was formerly anchored by a
supermarket and drug store. The Texa-Tonka commercial corridor trade area contains 31
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 14
business establishments: 13 (42 percent) are retail stores. This retail area had seven vacancies
(18.4 percent), one of the highest vacancy rates within St. Louis Park’s commercial corridors.
The convenience/destination rating for retail stores is 3.5 indicating that many are convenience
retailers. Services have a rating of 2.1 indicating that destination is more important to their
business.
In 2009, Minnetonka Boulevard carried 11,350 average vehicle trips per day, while Texas
Avenue carried another 6,425 vehicle trips per day, for a total of 17,775 vehicles. This is the
third lowest number of vehicle trips of the commercial areas studied. Traffic counts on Texas
Avenue are low because it ends at 28th Street two blocks north.
Average assessor’s value per square foot of retail/service buildings is $23.25 per square foot, the
second lowest average value for all the St. Louis Park retail commercial corridors. Store front
appearance, rated on a scale of one to four, averaged 1.9. This score, one of he lowest scores for
the commercial corridors, is influenced by the age of the buildings within this area.
The Texa-Tonka commercial corridor continues to function as a convenience center because of
its close proximity to Knollwood Mall (three-quarters of a mile south of Texa-Tonka), a major
competitor for convenience and shopping goods.
The Texa-Tonka commercial corridor demonstrates support for some neighborhood shopping
center anchor stores such as grocery, hardware, and drug stores. Possible stores could include
Save-A-Lot or Aldi’s in the grocery category, or a dollar store. This may require demolition of
existing buildings to accommodate the needs of new anchor retailers. Other suggestions include
unique destination stores and increasing services. A second approach would be to reduce the
amount of retail space to meet tenant demand. The buildings south of Minnetonka are not
particularly atteractive and suffer from a shortage of parking.
COMMUNITY CENTERS
Excelsior Boulevard functions as a community center and is anchored by Byerly’s, Target and
Hoigaard’s. Excelsior Boulevard East is a major component of this shopping area.
Excelsior Boulevard East
Excelsior Boulevard East retail and service establishments serve the largest trade area of all the
commercial corridor study areas. This trade area contains almost 39,000 people living in 19,303
households in 2010. Excelsior Boulevard East has the second largest daytime employment with
an estimated 39,366 trade area employees, of which 71 percent are white collar, possibly driven
by the Park Nicollet medical center and Methodist Hospital.
The Excelsior East commercial corridor contains 47 business establishments: 22 (47 percent) are
retail stores, while 25 establishments (53 percent) are service establishments. There were six
vacancies (11 percent). The convenience/destination rating for retail stores is 2.6 indicating that
these retailers are slightly more destination driven than convenience driven. Services have a
rating of 2.1 indicating that destination is more important to their business.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 15
In 2009, Excelsior Boulevard east of TH-100 had 19,550 average vehicle trips per day, one of
the highest traffic counts for a commercial corridor in St. Louis Park. Two other streets, France
Avenue and Monterey Drive each carry about 9,600 trips.
Average assessor’s value per square foot of retail/service buildings is $42.17 per square foot, the
highest value per square foot within the St. Louis Park commercial corridors. Store front
appearance, rated on a scale of one to four, averaged 2.3. This indicates that many buildings in
this area are older and have dated store fronts.
Excelsior Boulevard East is adjacent to Excelsior & Grand, a mixed-use development including
over 90,000 square feet of retail and services along with residential and community use areas.
This retail area has been around since the 1930’s. Along with Excelsior Boulevard West, this
area has developed into the largest retail area in St. Louis Park. Excelsior Boulevard East also
benefits from the large employment base of both Methodist Hospital and Park Nicollet Medical
Center, along with numerous other employers.
The Excelsior Boulevard East commercial corridor has the potential to support a wide variety of
additional retail stores, food services, and services due to its trade area size, convenient location,
and high traffic counts.
OTHER AREAS
Excelsior Boulevard West and Wayzata Boulevard commercial corridors do not fit the typical
shopping center definitions.
Excelsior Boulevard West
Excelsior Boulevard West retail and service establishments serve the second largest trade area
within St. Louis Park’s commercial corridors. This trade area serves 36,866 people living in
17,940 households in 2010. Excelsior Boulevard West has the largest daytime employment with
an estimated 45,988 trade area employees, of which 72 percent are white collar, likely driven by
the medical profession.
The Excelsior Boulevard West commercial corridor contains 47 business establishments: ten (21
percent) are retail stores. This area has the highest number of service establishments with 37
providers (79 percent). There were four vacancies (eight percent). The convenience/destination
rating for retail stores is 3.0 indicating that these retailers are both convenience and destination
driven. Services have a rating of 1.3 indicating that destination is more important to their
business.
In 2009, Excelsior Boulevard west of TH-100 had 22,800 average vehicle trips per day, one of
the highest traffic counts for the commercial corridors.
Average assessor’s value per square foot of retail/service buildings is $41.50 per square foot,
well above the average for St. Louis Park commercial corridors. Store front appearance, rated on
a scale of one to four, averaged 2.3. This indicates that more buildings in this area are older and
have dated store fronts.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 16
Excelsior Boulevard West benefits from the large employment base of both Methodist Hospital
and Park Nicollet Medical Center. This retail area has existed since the 1930’s. Along with
Excelsior Boulevard East, this area has developed into the largest retail area in St. Louis Park.
The Excelsior Boulevard West commercial corridor has a trade area similar to that of Excelsior
Boulevard East, but has evolved with a concentration of professional and medical offices. These
categories contain 20 of the 47 business establishments. Much of the supportable space is
oriented toward retail stores due to trade area size and the location west of the primary shopping
area to the east. These retail stores should be encouraged to locate east of TH-100, if possible, to
reinforce the retail dominance of that area.
Wayzata Boulevard
Retail and service establishments in this area serve a relatively small trade area with 11,610
people living in 5,427 households in 2010. More important is the estimated 26,255 trade area
employees, of which 58 percent are white collar.
The area contains 37 business establishments: 15 (41 percent) are retail stores. Food service is
the dominant category with six stores. There was only one vacant store space, a restaurant. The
convenience/destination rating for retail stores is 3.0 indicating that these retailers are both
convenience and destination driven; while services have a rating of 1.6 indicating that destination
is more important to their business. All of these businesses benefit from the high traffic counts
on I-394 (128,000 in 2008), which provides daily visibility for these convenience businesses.
Average assessor’s value per square foot of retail/service buildings is $36.02 per square foot,
which is above average for the commercial corridor areas. Store front appearance, rated on a
scale of one to four, averaged 2.4 which is the second highest for the study areas.
Retail/service has become a secondary use to office and lodging in this area, a trend that should
be encouraged. This commercial area continues to adjust to the access changes resulting from
construction of I-394, as well as competition from newer developments.
Wayzata Boulevard’s relatively small trade area will support some convenience retailers, but
there are better locations for these stores in other areas. As a result, these stores are not
candidates for this area. Supportable space is adequate for the existing food service and service
station categories. The existing shopping goods stores in the Wayzata Boulevard commercial
corridor are primarily destination stores that derive most of their business from outside the trade
area. The same is true for many of the service categories.
Much of the retail and service uses occupy land that is likely to be redeveloped over time. As
this occurs, retail space should be focused on the needs of employees and customers of the new
uses.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 17
xxvi
SUMMARY
St. Louis Park’s ten commercial corridors contain 260 retail stores and services that serve city
residents as well as customers living outside the city. The number of business establishments
range from six at Minnetonka and Dakota to 47 each at Excelsior Boulevard East and West. Five
of the commercial corridors are located along Minnetonka Boulevard. Three have no or low
vacancy and two have high vacancy.
Vacant stores comprise 11.3 percent of the space inventory compared to 6.7 percent in
competitive shopping areas. This is an indication of surplus retail space.
The number of trade area residents needed to support a store varies by store type. If the trade
area is too small, a higher proportion of customers need to be attracted from outside the trade
area. For many businesses, it is the customers living outside St. Louis Park, inflow shoppers,
that make the business profitable. This is true of both convenience and destination type
businesses.
Four commercial corridors -- Minnetonka and Dakota, Lake and Walker, Louisiana and Cedar
Lake Road, and Texa-Tonka -- appear to have more retail space than is supportable by their trade
area population. Reducing the amount of retail space in these areas should be considered.
Supportable gross leasable area (GLA) estimates for each store type are based on the low, or
small, store size. If the median store size had been used, there would have been fewer store
categories with supportable GLA. In many cases, supportable GLA for existing businesses in
commercial corridors are less than needed to support a business indicating that inflow shoppers
may represent over 50 percent of the customer base.
This report indicates that St. Louis Park has surplus retail space. In reality, St. Louis Park has
surplus space that is in the wrong location, is not the right size or type of building for retailers
that are seeking space. Thus, St. Louis Park has both surplus space and a shortage of space
desired by retailers. St. Louis Park is, for the most part, a fully developed community which
makes expanding existing commercial corridor areas to accommodate new retailers difficult.
St. Louis Park is seeking to expand its local owned businesses. The appropriate location for
these businesses will depend on the type of business and its destination/convenience
characteristics. Convenience type business should locate where their business can be supported
by trade area residents and also have good visibility to traffic counts. Businesses that have
strong destination characteristics can be less concerned with trade area size, but would benefit
from visibility from a location with good traffic counts.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 18
This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice.
Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations.
VARIANCES
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a variance?
A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a
permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of
property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A
variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply.
Who grants a variance?
