HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/11/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 29 and December 13,
2010
2. 6:35 p.m. Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application - CKJ Properties, LLC
(Former Bikemasters Building)
3. 7:05p.m. Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
4. 7:35 p.m. 2011 Budget and Utility Rates
5. 8:35 p.m. 2010 City Manager Performance Evaluation
6. 8:50 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
8:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
7. October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
8. Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Project Update
9. Community Recreation Survey Update
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: November 22, 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 – November 29 and December 13, 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session-Joint City
Council/School Board Meeting on November 29 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on
December 13, 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-Joint City Council/School Board Meeting scheduled for
November 29 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on December 13, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for November 29 and December 13, 2010
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Special Study Session – Joint City Council/School Board, Monday, November 29, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Joint Meeting/Learning Session – City Council & School Board
Administrative Services/Community Development (180 minutes)
Meeting to apprise the Council and School Board on the freight rail matter and allow the
two parties to have a productive conversation around this issue such that when
community input is invited, both parties will be prepared to receive it.
End of Meeting: 9:30 p.m.
Study Session, Monday, December 13, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Freight Rail – Community Development (60 minutes)
Review and discussion of the freight rail studies presented at the Joint City
Council/School Board Meeting on November 29, 2010.
3. 2011 Budget – Admin Services (30 minutes)
Undertake final discussion on the 2011 Budget prior to the adoption of the levy on
December 20, 2010.
4. Communications/Meeting Check-in – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study
session agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
Hardcoat TIF Plan
End of Meeting: 8:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: November 22, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application - CKJ Properties, LLC (Former Bikemasters
Building).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff wishes to receive feedback from the City Council on CKJ Properties’ CAP application for
assistance from the City’s CAP program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council/EDA wish to provide up to $70,000 in financial assistance through the
EDA’s newly-created Construction Assistance Program (CAP) to assist in the renovation of the
former Bikemasters building?
BACKGROUND:
The former Bikemasters building located at 3540 Dakota Ave. South was constructed in the
1950’s. The two story building is approximately 18,000 SF and sits on about half an acre.
Through the years it has had multiple owners and tenants. The building has been home to an
overhead garage door company, NordicWare outlet, Bennett Cycle and most recently
Bikemasters. There also have been many smaller tenants in the upstairs offices. In recent years
the building has been neglected and fallen into disrepair. The building went into foreclosure this
year. As a result, the building has sustained damage due to lack of maintenance and vandalism
(see attached photos). In September it was purchased by CKJ Properties, LLC with the intent of
renovating the property and re-leasing it. To date, there are no signed tenants but plenty of
interest. For example, one of the sales managers of the former Bikemasters recently expressed
that he would like to lease two-thirds of the building for a new bike shop. Currently, he is
preparing a business plan, gathering investors and is in hopes of opening the shop in March,
2011. The remaining space would be leased to complementary office tenants.
The Applicant
CKJ Properties Inc. is a single member LLC created by St. Louis Park-resident, Curt Rahman. In the
last ten years Mr. Rahman has purchased, renovated and rented several buildings in the city. In 2000
he acquired 6418/6420 West Lake Street and made extensive repairs to the property. The building has
been completely leased for ten years. Current tenants include: Alota Pilates, Sara Mattson Skin Care,
Thai Healing Therapy, Carolyn's Floral, and Non-toxique.
In 2008 Mr. Rahman purchased 3333 Republic, made numerous upgrades and leased it to PDA.
In 2009 Mr. Rahman acquired the old Palm's Bakery building. Due to age and neglect,
renovating the building proved to be a considerable challenge. The building is currently rented to
"Munchies".
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No.2) Page 2
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application - CKJ Properties, LLC
The Proposed Project
CKJ Properties plans to make necessary repairs and renovate the former Bikemasters building.
To date, the building has been emptied, and some repairs have been made but many code
deficiencies remain to be addressed. Renovation will include new windows and doors, new
bathrooms, new flooring and carpeting, new ceilings, new electrical and plumbing systems, new
energy efficient HVAC equipment, new dock doors as well as interior and exterior painting and
dumpster screening.
Current/Estimated Market Value
The subject property’s current assessed value is $725,000 (due to a tax court petition reflecting
the building’s deteriorated condition). Upon renovation, tenancy and market conditions the
building could be assessed for $1.2 to $1.3 million by 2012.