Minnesota law provides that requests for variances are heard by a body called the board of
adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communities, the planning commission or even the city
council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally appealable to the city council.
For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
When can a variance be granted?
A variance should be granted if strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance as applied to a
particular piece of property would cause the landowner “undue hardship.” The landowner is
generally entitled to the variance if and only if the applicant meets the statutory three-factor test for
undue hardship. If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance
should not be granted. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
What kind of authority is the city exercising?
A city exercises so-called “quasi-judicial” authority when considering a variance application. This
means that the city’s role is limited to applying the legal standard of undue hardship to the facts
presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal
standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance should be granted. In contrast,
when the city writes the rules in zoning ordinance, the city is exercising “legislative” authority and
has much broader discretion.
What is undue hardship?
Undue hardship is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply the when considering
applications for variances. It is a three-factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To
constitute undue hardship, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. For more information, see
Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 19
2
What are the undue hardship factors?
The first factor is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance.
Caution! In June 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision that changed the
longstanding interpretation of the first factor. The Court held that the reasonable use factor is not
whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is reasonable use in the absence
of the variance. This is a much stricter test, which considerably limits variance opportunities. A
city will need to work closely with the city attorney to determine if a variance application can
satisfy the first factor.
The second factor is that the landowner’s problem is due to circumstances unique to the property
not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of
the particular piece of property, that is, to the land, and not personal characteristics or preferences
of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a
setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular
piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees.
The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Under this factor consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or
otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance
for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot
line and if that fits in with the character of the area.
What about economic considerations?
Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred
substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State
statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create an undue hardship.
Rather, an undue hardship exists only when the three statutory factors are met.
Can a city grant a use variance?
Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would
otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed “use
variances” as opposed to “area variances” from dimensional standards. Use variances are not
generally allowed in Minnesota—state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use
that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. For
more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
Is a public hearing required?
Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied,
but many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all
variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help
determine if the application meets the undue hardship factors.
What is the role of neighborhood opinion?
Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While
city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 20
3
considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the
statutory undue hardship factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help the
city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form
a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for the
variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court.
What is the role of past practice?
While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the
undue hardship factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, cities
are not generally bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds that it is
issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possibility of
amending the ordinance to change the standard.
When should a variance decision be made?
A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota’s 60-day rule and must be approved or
denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for
an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60-day period.
Under the 60-day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is
deemed an approval. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 15.99.
How should a city document a variance decision?
Whatever the decision, a city should create a record that will support it. In the case of a variance
denial, the 60-day rule requires that the reasons for the denial be put in writing. Even when the
variance is approved, the city should create or direct that a written statement explaining the
decision. The written statement should explain the variance decision, address each of the three
undue hardship factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions as to each factor.
Can meeting minutes adequately document a variance decision?
If a variance in denied, the 60-day rule requires a written statement of the reasons for denial be
provided to the applicant within the statutory time period. While meeting minutes may document
the reasons for denial, usually a separate written statement will need to be provided to the
applicant in order to meet the statutory deadline. A separate written statement is advisable even
for a variance approval, although meeting minutes could serve as adequate documentation,
provided they include detail about the decision factors and not just a record indicating an approval
motion passed.
Can a city attach conditions to a variance?
By law, a city may impose conditions when it grants variances to insure compliance and to
protect adjacent properties. Any such conditions should relate back to the subject of the
variance request. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable
height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the affect of
excess height. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357.
What happens to the variance once granted?
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 21
4
A variance once issued is a property right that “runs with the land” so it attaches to and benefits
the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county
recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 22
Business Park Zoning District Attachment
The purpose of the Business Park (BP) category is, “to encourage the creation of significant
employment centers that accommodate a diverse mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs.” It
focuses on maintaining, growing, and modernizing the City’s employment base in existing industrial
sites within two areas: the Beltline industrial/LRT station area, and the Louisiana/Oxford
industrial/LRT station area.
During the Comprehensive Plan process the owners in the industrial areas were consulted in public
meetings prior to the creation of the BP category. Discussions at each meeting influenced the
language used in creating the category and the parcels included under the BP designation. Within
the two industrial areas, there are 57 parcels guided for Business Park land uses, comprising
approximately 109 acres.
The requirements of the Metropolitan Council state that cities must bring their official land use
controls (Zoning Ordinance) into compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Creation of a
BP zoning district would move the City in the direction of this requirement. A draft of the new
ordinance is being prepared and a public process with businesses and property owners similar to the
process that preceded adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use category will be followed. The
draft ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and make recommendation on the
ordinance to the City Council.
Discussion:
The two industrial areas guided for BP in the Comprehensive Plan are in transition. Each is near a
future transit station along the SW LRT corridor. Over the past ten years, there has been increasing
pressure by other uses on properties zoned for industrial activity; one possible result of the new
transit access in these locations would be to heighten the conversion to uses other than industrial.
The creation of a Business Park zoning district would help send a clear signal to property owners and
developers that the City intends to maintain and grow the employment base in these parts of the
City. However, it is important to note that certain aspects of existing industrial uses may not fully
conform to future zoning regulations for the BP district.
In the Comprehensive Plan discussion of the BP category, there are several recommendations that
may go beyond the current standards for industrial properties. In particular, the issue of outdoor
storage and heavier manufacturing are noted as two uses that should be phased out of future
Business Park areas. During the process to create the BP district, it would be important to ensure
that no properties are placed in a zoning district that will stifle business development within the city.
As the process of developing the performance standards for the BP district continues, it will be
important to review the proposed standards with existing businesses. Because of the complexity of
rolling out a new zoning district, some properties that have a Comprehensive Plan designation of
Business Park may not be recommended for rezoning. However, if those uses should decide to
redevelop in the future, the BP designation of the Comprehensive Plan will guide future land use
changes on the site. In proceeding this way it will reduce the likelihood of substantial non-
employment uses entering the City’s remaining areas for employment.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 23
The goals found for Business Park in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan will guide
the development of the Zoning Ordinance, and are as follows (from page IV-B23 of the
Comprehensive Plan):
Goal 8
Promote the development of business park land uses in designated employment areas as a way to
expand the City’s employment base and opportunities, increase the City’s tax base, and meet the
changing market and technological needs of the industrial business sector.
Strategy A
Promote business park developments that utilize more efficient land use and building designs
than traditional industrial development, such as multi-story buildings, multi-tenant
buildings, and structured parking.
Strategy B
Encourage and support new business park developments that are designed as employment
centers that are integrated into the community with strong connections to adjacent public
streets and spaces, natural features, transit, and other community amenities.
Strategy C
Require that new business park developments provide efficient and attractive parking
designs, appropriate landscaping, and high quality building architecture.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Page 24
Meeting Date: September 27, 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:
Minnehaha Creek Discussion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not applicable at this time. Staff is requesting direction from the Council on the policy questions
noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council need more information regarding the role or activities of the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District?
Does the Council support the efforts of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to continue the
re-meander process for Minnehaha Creek to the west of Louisiana Avenue?
BACKGROUND:
Representatives of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be in attendance for the Study
Session to provide a brief update on their activities and to specifically discuss another Minnehaha
Creek re-meander project in St. Louis Park.
Background and Purpose of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the regional governmental unit responsible
for managing and protecting the water resources of the Minnehaha Creek watershed. The MCWD
was established in 1967 under the Minnesota Watershed District Act, which recognizes that
hydrologic boundaries rarely match political boundaries and serves to integrate water management
efforts between city, county and state agencies. The MCWD covers approximately 181 square miles
that ultimately drain into the Minnehaha Creek. The MCWD also includes all or part of 27 cities
and two townships in Hennepin and Carver Counties.
The MCWD is governed by a seven-member Board of Managers, who are appointed by the
Hennepin and Carver County boards. The MCWD is committed to a leadership role in protecting,
improving and managing the surface waters and affiliated groundwater resources within the district,
including their relationships to the ecosystems of which they are an integral part. MCWD achieves
this mission through regulation, capital projects, education, cooperative endeavors, and other
programs based on sound science, innovative thinking, an informed and engaged constituency, and
cost effective use of public funds.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Discussion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Proposed Minnehaha Creek Re-Meander Project
MCWD is seeking non-financial participation by the City in continuing the re-meander of
Minnehaha Creek in St. Louis Park, depicted in the attached graphic.
The City and MCWD have a rich history of collaboration in support of the creek through St. Louis
Park. In 2008, with the added participation of Methodist Hospital, MCWD completed a meander
on the stretch of creek adjacent to the hospital between Excelsior Blvd. and Louisiana Avenue.
Continuing the re-meander through the City had previously been considered a long-term goal.
However, several events (including land access and construction funding) have coalesced to allow for
planning the re-meander at an earlier time, with potential project implementation in 2011.
The MCWD has entered into a purchase agreement to buy four parcels of land along the creek
within the City, located at 7200 Excelsior Boulevard. The parcels make up the former site of the
Meadowbrook Lofts condominium proposal. Because these parcels are immediately adjacent to the
creek, MCWD could proceed with a re-meander in this location without securing additional
property rights like construction easements or access agreements.
To fund the project, the MCWD has identified a potential source of grant funds. The state Board of
Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) administers the Clean Water Fund, which provides competitive
grants to projects that improve water quality and reduce degradation of groundwater supplies. The
MCWD prepared the draft grant application, but requested that it be submitted by the City to
increase the level of partnership between the organizations. The request is for $300,000.00, which
would provide sufficient funding for the construction of the re-meander. The local match required
by the Clean Water Fund program would be provided by the MCWD as part of their land purchase
at 7200 Excelsior Boulevard.