Job Creation
The proposed repair and renovation work would result in several temporary construction jobs.
The Sales Manager of the former Bikemasters business indicated they had 20 full time and 20
part time employees and thought the prospective bike shop would be similarly staffed.
Additional employment opportunities would result from future office tenants.
Project Schedule
CKJ Properties Inc. is anxious to begin the proposed work as soon as possible and have it all
completed by spring 2011.
Land Use
The subject property is guided and zoned C2 – General Commercial. The renovated building
would be suitable for a variety of retail, service and office uses. It is located in the Walker/Lake
commercial area, a “Priority Redevelopment Area” as listed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Renovating a highly visible building along Highway 7 also conforms with the long term goal of
enhancing the aesthetic image of that corridor. Based on the recent Commercial Corridor Study
by McComb Group adding another potential “destination retail” business such as the bike shop
would be consistent with the commercial mix in this vicinity. While the Bikemaster building is
clearly in need of renovation, the building itself and the block on which it sits is generally in
stable condition. Renovation of this block is probably a more appropriate approach than
redevelopment. The proposed investment in the Bikemaster building could potentially serve as a
catalyst for similar renovations in the neighborhood. Having said that, renovating the subject
building, given it’s location at the very edge of the Lake & Walker area, would not preclude
larger scale redevelopment from occurring within the area.
Request for Financial Assistance
The total estimated cost to renovate the building is approximately $210,000. Of this amount,
CKJ Properties has applied for up to $70,000 in Construction Assistance. This amount equals
33% of total estimated project costs; the maximum amount for which businesses may apply
under the CAP Policy.
Mr. Rahman plans to apply the proposed CAP funds toward the replacement of the inefficient,
20-year-old HVAC systems. Without CAP assistance, none of the HVAC system will be
replaced as Mr. Rahman has no more than $150,000 remaining at his disposal through a credit
line and those funds are being applied toward other necessary repairs and renovations to the
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No.2) Page 3
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application - CKJ Properties, LLC
building. Mr. Rahman cannot obtain another loan on the building as it is prohibited under the
contract for deed on the property.
Proforma Analysis
As expressed in the Policy, the CAP is based upon demonstrated need. A business or
building owner must provide the EDA with written evidence that the requested assistance is
warranted and necessary and without such assistance the project would be unable to
proceed. Based on its review of the proposed renovations staff believes CKJ Properties’ cost
assumptions are reasonable and appropriate. Furthermore it is clear that CKJ Properties is
unable to undertake all the proposed work without the EDA’s financial assistance.
Structure of CAP Funds
Should the EDA wish to financially assist the proposed project, funds would be provided to CKJ
Properties on a reimbursement basis upon prove-up that qualified construction costs were
incurred. The reimbursement would be structured as a forgivable loan. Provided the building is
held and properly maintained by CKJ Properties for 5 years after project completion, the
entirety of the loan would be forgiven. If the property is sold within 5 years of project
completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full along with 6% accrued interest
from the date funding was provided.
Proposed Funding Source
The source of the CAP funds is tax increment generated by nine of the City’s TIF districts which
would be disbursed from the Development Fund.
Compliance with the Construction Assistance Program Policy
The goal of the Construction Assistance Program is to improve the city’s
commercial/industrial building stock by constructing new structures or rehabilitating
existing ones so as to attract and retain jobs as well as stimulate additional private
investment in the city. The resulting new investment should result in a higher market value
for the underlying property consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project
should also have the potential to serve as a catalyst for additional neighborhood investment.
The repair and substantial renovation of the former Bikemasters building as proposed by
CKJ Properties meets all of the objectives for funding as expressed in the CAP Policy.
Compliance with Green Building Policy
Since CKJ Properties’ request for financial assistance is less than $200,000 it is exempt from the
City’s recently-adopted Green Building Policy. The proposed financial assistance would
however be applied toward the cost of purchasing energy efficient HVAC equipment for the
building.
Summary
The proposed repair and renovation of the former Bikemasters building clearly has numerous benefits
for both the surrounding neighborhood and the city. The proposed project would enhance the esthetic
appearance of the building from Highway 7 and the adjoining commercial neighborhood. In addition
it would lead to an increase in the market value of the property resulting in a greater property tax yield.