The re-meander project would meet several of the City’s goals found in the 2009 update to the
Comprehensive Plan, including Goal 8 of the Parks and Open Space Chapter, which states:
Goal 8: Recognize Minnehaha Creek as a shared community asset.
• Strategy A: Acquire and maintain public ownership of the banks of the creek and parks along
the creek throughout the City where possible.
• Strategy B: Maintain high quality canoe landings and seek to maximize use and access at
strategic locations.
• Strategy C: Retain and improve the natural vegetation and amenities along the creek by
working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed district to protect it and provide a natural setting
for its enjoyment and use.
• Strategy D: Restrict future development from the shoreline in order to protect the integrity of
the creek and natural vegetation.
• Strategy E: Support shared property ownership agreements, including conservation easements,
in locations where property owners are interested in improving public access to the Creek.
• Strategy F: Educate the public about the Creek by providing information on its course from
Lake Minnetonka to the Mississippi River, the location of access to recreational opportunities on
the Creek, and methods to improve its ecological health.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Discussion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
The re-meander would also meet a number of specific goals of the 2009 Surface Water Management
Plan, including wetland, riparian and stream restoration, invasive species reduction, protecting and
enhancing habitat areas, and creek bank erosion prevention.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funding for the re-meander project would come from the BWSR Clean Water Fund program. No
direct City funds would be used for the project; the MCWD has identified other potential non-City
funding sources to pursue if the Clean Water Fund grant does not materialize.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Continued work in partnership with MCWD on the Minnehaha Creek corridor meets the City’s
vision and strategic direction for environmental stewardship and improving the ecological, aesthetic
and functional character of the Creek corridor.
Attachments: Graphic – Potential Creek Meander west of Louisiana Avenue
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Discussion - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Page 4
Meeting Date: September 27, 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:
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: September 27, 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:
August 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 August, actual expenditures should generally run about 67% of the annual budget.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 64% of the adopted budget and the Park and
Recreation Fund expenditures are at 66%. Both are consistent when comparing the prior year
expenditures through August. 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 79.7% of budget through the month of August. 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 11% or $71,000 as
of August. Many new restaurants and businesses have opened in 2010 that weren’t all
anticipated when the revenue budget was prepared last year. 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 August, it is at 67.5% of budget. Since permit revenue is a significant source of
General Fund revenue, Staff will continue to monitor this closely throughout the rest of the
year.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: August 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 86% of
budget through August. 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 70%. 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 August. 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 78% 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.
• Park Maintenance Personal Services is at 73% through the month of August. Temporary
salaries have exceeded budget due to a longer than normal mowing season. The early spring
coupled with ample rainfall throughout the entire summer has increased the amount of
mowing and trimming staff time required. This division has also experienced some staffing
challenges increasing the need for temporary help.
• Personal Services and Supplies for the Rec Center are at 70% and 81% of budget respectively
through August. This is consistent with prior years, as the amounts budgeted for seasonal
aquatic park staffing, pool chemicals, and concession supplies are fully spent over the
summer pool season.
• Personal Services expenditures appear to exceed budget in the Environment Division, as
portions of staff time will be allocated to the Utility Funds.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report
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
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:13:24R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 7,333,420.52- 50.75 |14,653,275.00-7,208,993.31- 49.20
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,294,768.00- 119,182.00- 1,829,506.10- 465,261.90- 79.73 |2,515,000.00-2,146,212.90- 85.34
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,750.00- 17,448.64- 193,078.08- 118,671.92- 61.93 |312,000.00-218,167.92- 69.93
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,598,787.00- 44,081.75- 850,891.86- 747,895.14- 53.22 |1,647,214.00-813,194.32- 49.37
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,138,018.00- 75,734.80- 516,482.45- 621,535.55- 45.38 |1,201,900.00-462,890.72- 38.51
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-8,383.33- 82,740.68- 17,259.32- 82.74 |100,000.00-104,574.09- 104.57
4001 REVENUES 20,332,928.00-264,830.52-11,028,883.65-9,304,044.35-54.24 |20,429,389.00-10,954,033.26-53.62
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,132,004.00 1,435,425.72 12,048,447.86 6,083,556.14 66.45 |18,496,154.00 12,762,467.54 69.00
6210 SUPPLIES 846,535.00 36,389.53 465,950.96 380,584.04 55.04 |766,135.00 435,175.51 56.80
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 67,775.00 11,220.22 61,824.17 5,950.83 91.22 |70,775.00 25,324.81 35.78
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,922,858.00 229,711.49 2,060,171.36 1,862,686.64 52.52 |4,160,215.00 2,126,765.53 51.12
6001 EXPENDITURES 22,969,172.00 1,712,746.96 14,636,394.35 8,332,777.65 63.72 |23,493,279.00 15,349,733.39 65.34
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 1,722,549.92- 861,275.08- 66.67 |2,678,910.00-1,752,606.56- 65.42
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-774.88- 18,010.68- 16,510.68 1,200.71 |2,000.00-3,949.80- 197.49
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 |4,520.00-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 50.00- 3,253.00-3,253.00 |3,350.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE 100.00-35.54-64.46- 35.54 |307.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,785,425.00-216,143.62-1,682,103.71-1,103,321.29-60.39 |3,030,910.00-1,855,068.96-61.21
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,181.00 .09- 181,181.09 |181,000.00 78.36 .04
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,270.79 12,979.46 6,020.54 68.31 |19,000.00 15,437.76 81.25
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,181.00 1,270.79 12,979.37 187,201.63 6.48 |200,000.00 15,516.83 7.76
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 51,000.00 1,233,043.61 1,938,386.36 1,887,386.36-3,800.76 |232,980.00 2,556,148.00 1,097.15
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 1,233,043.61 1,938,386.36 1,887,386.36-3,800.76 |232,980.00 2,556,148.00 1,097.15
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:13:24R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 50.00 |4,073,118.00-2,036,559.00- 50.00
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-622.00-5,653.00-9.91 |6,260.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 71,219.00-6,028.97- 55,278.32- 15,940.68- 77.62 |55,702.00-37,824.73- 67.91
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,073,900.00- 171,545.61- 855,857.26- 218,042.74- 79.70 |1,141,598.00-845,272.71- 74.04
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 906,900.00- 66,632.87- 489,334.14- 417,565.86- 53.96 |883,000.00-511,033.14- 57.87
4001 REVENUES 6,073,166.00-244,207.45-3,408,527.72-2,664,638.28-56.12 |6,153,418.00-3,436,949.58-55.85
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,440,416.00 335,069.03 2,382,272.53 1,058,143.47 69.24 |3,503,813.00 2,513,037.57 71.72
6210 SUPPLIES 906,881.00 71,744.39 505,623.21 401,257.79 55.75 |872,131.00 505,364.09 57.95
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 1,712,749.00 104,544.05 1,090,107.37 622,641.63 63.65 |1,703,002.00 1,144,830.20 67.22
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |15,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,071,166.00 511,357.47 3,982,684.68 2,088,481.32 65.60 |6,098,418.00 4,167,141.22 68.33
8001 OTHER INCOME
8065 SALE OF SALVAGE 1,500.00-1,500.00 |
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,000.00-5,857.69-7,142.31- 45.06 |12,000.00-5,959.00- 49.66
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 5,440.00-5,440.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 13,000.00-12,797.69-202.31-98.44 |12,000.00-6,719.08-55.99
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|8.36
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 2,853.97 15,862.34 862.34- 105.75 |14,016.81
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 2,853.97 15,901.34 901.34-106.01 |14,025.17
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 270,003.99 577,260.61 577,260.61-|67,000.00-737,497.73 1,100.74-
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 270,003.99 577,260.61 577,260.61-|67,000.00-737,497.73 1,100.74-
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 5
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 7,333,420.52- 50.75 |14,653,275.00-7,208,993.31- 49.20
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-22,602.50- 22,602.50- 50.00 |45,205.00-22,602.50- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 66.45-225.39-225.39 |370.19-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 56,923.68- 28,076.32- 66.97 |85,000.00-56,898.43- 66.94
4001 REVENUES 15,019,810.00-7,149.78-7,635,936.05-7,383,873.95-50.84 |14,783,480.00-7,288,864.43-49.30
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- 1,722,549.92- 861,275.08- 66.67 |2,678,910.00-1,752,606.56- 65.42
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 2,783,825.00-215,318.74-1,660,802.49-1,123,022.51-59.66 |3,028,910.00-1,842,439.05-60.83
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 17,622,954.00-222,468.52-9,262,910.50-8,360,043.50-52.56 |17,632,390.00-9,130,025.94-51.78
100 GENERAL 17,622,954.00-222,468.52-9,262,910.50-8,360,043.50-52.56 |17,632,390.00-9,130,025.94-51.78
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 6
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 183,360.00-5,383.33- 200,610.78- 17,250.78 109.41 |215,500.00-165,268.66- 76.69
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 41.97-587.76-587.76 |97.00-
4001 REVENUES 191,360.00-5,425.30-201,198.54-9,838.54 105.14 |223,500.00-172,312.96-77.10
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 444,400.00 55,853.12 353,830.58 90,569.42 79.62 |531,500.00 366,346.42 68.93
6210 SUPPLIES 3,100.00 268.38 2,007.96 1,092.04 64.77 |3,700.00 2,081.29 56.25
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 476,972.00 11,937.32 213,589.57 263,382.43 44.78 |455,635.00 244,927.48 53.76
6001 EXPENDITURES 924,472.00 68,058.82 569,428.11 355,043.89 61.59 |990,835.00 613,355.19 61.90
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 62,633.52 368,229.57 364,882.43 50.23 |767,335.00 440,740.30 57.44
110 ADMINISTRATION 733,112.00 62,633.52 368,229.57 364,882.43 50.23 |767,335.00 440,740.30 57.44
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 7
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 FINANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 48,318.00-4,026.50- 32,602.88- 15,715.12- 67.48 |50,000.00-27,833.75- 55.67
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00-150.00 |
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-4,026.50-32,752.88-15,565.12-67.79 |50,000.00-27,833.75-55.67
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 920,800.00 86,181.53 699,356.47 221,443.53 75.95 |937,200.00 689,171.50 73.54
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 88.42 1,862.60 2,362.40 44.09 |4,225.00 2,337.84 55.33
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 152,905.00 10,238.94 106,286.09 46,618.91 69.51 |162,555.00 95,363.96 58.67
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,077,930.00 96,508.89 807,505.16 270,424.84 74.91 |1,103,980.00 786,873.30 71.28
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 50.00- 3,075.00-3,075.00 |3,350.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 50.00-3,075.00-3,075.00 |3,350.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 .09-500.09 .02- |500.00 21.44 4.29
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 .01-500.01 |500.00 22.97 4.59
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 .10-1,000.10 .01-|1,000.00 44.41 4.44
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,030,612.00 92,432.39 771,677.18 258,934.82 74.88 |1,054,980.00 755,733.96 71.63
120 FINANCE 1,030,612.00 92,432.39 771,677.18 258,934.82 74.88 |1,054,980.00 755,733.96 71.63
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 8
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 37,741.52 318,210.71 164,189.29 65.96 |481,000.00 337,306.36 70.13
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 840.28 1,159.72 42.01 |2,000.00 1,449.49 72.47
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 2,519.86 70,640.76 89,909.24 44.00 |160,550.00 76,796.87 47.83
6001 EXPENDITURES 644,950.00 40,261.38 389,691.75 255,258.25 60.42 |643,550.00 415,552.72 64.57
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 635,950.00 40,261.38 380,401.75 255,548.25 59.82 |634,550.00 410,061.72 64.62
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 635,950.00 40,261.38 380,401.75 255,548.25 59.82 |634,550.00 410,061.72 64.62
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 9
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 9,000.00-790.00- 8,920.00-80.00- 99.11 |12,000.00-9,689.25- 80.74
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 594,000.00- 64,244.65- 394,316.09- 199,683.91- 66.38 |585,000.00-339,552.73- 58.04
4001 REVENUES 603,000.00-65,034.65-403,236.09-199,763.91-66.87 |597,000.00-349,241.98-58.50
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,001,700.00 107,103.50 918,810.60 82,889.40 91.73 |1,023,000.00 716,209.43 70.01
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 36.18 317.76 1,382.24 18.69 |3,000.00 486.48 16.22
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 47,750.00 956.20- 1,220.31 46,529.69 2.56 |56,750.00 11,651.72 20.53
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,051,150.00 106,183.48 920,348.67 130,801.33 87.56 |1,083,750.00 728,347.63 67.21
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 448,150.00 41,148.83 517,112.58 68,962.58-115.39 |486,750.00 379,105.65 77.89
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 448,150.00 41,148.83 517,112.58 68,962.58-115.39 |486,750.00 379,105.65 77.89
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 10
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 |8,200.00-11,500.00- 140.24
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,250.00- 11,443.67-3,556.33- 76.29 |15,000.00-11,250.00- 75.00
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,250.00-28,693.67-29,306.33-49.47 |23,200.00-22,750.00-98.06
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 546,200.00 29,900.87 321,139.35 225,060.65 58.80 |534,000.00 371,494.00 69.57
6210 SUPPLIES 86,150.00 4,218.62 40,081.74 46,068.26 46.53 |90,500.00 27,255.70 30.12
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 7,714.52 19,599.77 6,400.23 75.38 |26,000.00 4,917.61 18.91
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 423,392.00 20,303.45 212,307.74 211,084.26 50.14 |502,942.00 263,962.42 52.48
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,081,742.00 62,137.46 593,128.60 488,613.40 54.83 |1,153,442.00 667,629.73 57.88
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |37.02
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 20.00 54.00 54.00-|203.10
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 20.00 54.00 54.00-|240.12
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,023,742.00 60,907.46 564,488.93 459,253.07 55.14 |1,130,242.00 645,119.85 57.08
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,023,742.00 60,907.46 564,488.93 459,253.07 55.14 |1,130,242.00 645,119.85 57.08
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 11
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00-50.00-50.00 |
4001 REVENUES 50.00-50.00-50.00 |1,277.42-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 516,850.00 41,195.39 370,778.23 146,071.77 71.74 |562,500.00 406,601.84 72.28
6210 SUPPLIES 23,500.00 1,523.93 17,234.73 6,265.27 73.34 |30,800.00 12,587.49 40.87
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 23,556.10 23,556.10-|2,931.46
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,316.00 61,446.83 524,926.88 335,389.12 61.02 |877,970.00 487,630.47 55.54
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,400,666.00 104,166.15 936,495.94 464,170.06 66.86 |1,471,270.00 909,751.26 61.83
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 1,400,666.00 104,116.15 936,427.75 464,238.25 66.86 |1,471,270.00 908,546.82 61.75
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,400,666.00 104,116.15 936,427.75 464,238.25 66.86 |1,471,270.00 908,546.82 61.75
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 12
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 3,000.00-500.00-2,500.00- 16.67 |3,000.00-
4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-500.00-2,500.00-16.67 |3,000.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 188,280.00 14,097.89 99,381.16 88,898.84 52.78 |184,980.00 110,084.68 59.51
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 93,525.00 13,555.12 57,623.10 35,901.90 61.61 |104,245.00 101,218.12 97.10
6001 EXPENDITURES 281,905.00 27,653.01 157,004.26 124,900.74 55.69 |289,225.00 211,302.80 73.06
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 27,653.01 156,504.26 122,400.74 56.11 |286,225.00 211,319.29 73.83
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 278,905.00 27,653.01 156,504.26 122,400.74 56.11 |286,225.00 211,319.29 73.83
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 13
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 150.00- 1,350.00-1,350.00 |
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 17,448.64- 192,938.65- 110,561.35- 63.57 |303,500.00-212,167.92- 69.91
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 800,582.00- 44,081.75- 335,098.16- 465,483.84- 41.86 |809,009.00-326,573.39- 40.37
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-6,808.94- 48,598.69- 61,101.31- 44.30 |109,700.00-59,779.52- 54.49
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 13,839.53- 13,839.53 |36,370.47-
4001 REVENUES 1,213,782.00-68,489.33-591,825.03-621,956.97-48.76 |1,222,209.00-634,891.30-51.95
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,609,294.00 502,284.56 4,246,715.48 2,362,578.52 64.25 |6,546,794.00 4,516,539.15 68.99
6210 SUPPLIES 141,050.00 5,661.84 56,595.22 84,454.78 40.12 |150,900.00 49,014.81 32.48
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,775.00 3,505.70 16,068.30 17,706.70 47.57 |35,775.00 14,989.81 41.90
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 521,783.00 25,853.33 260,984.78 260,798.22 50.02 |547,053.00 267,895.00 48.97
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,305,902.00 537,305.43 4,580,363.78 2,725,538.22 62.69 |7,280,522.00 4,848,438.77 66.59
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-774.88- 18,010.68- 16,510.68 1,200.71 |2,000.00-3,949.80- 197.49
8100 INTEREST |2.61-
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-774.88-18,010.68-16,510.68 1,200.71 |2,000.00-3,952.41-197.62
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 17.98 158.88 341.12 31.78 |500.00 150.45 30.09
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 500.00 17.98 158.88 341.12 31.78 |1,000.00 150.45 15.05
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,091,120.00 468,059.20 3,970,686.95 2,120,433.05 65.19 |6,057,313.00 4,209,745.51 69.50
160 POLICE 6,091,120.00 468,059.20 3,970,686.95 2,120,433.05 65.19 |6,057,313.00 4,209,745.51 69.50
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 14
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,700.00 5,950.49 50,494.04 26,205.96 65.83 |76,500.00 53,526.94 69.97
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 5,950.49 55,059.02 31,195.98 63.83 |86,055.00 58,270.90 67.71
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,255.00 5,950.49 55,059.02 31,195.98 63.83 |86,055.00 58,270.90 67.71
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,255.00 5,950.49 55,059.02 31,195.98 63.83 |86,055.00 58,270.90 67.71
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 15
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-2,409.76- 21,235.26- 18,764.74- 53.09 |50,000.00-27,728.77- 55.46
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-13,381.20- 286,618.80-4.46 |300,000.00-8,048.63- 2.68
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-445.00- 11,907.35-7,907.35 297.68 |4,000.00-14,583.00- 364.58
4001 REVENUES 344,000.00-2,854.76-46,523.81-297,476.19-13.52 |354,000.00-50,360.40-14.23
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,826,180.00 205,719.68 1,752,761.45 1,073,418.55 62.02 |2,815,680.00 1,893,862.96 67.26
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 1,300.38 13,612.97 58,197.03 18.96 |71,810.00 25,469.15 35.47
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 8,350.23 84,395.82 134,787.18 38.50 |224,183.00 106,485.17 47.50
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,122,173.00 215,370.29 1,853,370.24 1,268,802.76 59.36 |3,116,673.00 2,027,608.21 65.06
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2.00-2.00 |5,020.00-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 178.00-178.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 180.00-180.00 |5,020.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,778,173.00 212,515.53 1,806,666.43 971,506.57 65.03 |2,762,673.00 1,972,227.81 71.39
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,778,173.00 212,515.53 1,806,666.43 971,506.57 65.03 |2,762,673.00 1,972,227.81 71.39
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 16
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 107,138.91- 1,556,498.06- 430,789.94- 78.32 |2,162,500.00-1,893,076.22- 87.54
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 51.29-318.29-318.29 |2,186.11-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 69.80-69.80 |25.19-
4001 REVENUES 1,987,288.00-107,190.20-1,556,886.15-430,401.85-78.34 |2,162,500.00-1,895,287.52-87.64
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,713,100.00 124,351.77 1,075,950.18 637,149.82 62.81 |1,915,500.00 1,296,155.05 67.67
6210 SUPPLIES 21,500.00 125.80 3,177.45 18,322.55 14.78 |22,300.00 8,229.67 36.90
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 63,627.00 3,399.04 37,799.52 25,827.48 59.41 |71,627.00 31,698.91 44.26
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,798,227.00 127,876.61 1,116,927.15 681,299.85 62.11 |2,009,427.00 1,336,083.63 66.49
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 1,232.81 12,749.24 5,250.76 70.83 |18,000.00 13,667.63 75.93
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,232.81 12,749.24 5,250.76 70.83 |18,000.00 13,687.53 76.04
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 171,161.00-21,919.22 427,209.76-256,048.76 249.60 |135,073.00-545,516.36-403.87
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 171,161.00-21,919.22 427,209.76-256,048.76 249.60 |135,073.00-545,516.36-403.87
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 17
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 64,610.63 561,166.16 264,633.84 67.95 |826,500.00 625,203.06 75.64