Most importantly, the building should once again attract tenants who in turn would provide
employment opportunities.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No.2) Page 4
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application - CKJ Properties, LLC
Next Steps
If the EDA is supportive of CKJ Properties’ application for CAP assistance, staff would begin drafting
a proposed Redevelopment Contract with the applicant. Such a contract would be brought back to the
EDA for its review and subsequent formal consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing CKJ Properties Inc with up to $70,000 under the Construction Assistance Program to
repair and renovate the former Bikemasters property. Such funds would be provided as a
forgivable loan from tax increment generated by the City’s various TIF districts.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Renovating existing buildings through the Construction Assistance Program is consistent with
elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and
green development.
Attachments: Property Photos
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
1
Bikemaster Building
3540 Dakota Ave S.
Exterior Photos
Exterior View from frontage rd South parking lot view
South parking lot Exterior 15 ft garage doors 2nd 15 ft garage door
Vandalized glass door Rear door‐ non functional Rear neglected overgrowth
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application - CKJ Properties, LLC
Page 5
2
Bikemaster Building
3540 Dakota Ave S
Interior Mold due to Leaking Windows
Interior water damage and debris Leaking into header from 2nd floor Mold
Mold and rot Header rusted out Mold and rust
Mold on front windows After mold has been removed After mold and rot removed
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application - CKJ Properties, LLC
Page 6
3
Bikemaster Building
3540 Dakota Ave S
Rotten Windows and Broken Glass
Broken glass center door front Broken glass vandalism Rotted 2nd floor windows
Interior of rotted 2nd floor windows Vandalism ‐ main front door Vandalism ‐ other front door
Cause of lower level water damage Broken plate glass Rotten single pane windows
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application - CKJ Properties, LLC
Page 7
4
Bikemaster Building
3540 Dakota Ave S
HVAC needing replacement
20 year old AC unit Fans missing‐ non functional These are now stolen
20 year old Byrant 20 year old Lenox 20 year old Lenox
2nd 20 year old Bryant‐ non functional Floor damage from AC leak Rusted pan of Bryant AC unit
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application - CKJ Properties, LLC
Page 8
Meeting Date: November 22, 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:
Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests feedback and direction from the City Council on the proposed design guidelines.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is the Council comfortable with the Eliot School Site Design Guidelines as developed?
• Is it appropriate to incorporate the guidelines into the neighborhood section of the
Comprehensive Plan?
BACKGROUND:
In February 2010, the St. Louis Park School Board decided to close Eliot Community Center,
with the intent of selling the property for redevelopment. The City and School Board agreed to
conduct a neighborhood process to create a set of Design Guidelines to set the stage for
redeveloping the site. The intent was that Eliot’s future use and development would be
compatible with the City’s goals, School District’s goals, and neighborhood concerns and desires.
The draft Design Guidelines are attached for review and they are available on the city’s website
as well. The guidelines will also be presented to the School Board at a meeting on December 13,
2010.
PROCESS TO DEVELOP DESIGN GUIDELINES:
A neighborhood meeting was held in May, 2010 to introduce the process. Several neighbors
volunteered to be a part of a task force to develop the guidelines. All residents who expressed
interest in participating were invited to become Task Force members. The Task Force was
established with 20 members, including 15 residents, the Ward 4 City Council member, a
Planning Commissioner, a Parks & Recreation Commissioner, and two School District
representatives. Hoisington-Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) was retained to facilitate the process and
develop the draft guidelines.
The Task Force met three times from June to August 2010, and agreed on the attached draft
guidelines. The group represented a variety of perspectives and the meetings included lively
discussion and good ideas. Members were respectful of different goals of the individuals and
groups involved. Common principles were drawn out of the discussions.
The process for developing the guidelines included:
• Analyzing the existing site, including the property, building and neighborhood
context
• Establishing task force and identifying site reuse goals
• Creating a set of principles for redevelopment
• Developing alternative reuse concepts to help identify site reuse principles
• Crafting a draft set of site and building design guidelines
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
An overall neighborhood meeting was held on October 14, 2010, with all neighbors in the Eliot
and Eliot View neighborhoods being notified with a direct mailing to their homes.
Approximately 24 neighbors, including 10 Task Force members attended. Written comments
from the meeting are attached.