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 25.90 1,833.76 2,166.24 45.84 |4,500.00 3,478.66 77.30
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 24,100.00 38.97 20,629.84 3,470.16 85.60 |22,950.00 6,539.03 28.49
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,900.00 64,675.50 583,629.76 271,270.24 68.27 |854,950.00 635,220.75 74.30
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 64,675.50 583,629.76 271,270.24 68.27 |854,950.00 635,242.49 74.30
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,900.00 64,675.50 583,629.76 271,270.24 68.27 |854,950.00 635,242.49 74.30
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 18
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 75,000.00-3,250.00- 40,622.00- 34,378.00- 54.16 |75,000.00-49,820.00- 66.43
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-50.00- 1,650.00- 328,350.00-.50 |436,000.00-250.00- .06
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-3,300.00-42,272.00-362,728.00-10.44 |511,000.00-50,070.00-9.80
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 750,000.00 62,279.58 479,956.03 270,043.97 63.99 |844,000.00 517,641.34 61.33
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 116.13 4,175.43 2,874.57 59.23 |7,050.00 2,427.29 34.43
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 695.00 34.75
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 2,006.37 18,153.53 52,596.47 25.66 |70,750.00 32,773.56 46.32
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,800.00 64,402.08 502,284.99 327,515.01 60.53 |923,800.00 553,537.19 59.92
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 424,800.00 61,102.08 460,012.99 35,212.99-108.29 |412,800.00 503,467.19 121.96
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 424,800.00 61,102.08 460,012.99 35,212.99-108.29 |412,800.00 503,467.19 121.96
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 19
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 120.00-60.00-270.00-150.00 225.00 |630.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 250.00-139.43-110.57- 55.77 |500.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-479,310.00- 29,310.00 106.51 |490,000.00-455,022.50- 92.86
4001 REVENUES 450,370.00-60.00-479,719.43-29,349.43 106.52 |490,500.00-455,652.50-92.90
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,230,300.00 98,155.19 799,897.42 430,402.58 65.02 |1,217,000.00 862,324.81 70.86
6210 SUPPLIES 479,500.00 23,023.95 324,211.06 155,288.94 67.61 |374,500.00 300,357.64 80.20
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 799,300.00 71,018.23 413,220.40 386,079.60 51.70 |894,300.00 395,078.86 44.18
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,509,100.00 192,197.37 1,537,328.88 971,771.12 61.27 |2,485,800.00 1,557,761.31 62.67
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,058,730.00 192,137.37 1,057,609.45 1,001,120.55 51.37 |1,995,300.00 1,102,108.81 55.24
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,058,730.00 192,137.37 1,057,609.45 1,001,120.55 51.37 |1,995,300.00 1,102,108.81 55.24
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 1,233,043.61 1,938,386.36 1,887,386.36-3,800.76 |232,980.00 2,556,148.00 1,097.15
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 20
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 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- 36,413.40- 217,415.88- 43,584.12- 83.30 |259,298.00-219,313.80- 84.58
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-4,468.00- 18,580.00- 12,820.00- 59.17 |34,000.00-17,870.70- 52.56
4001 REVENUES 4,351,974.00-40,881.40-2,265,782.88-2,086,191.12-52.06 |4,411,118.00-2,296,094.50-52.05
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 715,280.00 57,484.75 465,206.41 250,073.59 65.04 |729,162.00 512,142.57 70.24
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 6,516.80 28,321.53 31,129.47 47.64 |59,451.00 25,151.03 42.31
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,677.00 20,537.91 353,812.31 101,864.69 77.65 |502,597.00 358,191.33 71.27
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,230,408.00 84,539.46 847,340.25 383,067.75 68.87 |1,291,210.00 895,484.93 69.35
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-4,651.13- 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 15,000.00-10,091.13-4,908.87-67.27 |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 2,796.89 15,418.15 418.15- 102.79 |13,573.15
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 2,796.89 15,457.15 457.15-103.05 |13,576.94
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,121,566.00-46,454.95 1,413,076.61-1,708,489.39-45.27 |3,133,908.00-1,391,042.71-44.39
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,121,566.00-46,454.95 1,413,076.61-1,708,489.39-45.27 |3,133,908.00-1,391,042.71-44.39
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 21
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 112,571.59- 520,799.52- 109,200.48- 82.67 |679,000.00-485,562.36- 71.51
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 744,500.00- 48,189.12- 376,459.05- 368,040.95- 50.57 |722,000.00-389,662.61- 53.97
4001 REVENUES 1,374,500.00-160,760.71-897,258.57-477,241.43-65.28 |1,401,000.00-875,224.97-62.47
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 785,638.00 105,411.48 549,683.63 235,954.37 69.97 |792,467.00 593,308.68 74.87
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 19,464.80 137,290.72 33,059.28 80.59 |170,350.00 144,091.10 84.59
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 480,870.00 24,973.67 290,531.27 190,338.73 60.42 |491,950.00 279,843.41 56.88
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,436,858.00 149,849.95 977,505.62 459,352.38 68.03 |1,454,767.00 1,017,243.19 69.92
8001 OTHER INCOME
8065 SALE OF SALVAGE 1,500.00-1,500.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-1,500.00 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |4.57
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |4.57
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 62,358.00 10,910.76-78,747.05 16,389.05-126.28 |53,767.00 142,022.79 264.14
201 RECREATION CENTER 62,358.00 10,910.76-78,747.05 16,389.05-126.28 |53,767.00 142,022.79 264.14
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 22
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 6,275.00-622.00-5,653.00-9.91 |6,260.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-15.00- 10,485.00-.14 |10,700.00-130.00 1.21-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30,000.00-5,452.33- 22,587.36-7,412.64- 75.29 |26,000.00-31,124.97- 119.71
4001 REVENUES 46,775.00-5,452.33-23,224.36-23,550.64-49.65 |36,700.00-37,254.97-101.51
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 926,500.00 86,027.17 672,458.59 254,041.41 72.58 |969,400.00 686,549.23 70.82
6210 SUPPLIES 97,755.00 7,856.31 65,876.02 31,878.98 67.39 |93,555.00 61,818.29 66.08
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 25,991.59 211,646.07 149,693.93 58.57 |369,510.00 206,552.92 55.90
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,396,715.00 119,875.07 954,334.43 442,380.57 68.33 |1,443,585.00 958,808.83 66.42
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,349,940.00 114,422.74 931,110.07 418,829.93 68.97 |1,406,885.00 921,553.86 65.50
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,349,940.00 114,422.74 931,110.07 418,829.93 68.97 |1,406,885.00 921,553.86 65.50
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 23
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 86,400.00-3,185.55- 73,729.29- 12,670.71- 85.33 |82,600.00-69,214.39- 83.79
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 135.00- 2,347.25-2,347.25 |177.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,400.00-3,320.55-76,076.54-10,323.46-88.05 |82,600.00-69,391.39-84.01
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 421,200.00 35,150.09 279,007.13 142,192.87 66.24 |420,586.00 302,161.50 71.84
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 787.18 8,307.49 18,692.51 30.77 |26,700.00 12,149.14 45.50
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 327.82 327.82-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 45,250.00 2,009.66 18,339.23 26,910.77 40.53 |44,500.00 21,972.49 49.38
6001 EXPENDITURES 493,450.00 37,946.93 305,981.67 187,468.33 62.01 |491,786.00 336,283.13 68.38
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 1,860.00-1,860.00 |909.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,860.00-1,860.00 |909.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 57.08 444.19 444.19-|443.66
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 57.08 444.19 444.19-|443.66
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,050.00 34,683.46 228,489.32 178,560.68 56.13 |409,186.00 266,426.40 65.11
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,050.00 34,683.46 228,489.32 178,560.68 56.13 |409,186.00 266,426.40 65.11
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 24
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 14,350.00- 14,350.00 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,000.00- 19,375.07- 43,897.57- 42,102.43- 51.04 |110,000.00-62,191.39- 56.54
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |1,318.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,000.00-19,375.07-58,247.57-27,752.43-67.73 |110,000.00-63,509.39-57.74
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,648.00 13,879.17 97,502.53 11,145.47 89.74 |108,898.00 78,629.93 72.21
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 111.74 8,620.61 10,804.39 44.38 |19,425.00 13,012.77 66.99
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,470.00 25,253.51 136,232.20 87,237.80 60.96 |158,470.00 192,588.03 121.53
6001 EXPENDITURES 351,543.00 39,244.42 242,355.34 109,187.66 68.94 |286,793.00 284,230.73 99.11
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 19,869.35 184,761.21 82,781.79 69.06 |178,793.00 218,921.34 122.44
204 ENVIRONMENT 267,543.00 19,869.35 184,761.21 82,781.79 69.06 |178,793.00 218,921.34 122.44
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 25
9/20/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:16:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20108/31/2010 <==========================================>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 26,517.00-6,028.97- 18,577.32-7,939.68- 70.06 |11,000.00-15,473.73- 140.67
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |9,120.77-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 69,360.48- 31,639.52- 68.67 |101,000.00-70,879.86- 70.18
4001 REVENUES 127,517.00-14,417.39-87,937.80-39,579.20-68.96 |112,000.00-95,474.36-85.24
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,150.00 37,116.37 318,414.24 164,735.76 65.90 |483,300.00 340,245.66 70.40
6210 SUPPLIES 532,900.00 37,007.56 257,206.84 275,693.16 48.27 |502,650.00 249,141.76 49.57
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |20.97
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 146,142.00 5,777.71 79,546.29 66,595.71 54.43 |135,975.00 85,682.02 63.01
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |8,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,162,192.00 79,901.64 655,167.37 507,024.63 56.37 |1,130,277.00 675,090.41 59.73
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,034,675.00 65,484.25 567,229.57 467,445.43 54.82 |1,018,277.00 579,616.05 56.92
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,034,675.00 65,484.25 567,229.57 467,445.43 54.82 |1,018,277.00 579,616.05 56.92
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 270,003.99 577,260.61 577,260.61-|67,000.00-737,497.73 1,100.74-
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: August 2010 Monthly Financial Report Page 26
Meeting Date: September 27, 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:
Update on Proposed Convention and Visitors Bureau.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is required at this time. This report is intended to update the Council on progress
made with this initiative. A detailed discussion will be scheduled for an upcoming study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Specific policy questions will be identified as part of an upcoming study session
discussion.
BACKGROUND:
On September 29, 2009 staff provided the City Council with information regarding its investigation
into the formation of a convention & visitors bureau (CVB) to further promote St. Louis Park
within the Twin Cities region and beyond. It was explained that in order for such an organization to
be financially viable it would require approval of a local lodging tax of up to 3%. The creation of
such a lodging tax is allowed by state statute. The City Council then directed staff to continue its
exploration of the concept.
Subsequently, staff along with the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce President met with local
hoteliers and informed them of the exploration of a CVB and discussed with them the benefits and
concerns they had with forming such an organization. Staff also held focus groups with other
potential partners in the community which included businesses, the school district, and recreation
groups to solicit their feedback. The tone and comments from these meetings was such that further
exploration ensued.
Staff then prepared a Concept Plan which more clearly expressed the need for a CVB, what might be
its mission and marketing focus, as well as how such an organization could be structured and
funded. This Concept Plan was presented to five of the six local hoteliers and they were asked to
review and comment. Staff also discussed the CVB concept with the St. Louis Park Business Council
and the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. Staff then followed up again with
the area hoteliers to obtain their feedback.
On June 7, 2010 staff provided the City Council with updated information regarding the formation
of a convention & visitors bureau and reviewed the draft Concept Plan. The Council consensus
and direction was to proceed with the formation of a convention and visitors bureau for St. Louis
Park.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Update on Proposed Convention and Visitors Bureau
Since receiving direction from City Council the following steps have been taken:
• City staff and the Chamber President met again with local hoteliers.
• A consultant was hired to conduct more research and begin the task of drafting the formal
documents needed to form a CVB. These documents include Articles of Incorporation,
Bylaws, Operating Agreement between the CVB and City, and an ordinance creating a
lodging tax. The City Attorney is now reviewing these documents.
• Since the proposed target markets of a CVB are so critical, another meeting was held with
the local hotels and the TwinWest Chamber President to gain their input on the CVB’s
proposed marketing plan.
• A meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 28, 2010 with the hoteliers, restaurateurs,
and other community stakeholders (i.e. Parktacular, Park Nicollet, Schools, JCC, merchants
etc.—organizations whose events or businesses might likely utilize the services of a CVB).
The purpose of this meeting is to inform all stakeholders on the status of the proposed CVB,
to receive feedback, and to respond to questions.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will incorporate, as appropriate, feedback obtained at the September 28th meeting into the
draft CVB documents.
This matter is proposed to be placed on a study session in October to obtain final feedback from the
City Council on the draft documents and steps necessary to formally create the CVB.
At the point the City Council is comfortable with the final direction of the CVB, the necessary legal
documents will be brought to the City Council for approval, including an ordinance creating a
lodging tax.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The formation of a convention and visitors bureau would require approval by the City Council and
a lodging tax of up to 3% to serve as the organization’s primary revenue source. The intent behind
the formation of a cvb is that it would strengthen awareness of St. Louis Park as a convention and
visitor destination and stimulate additional economic activity within the community.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 27, 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:
Project Report - W. 44th Street Reconstruction - Project 2005-0500.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. This report is intended to inform the Council on the status of the proposed W.
44th Street reconstruction from Brookside Avenue to France Avenue. Please inform staff of any
questions or concerns you might have with this proposed project or schedule.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. City staff proposes the use of State Aid funds to pay for the City of St. Louis
Park’s share of the project cost. However, as explained in this report, it is possible that project costs
(some or all) may not be eligible for MSA reimbursement. In the event the City of Edina should
actually undertake construction of this project without the use of State Aid funds, St. Louis Park will
need to find an alternate source to fund its share. City policy (Resolution No. 00-078) provides that
the source of funding for the City’s share for this type of project would come from general fund
revenues and special assessments to the abutting property owners.
BACKGROUND:
History:
This project was initially scheduled for construction as long ago as 2005 by the City of Edina, but
has been consistently delayed. The proposed project considers the reconstruction of approximately
6,500 feet of W. 44th Street from France Avenue to Brookside Avenue (see attached Figure 1). Of
this distance, 700 feet (roughly 10 per cent) is located within the City of St. Louis Park. More
specifically, W. 44th Street slices through a corner of the City of St. Louis Park between Glen Place
and just east of Wooddale Avenue. As a result, the administration and delivery of this project is
being driven by the City of Edina. W. 44th Street is designated as a Municipal State Aid street in
both cities.
Analysis:
Our records indicate the existing roadway consists of a two-lane unimproved (not previously
constructed to city standards with curb and gutter) urban section with no parking restrictions in the
residential areas. Sidewalk extends along the north side of the roadway with mature trees in the
boulevard areas on both sides of the roadway. Reconstruction (to include curb and gutter) would be
performed with the intent of minimizing impacts to the adjacent properties and trees by
reconstructing the roadway as close as possible to its existing width and alignment while still making
improvements to the roadway and utility infrastructures. Because the roadway is designated as a
Municipal State Aid street, State Aid funds are intended to be utilized by both cities to fund the
project. However, the existing width and parking accommodations do not meet the minimum
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Project Report - W. 44th Street Reconstruction - Project 2005-0500
widths for a State Aid Street, and it is expected that a variance from the State Aid office will
ultimately be needed. In the event the road cannot be designed and constructed to State Aid
standards and/or a variance from the standards cannot be attained, State Aid reimbursement of
project costs will not be possible. This is also discussed further in the Financial section of this report.
Proposed Schedule and Process:
The City of Edina has hired WSB and Associates, Inc. to prepare a preliminary design and feasibility
report for the project. A public process will also be initiated and led by the City of Edina; St. Louis
Park staff will participate in preliminary design efforts and the public process as appropriate. The
following is a draft project development schedule being suggested at this time:
Public Informational Meeting October 2010 (Date TBD)
(Additional Public Meetings will be scheduled as necessary.)
Draft Feasibility Report to Cities for Review November 2010
Submit State Aid Variance Request December 2010
Feasibility Report Accepted: City of Edina Schedules Public December 2010/January 2011
Hearing Date
City of Edina Approves Project and Commences January/February 2011
Preparation of Plans and Specifications: City of St. Louis
Park Approves Cooperative Agreement with City of Edina
Open Bids Spring 2011
Commence Construction Spring/Summer 2011
The administration and public processes for the project will be led by the City of Edina. However,
because of unique differences in administrative policies between the two cities (assessments, street
light policies, etc.), it is likely that additional and/or separate notifications and meetings for St. Louis
Park residents will be scheduled. This will be refined further after the public information meeting
(for all stakeholders) is conducted next month.
A letter of understanding between the two cities regarding project development and delivery is
currently being drafted. The letter will essentially define the project administration and
development processes and assign appropriate responsibilities and obligations as we move through
the preliminary design process. Assuming the project continues to move forward after the
completion of preliminary design, a formal Cooperative Agreement will be presented to the City
Council to authorize and provide for the construction of this project. This agreement will formally
assign project cost obligations, construction design and construction management responsibilities,
and other obligations of each City. It is expected that this agreement will be brought forth to the
City of St. Louis Park City Council sometime early in 2011.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: Project Report - W. 44th Street Reconstruction - Project 2005-0500
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City of St. Louis Park’s contribution or share of the cost has been considered in the Capital
Improvement Plan (C.I.P.) for several years. The City of St. Louis Park’s share is identified in the
C.I.P for 2011 as follows:
Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $80,000
Preliminary Engineering & Administration $10,000
Construction Engineering & Administration $10,000
Total: $100,000
Funding Sources
Municipal State Aid $100,000
Total: $100,000
As previously mentioned, Municipal State Aid is being planned to finance this project at this time.