SITE REUSE PRINCIPLES:
The Design Guidelines include a set of Site Reuse Principles along with more specific Site and
Building Design Guidelines (See attached draft Guidelines).
The Site Reuse Principles address the following areas:
1. Mix of Medium Density Residential
Land Uses
2. Transition Building Heights across
the Site from South to North
3. Complement Existing Development
Scale and Character
4. Neighborhood Open Space
5. Community Landmark and
Neighborhood Gateway
6. Neighborhood Connectivity
7. Redevelopment Feasibility
8. Owner-Occupied Housing
9. School Building Reuse
10. Interim Property Maintenance
FUTURE PROCESS:
Staff and the consultant are meeting with the School Board on December 13th. Following the
meeting and any additional edits to the guidelines, it is recommended the City Council formally
accept the guidelines and add a reference and summary in the Eliot neighborhood section of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is expected the School District will begin marketing the site for sale
after the guidelines are accepted.
It is the intent that the guidelines would be used by the City and School District in working with
potential developers to redevelop the property. Any development proposal would likely result in
the need for a Comprehensive Plan land use map change from “Civic” to “Medium Density
Residential,” as well as a change to the zoning on the property to meet the medium residential
land use designation. These applications would be a part of the development review and
approval process.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Development of the Eliot School Site Design Guidelines is intended to lay out expectations for
redevelopment prior to the marketing of the site for redevelopment. This process and the
guidelines will provide a much smoother and more efficient development process for everyone
involved - the School District, the neighbors, the City and the developer. This will save time on
the development review and redevelopment process, and return the property to an active and
productive use in a shorter amount of time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Draft Eliot School Site Design Guidelines
Neighborhood Meeting Comments - October 14, 2010
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Eliot Community Center
Site Reuse Study
Design Guidelines
September 29, 2010DRAFT
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 3
Page ii Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements iii
Section 1: Introduction 1
Section 2: Existing Site Conditions 5
Section 3: Site Reuse Principles 7
Section 4: Site Design Guidelines 9
Section 5: Building Design Guidelines 13
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 4
Page iiiEliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Acknowledgements
Eliot Site Reuse Study Task Force
Neighborhood Representatives
Todd Evangelist
Judy Hammer
Kim Justesen
Joyce Keshiol
Sherie Lockhart
Elaine Mense
Linda & Doug Mosier
Laura Nolan
Kelly & Matt Ruby
Barb & Mark Saba
Chuck Sewall
Carol Stewart
City Representatives
Julia Ross – City Council, Ward 4
Carl Robertson – Planning Commission
Christina Barberot – Parks and Recreation Commission
School District Representatives
Larry Shapiro – School Board Member
Sandy Salin – Director of Business Services
City Staff
Meg McMonigal – Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Marney Olson – Community Liaison
Adam Fulton - Planner
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi)
Greg Ingraham
Jeff Miller
Brad Scheib
Anna Claussen
Ana Nelson
Gabrielle Grinde
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 5
Idaho AvenueHampshire AvenueCedar Lake RoadStudy Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 6
Page 1DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
1. Introduction
Purpose & Use of Design Guidelines
The purpose of these design guidelines is to provide clearer and proactive guidance for the future reuse and
redevelopment of the Eliot School/Community Center site. In February 2010, the St. Louis Park School District
decided to close the Eliot Community Center facility and prepare to put the property up for sale. Through
discussions between the City and the School District, the City determined that more specific community
input was needed for this site to ensure that its future use and development would be compatible with the
City’s goals, School District’s goals, and the neighborhood’s concerns and desires.
These design guidelines are intended to be a tool for the community, the Planning Commission, and the
City Council to assist in planning, designing, and evaluating future development proposals for this site.
While good design cannot be explicitly regulated, it should not be left to chance either. Design guidelines
are a proactive tool for communicating the community’s vision for reuse of this site in ways that meet the
community’s goals and are sensitive to the site’s existing context. The design guidelines provide direction
while leaving room for individual expression and flexibility that is needed as part of the redevelopment
process and for creating a varied and dynamic built environment.
These site reuse guidelines consist of site reuse principles, site design guidelines, and building design
guidelines. The site reuse principles embody the community’s general desires and intentions for future
reuses of this site. The principles provide the big picture view and a means for guiding and evaluating future
efforts to reuse this site. The more detailed design guidelines address two levels – site and building. The
design guidelines are intended to support, enable and encourage attainment of the site reuse principles. The
site design guidelines address the following site level considerations:
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 7
Page 2 DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Land use and development density »
Open space »
Setbacks »
Vehicular access and circulation »
Parking »
Traffic »
Pedestrian circulation »
Stormwater »
Landscaping and buffering »
Regulatory process »
The building design guidelines address the following building level considerations:
Massing and placement »
Height »
Frontage and articulation »
The City’s zoning code regulations and land use guidance have legal standing related to future redevelopment
on the site. Planned unit development (PUD) applications that are consistent with these design guidelines
and are approved by the City Council will form the basis for formal agreements with a successful developer
in the future. The zoning code takes precedence in cases where minimum requirements are not stated in this
document but are otherwise defined in the zoning code.
Neighbors, prospective developers, and other interested parties should consult these guidelines and consider
them as additional criteria reviewed on and commented on by neighborhood and City representatives in the
course of an open, iterative public process. The guidelines are not, however, legally mandated requirements
that must be met in order to obtain project approvals. They depict preferred conditions and represent the
best case conditions for redevelopment. As such they are the foundation of dialogue with development
interests and will influence development on the affected parcels.
Planning Process
The Eliot School/Community Center Site Reuse Study was initiated in May 2010 as a collaborative
planning effort between the City and the School District. City and School District staff worked together
on the project. The City also contracted with a consultant team, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi),
to lead the reuse study and facilitate a community and stakeholder input process that would guide the
study’s recommendations. The site reuse study included site analysis, a community involvement process,
exploration of site reuse concepts, and the creation of site reuse design guidelines. The reuse study occurred
from May to October 2010.
The community involvement process involved establishing a site reuse study task force, conducting task
force meetings, and facilitating two (2) community meetings. The site reuse study task force was established
with 20 members, including 15 residents, the Ward 4 City Council member, a Planning Commissioner, a
Parks & Recreation Commissioner, and two School District representatives. All residents that expressed their
interest in participating on the task force were invited to become task force members. The task force met
three times from June to August 2010.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 8
Page 3DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Working with the task force, the reuse study planning process consisted of the following steps:
Analyze existing site, including the property, building and neighborhood context1.
Conduct Neighborhood Meeting #1 2.
Establish task force and identify site reuse goals - Task Force Meeting #1 3.
Develop alternative reuse concepts to help identify site reuse principles - Task Force Meeting #24.
Develop draft set of site and building design guidelines – Task Force Meeting #35.
Conduct Neighborhood Meeting #26.
Review and adopt Eliot School/Community Center Site Design Guidelines7.
Two neighborhood meetings were held during the planning process – one at the beginning and one at
the end of the process. The first meeting was held on May 18, 2010 at the Eliot Community Center with
approximately 32 attendees. The purpose of this meeting was to provide an overview of the project, gather
residents’ ideas, concerns, and preferences regarding the future reuse of the site, and solicit participants
for the site reuse study task force. The second neighborhood meeting was held on October 14, 2010. The
purpose of this meeting was to present the draft site design guidelines to the neighborhood and gain
feedback prior to finalizing the guidelines for adoption by the City Council and School Board.
City’s Existing Policy Framework
The City’s existing policy framework includes Vision St. Louis Park, Livable Community Principles, land use
goals, housing goals, and economic development/redevelopment goals, all part of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, which was updated and adopted in 2009. Each of the land use, housing, and economic development/
redevelopment goals is supported by a set of strategies, which are not listed below.
Vision St. Louis Park
The City Council adopted four major strategic directions to focus as the community’s vision:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. »
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental »
consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. »
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City »
initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
St. Louis Park’s Livable Community Principles
Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods1.
Life-cycle housing choices2.
Higher density, mixed-use development3.
Human scale development4.
Transit-oriented development5.
Multi-modal streets and pathways6.
Preserved and enhanced natural environment7.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 9
Page 4 DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Attractive and convenient public gathering places8.
Public art, heritage and culture9.
Unique community and neighborhood identity10.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goals (most relevant)
Promote building and site design that is oriented toward creating an integrated, human scale, multi-modal »
transportation environment
Create a mix of residential land uses and housing types to increase neighborhood housing choices and the »
viability of greater neighborhood services through redevelopment or infill development
Preserve and enhance the livability and unique character of each neighborhood’s residential areas »
Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals (most relevant)
Explore traditional and non-traditional owner-occupied housing options »
Expand the mix of housing types »
Promote higher density housing near transit corridors »
Encourage more large homes for families »
Promote and facilitate more housing options for seniors »
Comprehensive Plan Economic Development & Redevelopment Goals (most
relevant)
Encourage redevelopment projects that fulfill the City’s Vision and meet other community goals »
Also, the City has established 17 Redevelopment Assistance Objectives for redevelopment projects »
Land Use Plan
The City’s land use plan map currently guides this property for Civic land uses.
Zoning Code
The City’s current zoning map designates this property as R-2 (Single Family Residence District).
2. Existing Site Conditions
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 10
Page 5DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Site’s Location within the Community
The Eliot School/Community Center site is located on the north side of Cedar Lake Road, between
Hampshire and Idaho Aves, in the Eliot neighborhood. The Eliot View neighborhood is located on the south
side of Cedar Lake Road. The site is located approximately ¼ mile east of the Louisiana Ave/Cedar Lake Road
intersection and approximately ½ mile south of I-394.
Existing Site Conditions
The site is approximately 4.3 acres and developed with a 74,000
sq. ft. school building that is two and three stories in height. The
rest of the site consists of surface parking areas and open space,
including kids’ play area, basketball court, and open field. The
triangle open space area in front of the school and along Cedar
Lake Road contains a passive green space with mature trees
and loop driveway for bus drop off purposes. Existing vehicular
access to the site is via the loop driveway (Cedar Lake Road and
Hampshire Ave) and three accesses on Idaho Avenue oriented to
the surface parking areas.
The original portion of the school building was built in 1926, with
the majority of it (85%) built in 1952. The building has not been
used by the School District as a traditional public school since
1971. Most recently, nearly all of the building was by five private
educational/academic users.Cedar Lake Road22nd Street
Eliot
Community
Center Site
Franklin Avenue Trail
Idaho AvenueHampshire Avenue2. Existing Site Conditions
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 11
Page 6 DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Neighborhood Context
Surrounding land uses
Directly surrounding the site is primarily single family detached residences with a church located across Cedar
Lake Road. Medium density residential, neighborhood commercial, park/open space, and the Edgewood
Industrial Park are also located near the site.
Transportation access
The site is located on Cedar Lake Road which is a minor arterial street under the City’s jurisdiction. Hampshire Ave
and Idaho Ave are local streets.
Cedar Lake Road has two bus routes running on it and Louisiana Avenue has three bus routes.
Sidewalks exist along Cedar Lake Road, Hampshire Ave,
and Idaho Ave. Cedar Lake Road has designated bike
lanes. The Franklin Ave trail is located just to the north
of the site, which connects from Hampshire Ave west to
Louisiana Ave Access to the North Cedar Lake Regional
Trail is approx. 1/2 mile away at Louisiana Ave. To the
east, a future bikeway is planned for Edgewood Ave with
a new bike/walk bridge connection to the North Cedar
Lake Regional Trail
Neighborhood parks
Three existing parks are located within ¼ mile of the site
– Jersey Park, Hampshire Park/Otten Pond, and Northside
Rotary Park.
Neighborhood retail & services
The site is located within convenient walking distance (¼
mile) from the neighborhood commercial node at Cedar
Lake Road & Louisiana Ave and approximately one mile
from the regional commercial center at Cedar Lake Road &
Park Place Boulevard (which includes the new West End
retail and entertainment area).
Westwood Hills Westwood Hills
Nature CenterNature Center
Louisiana OaksLouisiana Oaks
Aquila ParkAquila Park
Dakota Dakota
ParkPark
Nelson Nelson
ParkPark
Otten PondOtten Pond
Oak Hill ParkOak Hill Park
Texa-Tonka Park/Texa-Tonka Park/
Lake VictoriaLake Victoria
Lamplighter Lamplighter
ParkPark
Northside Northside
Rotary Rotary
ParkPark
Ainsworth Ainsworth
ParkPark
Cedar Knoll/Cedar Knoll/
Carlson FieldCarlson Field
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
ParkPark
Birchwood Birchwood
ParkPark
Jersey ParkJersey Park
Carpenter Park/Carpenter Park/
Skippy FieldSkippy Field
Bronx ParkBronx Park
Keystone Keystone
ParkPark
Willow ParkWillow Park
Hampshire Hampshire
ParkPark
LILAC PARKLILAC PARK
Oregon Oregon
ParkPark
Sunset Sunset
ParkPark
Roxbury Roxbury
ParkPark
Webster ParkWebster Park
Freedom Park Freedom Park
(Paul Frank)(Paul Frank)
Elie Park/Elie Park/
Tower ParkTower Park
Blackstone Blackstone
ParkPark
Rainbow Rainbow
ParkPark
Sunshine ParkSunshine Park
Parkview Parkview
ParkPark
MINNETONKA
34TH
27THTEXAS
GEORGIAFLORIDAJERSEYKENTUCKY1STLI
B
R
A
R
Y ALABAMA2NDAQUILA31ST
GORHAM16TH
25 1/223RD UTICA26TH
32ND
ZINRANMARYLANDVIRGINIA
24TH IDAHONEVADAWEBSTERXENWOOD29TH
EB I394 TO SB HWY100 S
18THFRANKLIN
25TH
BOONE14TH
HAMILTON
30 1/2 QU
E
B
E
C ELIOT VI
E
W
34 1/2XYLONUTAHYUKON RALEIGHBURDGAMBLE
SUMTERLOUISIANAWESTWOOD HILLSBR
O
W
N
L
O
W QUENTIN13TH
VICTORIA
32 1/2 RIDGE33RD
13 1/2
EDGEWOODOREGONHAMPSHIREWESTSIDE PARKWOODSBLACKSTONEO
A
K
L
E
A
FWYOMING PARKDALE
TOLEDO AVE S TO NB HWY100 SGL
E
N
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
T
O
S
B
H
W
Y
1
0
0
S
TEXA TONKA
OAK PARK VILLAGEWISCONSINOREGONBOONE 32ND ALABAMAWYOMING28TH
WALKERDAKOTA18TH
ZARTHANRHODE ISLANDCOLORADO34THQUEBEC31ST YOSEMITEWESTWOOD HILLSDAKOTARHODE IS
L
A
N
D
WAYZATA
26TH
VIRGINIAPENNSYLVANIAPRINCETONPARK PLACEOREGON33RD SALEM31ST
29TH GEORGIABLACKSTONE23RD
16TH
PRIVATE DAKOTAWEBSTER26TH
BRUNSWICKBLACKSTONEYOSEMITEWAYZATA
RHODE ISLANDZARTHAN14TH
MARYLANDFRANKLIN
HAMPSHIRE34THAQUILA IDAHO31ST
33RD
33RD
LOUISIANA
NEVADASUMTER14TH
26TH
EDGEWOOD32ND
UTAHBRUNSWICKQUEBEC18TH
SUMTERJERSEY32ND
IDAHOTOLEDOUT
A
H
AQUILA23RD
YUKONUTICA33RD VERNON31ST
22ND
ID
A
H
ONEVADA 29TH
TEXASEDGEWOOD16TH
18THPENNSYLVANIA24TH
XENWOODXYLONRHODE ISLANDCOLORADOSUMTER16TH
QUEBECFRANKLIN BLACKSTONEOREGONQUENTINUTAHVIRGINIAFLORIDA32ND
26TH
XYLON18TH
13TH
LAKEVIRGINIASALEM33RD DAKOTA28THPENNSYLVANIA
G
E
O
R
G
I
A ALABAMAVIRGINIAHAMPSHIRETOLEDO23RD
27TH
BRUNSWICKVIRGINIAZINRANPENNSYLVANIAKENTUCKY28TH
22ND
XYLONSALEMQUEBEC16TH
25TH
25 1/2
28TH
EDGEWOOD31ST
27TH
QUEBEC
YOSEMITEZARTHANVIRGINIAFLORIDA22ND
AQUILA16TH
29TH
BRUNSWICKRALEIGHWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
MINNETONKA BLVDTEXAS AVE SLOUISIANA AVE SDAKOTA AVE SXENIA AVE SWINNETKA AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
CEDAR LAKE
R
D
S SB HWY100
S
TO
EB
I394EB HWY55 TO