However, if the roadway can not be reconstructed to meet State Aid standards and a design variance
is not granted by Mn/DOT, Municipal State Aid funds will not be available to fund our portion of
the project costs. If the City of Edina chooses to move forward with construction of the project
without the use of State Aid funds, the City of St. Louis Park will need to consider financing our
share of the project by special assessment or general fund revenues. The City of Edina also provides
residents the option of installing decorative street lights at their cost by special assessing the costs
back to adjacent property owners. Special assessments or general fund revenues may also have to be
used to fund our share of decorative lighting costs should they be included in the project.
Special Assessment Practice:
Various improvements (public and private) in the City of St. Louis Park are subject to special
assessment per Council Resolution No. 00-078 last updated July 5, 2000. The City Council
rationale for this is that project designs for the installation of various improvements differ with
respect to zoning districts and special characteristics of certain streets and thoroughfares; distinctions
can be made with respect to benefits realized by properties adjoining these improvements; finally, the
City Council desired to establish a policy for the guidance of staff and citizens which reflects the
influence a specific local improvement may have upon the increase in the market value of property as
a result of the improvement.
In particular, this resolution provides that paving and curb and gutter improvement costs, such as
being proposed herein, are to be assessed to the benefitting properties. In addition, driveway aprons
are to be assessed at 100% of their cost; sidewalks are to be assessed at 100 % of their cost; street
lightings, when installed by petition, is to be assessed at 100% of its cost. Any costs that cannot be
special assessed are to be financed by general obligation bonds or other appropriate funds of the City.
Assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older and for
whom it would be a hardship to make the payments shall be deferred subject to income conditions
upon submission of the appropriate application signed by the qualified person.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Subject: Project Report - W. 44th Street Reconstruction - Project 2005-0500
Summary:
In summary, the eligibility of State Aid funds and the desire for decorative street lights by residents
will not be known for at least a few more months. Depending on the final desired project design,
the City Council may need to consider special assessments in accordance with existing policies to
finance a part or all of our respective project costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: Proposed Project Location (Figure 1)
Prepared By: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 5
Subject: Project Report - W. 44th Street Reconstruction - Project 2005-0500
FIGURE 1
Meeting Date: September 27, 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:
Update on Freight Rail Studies.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. This report is being provided for information purposes. Please let staff know
of any questions or concerns that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this report is to update the City Council on Freight Rail studies currently underway.
BACKGROUND:
On July 6th of this year the City Council adopted two resolutions related to freight rail. One
succinctly stated the City’s policy regarding freight rail in the community and the other requested
Hennepin County reanalyze the potential routes for TCW freight traffic identified in 2009. They
were prepared in the context of the City’s support for and desire to see SWLRT move forward
Since that time several things have occurred. Among them are:
1. MNS Study -Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) and MNDOT, with the
City involved as a non-funding partner, have initiated the MNS Study. The purpose of the
study is to conduct analysis of relocating freight rail service onto the MNS line in St. Louis
Park from Kenilworth. The intent of the study is to prepare preliminary engineering
concepts for how this would be done, and identify potential environmental impacts and
mitigation measures. The process includes a project management team (PMT) consisting of
representatives from 15 neighborhoods along the rail lines in SLP, Safety in the Park, the
SLP School District, the Planning Commission, the railroads (TCW, CP and, BNSF),
MnDOT staff, city staff, and Hennepin County staff. The engineering/consulting firms of
Kimly Horn and AECOM have been hired to facilitate the PMT meetings and complete the
technical work of the study. The schedule entails roughly monthly meetings of the PMT
with completion targeted for late 2010, early 2011. Two PMT meetings have been held to
date. The next meeting will be a tour of the MNS line by the PMT members on October
2nd.
Progress to date has been slow due to the complexity of the topic and the challenges of
working with multiple railroads. In addition, concerns expressed by Safety in the Park and
other neighborhood representatives regarding the scope of the study are taking time to work
through.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Studies
A key focus to date has been identifying neighborhood and community concerns and putting
in place mechanisms for communicating with PMT members as well as the general public.
To that end a webpage has been established by the County to provide information about the
study, railroads and related topics. It also provides a means for anyone to contact the MNS
Study consultants, ask questions and make comments. In addition part of each PMT
meeting is an open forum when anyone, not just PMT members, may ask questions and
make comments. The Webpage is http://mnsrailstudy.com/.
2. RL Banks Study- The HCRRA has hired RL Banks & Associates to explore the most viable
means of accommodating both LRT and freight rail traffic in the Kenilworth Corridor. The
results of its analysis will be completed some time this fall. The results will be provided to the
City Council when it is completed.
3. Follow-up Study of the 2009 TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study- Mark Amfahr has
been hired by the HCRRA to do follow-up analysis of the six alternative routes for TCW
trains that were identified in the 2009 study. The study is being done in an effort to respond
to the City’s request that these alternative routes be reevaluated. This study is also expected
to be completed sometime this fall and then presented to the City.
As these studies move forward and more information is released, city staff will be re-engaging David
McKenzie with SEH, to help us evaluate the rail studies. It is important for us fully understand the
positive and negative impacts of each alternative on St. Louis Park itself.
The challenge for the City moving forward will be how to achieve its twin goals of minimizing
freight rail impacts in the community and supporting the successful implementation of SWLRT.
For LRT to proceed, a means of accommodating freight rail will need to be found, whether it is in
SLP or elsewhere.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The primary financial impact of the freight rail studies for the City is the significant staff time
necessary to participate in the process including working with residents, reviewing documents and
providing input. As we move forward some costs will be incurred for consultants to assist the city.
The exact amount is difficult to estimate at this time. Funding would come from the Development
Account.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
SWLRT, Freight Rail planning and station area planning are consistent with the City’s strategic
vision to be a connected and engaged community; as well as leaders in environmental stewardship.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: September 27, 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:
Update on Hoigaard Village Project TIF Notes and Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II
LLC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. This report is being provided for information purposes. Please let staff know
of any questions or concerns that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this report is to update the City Council/EDA on the status of the Hoigaard Village
project tax exempt TIF notes and the actions needed to move the project forward.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several months the Hoigaard Village developer (Union Land II LLC) and the
EDA/City have been focused on putting in place business arrangements for the permanent financing
for the project. At the September 7th EDA and City Council meetings EDA staff and consultants
were authorized to proceed with negotiating final business terms for the issuance of the Bonds. The
final terms for the tax-exempt tax increment notes (TIF Notes) are now nearly set and approval of
the issuance of the TIF Notes will be on the October 18th EDA agenda for action.
While project financing is about to be resolved, market conditions continue to hold back completion
of the Hoigaard Village project. The final two elements of Hoigaard Village, the Adagio Condo
building and the Medley Row townhomes were expected to break ground in October this year
(2010) and that schedule was memorialized in the 2009 Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment
Contract. This is clearly not going to happen and the Contract needs to be amended to reflect that
fact.
In addition to the resolutions issuing the tax-exempt TIF notes, staff is proposing that an
amendment to the Redevelopment Agreement with Union Land II LLC be on the EDA agenda
October 18th. The proposed amendment will extend the deadline for beginning construction of the
Adagio and Medley Row elements of Hoigaard Village for one year. The purpose of the one year
extension is to eliminate any technical default that could disrupt the permanent financing now ready
to move forward; and, to provide time for the City to work with the developer to decide how to
complete the undeveloped portions of the project. A study session discussion of completion of the
Hoigaard Village project will be scheduled for November. The developer will be in attendance and
options for how best to proceed and realistic schedules for completing the project will be the focus of
the discussion.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Update on Hoigaard Village TIF Notes and Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
The two largest components of the Hoigaard Village project, Harmony Vista (74 units and 25,000
SF of commercial space); and the 220 unit Camerata, as well as the project’s common elements
(contamination clean up, streets, utilities, regional pond, and site preparation) are all complete. The
yet to be completed portions of the project are the smaller elements, the 58-unit Adagio and the 22
row homes called Medley Row. Both the Harmony Vista and the Camerata buildings are now fully
leased.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The tax-exempt TIF notes will have a lower interest rate than the current taxable notes. This means
the EDA will pay down the principal and interest on the notes more quickly. The costs associated
with issuance of the notes are paid from the gross proceeds of the tax increment bonds. The tax-
exempt TIF notes that will be issued on 10/18/10 reimburse the developer for eligible expenses
related to the completed portions of the Hoigaard Village project. The EDA is not obligated to
reimburse the developer for eligible expenses related to the Adagio and Medley Row components of
Hoigaard Village until they are built; and, the amount of reimbursement is limited to the available
tax increment generated by the development. Until the Adagio and Medley Row project
components are constructed they will not be contributing to the tax increment available for
reimbursement of the developer’s TIF-eligible expenses. It should be noted that the developer
already has incurred the expenses for which it is eligible for reimbursement. The developer will have
to carry these costs until the development is completed. Thus, the developer has every incentive to
fully complete the project sooner rather than later.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hoigaard Village is consistent with the City’s vision to be a community of diverse, high quality
housing permeated with arts and cultural activities with many gathering places.
Attachments: Hoigaard Village Master Site Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
St. Louis Park, MN 09.13.2006
Hoigaard Village Masterplan
MEDLEY ROW
22 Multi-Level
Rowhomes
THE ADAGIO
58 Units
Condominium Building
HARMONY VISTA
74 Units over 25,000 SF Retail
Mixed Use Building
THE CAMERATA
220 Units
Apartment Buildings
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Update on Hoigaard Village TIF Notes and Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC Page 3
Meeting Date: September 27, 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:
Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 2nd & 3rd Quarter 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes the current status of redevelopment projects in St. Louis Park. Please
contact staff with any questions you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The attached report is meant to keep the EDA & City Council informed on a quarterly basis as to
the status of various redevelopment projects in the city to which the EDA &/or City is a party. It is
also meant to apprise city officials of any anticipated actions or issues relative to corresponding
redevelopment contracts.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 2nd & 3rd Quarter 2010
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development & Planning Assistant
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
2nd & 3rd Quarter 2010
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Wooddale Catered Living
(Greco Development)
115 senior assisted living rentals 3/31/2012 0% leased
10,000 SF retail space 3/31/2012 0% leased
Equity partner found, developer
awaiting final approval of HUD
financing.
Pending Contract Actions:
An updated Redevelopment Contract with Greco was approved June 7th. Redeveloper expects to
close on its financing within the next month and hopes to break ground around the end of November.
Ellipse on Excelsior
(Bader Development)
132 market rate apartments 3/1/2011 50% leased
16,394 SF mixed used bldg 3/1/2011 50% leased
Residential portion of building
completed. Commercial portions
being built out
Pending Contract Actions:
A Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract was approved September 7th allowing use of
the EDA’s property of 3924 Excelsior Blvd.
The West End
(Duke Realty)
350,000 SF retail/restaurant 6/1/2010 70% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
28,00 SF 2nd floor office space 6/1/2010 60% leased Scott Baker & Assoc has recently
located in the 2nd floor office space
130-140 unit hotel/ 120 unit apt. 12/31/2016 See note Duke negotiating on hotel pad site
1.1 million SF Class A office
space
6/1/2021
0% leased
Construction will likely occur in the
next few years once the office mkt
recovers and sufficient tenant
commitments are secured.
Pending Contract Actions: Redeveloper is preparing to submit prove-up costs to EDA for issuance of
the TIF note. An Amended and Restated Redevelopment Contract was approved 5/19/10. An
Assignment & Assumption Agreement was approved 9/20/10 allowing The Excelsior Group to
purchase a one-acre parcel from Duke and construct a 120 unit upscale apartment complex on the site.
Melrose Eating Disorders Institute
(Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital)
3-story 67,000 SF medical bldg 6/30/2009
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 2nd & 3rd Qtr. 2010 Page 2
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Lake St Office Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
4.000 SF medical office building 12/31/2009 75% leased Building completed, Twin Cities
Vein & Laser is the tenant.
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Highway 7 Corporate Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/tech bldg 12/31/2007 90% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
Pending Contract Actions:
None. The long term future of the Purple parking lot is currently subject to SWLRT planning and the
Gold parking lot is subject to Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue interchange planning.
Hoigaard Village
(Union Land II Dunbar Development )
“Harmony Vista” – 78 units,
25,000 SF retail 2/28/2008
100%
leased
70 % leased
Building completed, seeking tenants
“The Camerata” – 220 units 9/1/2008 98.2%
leased Building completed, seeking tenants
“The Adagio” – 56 units 12/31/2011 0% leased
“Melody Row” – 20 townhomes 12/31/2011 0% leased
Developer marketing site,
construction will commence once
condo market recovers.
Pending Contract Actions:
Final approval of Tax Exempt TIF Bonds scheduled for October 18th. Extensions to stages 2 & 3 will
require Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract which is also scheduled for October 18th.
Brookside Lofts
(Master Dev & Foundation Land)
27-unit loft condo building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
14-unit townhouse building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
5 single family houses 12/31/2006 5 sold Fifth and final house completed in
May
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Aquila Commons
(Stonebridge Dev)
106 unit senior housing
cooperative 12/31/2007 85% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring adherence to contract provisions especially purchaser income/net worth requirements.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 2nd & 3rd Qtr. 2010 Page 3
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Village In The Park
(Rottlund Homes)
78 Townhomes 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
66 loft-style condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
60 senior condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring sale of property at 36th St and Wooddale Ave to Greco Development. TIF Note was paid
off Feb. 1.
Edgewood Business Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/warehouse 12/4/2004 100%
leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Contamination Cleanup Grant close-out meeting with DEED scheduled for 9/23/10.
Wolfe Lake Professional Center
(Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc)
2-story, 54,742 SF office bldg 3/31/2004 92% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
1-story, 10,038 SF commercial
“West” bldg 5/31/2005 100 %
leased Building completed and full
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Commons East
Excelsior & Grand
(TOLD Development)
Phase I – 338 apts, 62,700 SF
retail space 7/1/2003 Building completed
Phase NE-124 Condos, 4,500
retail space 4/30/2006 Building completed
Phase E – 86 condos & 14,235
SF retail space 4/1/2006 Building completed
Phase NW – 96 condos, up to
5,000 SF retail space 6/1/2007
Apts 91%
occupied
Condos
98% sold
Retail 96%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Fern Hill
(Park Land Company)
30 condos & 11,200 SF
commercial space 12/1/2001 100% sold
& leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 2nd & 3rd Qtr. 2010 Page 4
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Mill City – LA Oaks
(MSP Real Estate)
200 mkt rate apartments 6/1/2002 99.5%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Zarthan & 16 Street
(CSM Hospitality & Rottlund Homes)
Marriott Springhill Ste-127 units 3/1/2002 Hotel Building completed
Marriot TownePlace Ste-107
units 8/1/2001 Hotel Building completed
86 owner occupied townhomes 1/1/2003 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Center
(Silver Crest Properties)
45 unit assisted living facility 6/1/2001 100%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Victoria Ponds
(SVK Development)
72 duplex townhomes 12/1/2002 100% sold Buildings completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
PNMC – Phase II
(Park Nicollet Health Services)
49,310 SF medical office 5/7/2001
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed
50,690 SF medical office 12/31/2006 Not built PN paid a financial settlement
45,000 SF medical office 12/31/2010
Pending Contract Actions:
Staff is working with Park Nicollet on a settlement to address Redeveloper’s obligations to contract
Phase II under the Redevelopment Contract. Such a settlement will require a Third Amendment to the
Contract which will soon be scheduled for discussion in study session.
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 2nd & 3rd Qtr. 2010 Page 5
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 2nd & 3rd Qtr. 2010 Page 6
Meeting Date: September 27, 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:
West End Apartments Parkland and Trail Dedication.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. This report is being provided for information purposes. Please let staff know
of any questions or concerns that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What is the appropriate Parkland and Trail dedication requirement for the West End Apartments?
BACKGROUND:
As part of the original West End project approvals and redevelopment agreement from 2008, the
parkland dedication fee for the project was set at $917,000, roughly a 50% reduction from the fee
due if the standard park dedication fee formula was applied to the project. Reducing the fee was
deemed appropriate given the quantity and quality of the public spaces, gathering places, and other
public amenities provided by the development. The fees were based on the development plan at that
time which included a hotel on the site that now will be developed by the Excelsior Group for the
West End Apartments.
The parkland dedication fee for an apartment use is higher than for a hotel. With the introduction
of an apartment building to the West End development, additional parkland and trail dedication
fees are owed. The question becomes how much more should the apartment project pay. To be
consistent, and in recognition of the very unique, high amenity environment that is the West End, it
is proposed that the City treat the West End Apartment development as it treated the overall West
End development. That would mean the City would collect an additional $80,500 in parkland and
trail fees for the West End Apartments project. This represents a 50% reduction from the standard
fee and credits the apartment site for the portion of Duke’s original parkland dedication fee
attributable to this site.
If this approach is acceptable to the City Council a resolution setting the fee will be on a future City
Council agenda for its consideration. The concept is also being discussed with the Parks and
Recreation Commission for their input.
Additional thoughts on the West End Apartments
The West End Apartments will exist in a very unique setting. The apartments are on a separate
parcel and under separate ownership; however they would not be possible as a true stand alone
project. It is intimately and completely interconnected to the rest of the West End and is best
understood as a piece of the larger environment in which it is located
Study Session Meeting of September 27, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: West End Apartments Parkland and Trail Dedication
The 35+ acre West End project is probably the most amenity rich and complete trail/sidewalk
environment in the city. The majority of that environment has been paid for and will be maintained
by the private developer. And yet, the connections and amenities provided at the West End are open
to the public and of great value to the broader community. The connections provided by the
extension of W16th Street through to the Hwy 100 underpass; and, the enhancements to Park Place
Blvd and the trail on the west side of Park Place Blvd are of particular note.
The unusual circumstance of a residential development within a commercial site resulted in a
requirement for much more DORA than the same project in a residential zoning district. A DORA
of roughly 5,600 square feet would be required if the site was zoned residential. In this case, roughly
15,000 SF of DORA is required because the site is zoned business. The West End apartments
provided 80% of DORA on site which meant mostly roof top gardens and terraces at great expense
because of the compact site. The rest of the DORA (20%) was met from off-site improvements in
the rest of the West End development.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed West End apartment project parkland and trail dedication fees will increase the City’s
funds for park projects in the community by $80,500.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The West End project and West End Apartments are consistent with the City’s vision, especially the
strategic directions concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks, housing diversity and
transportation.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager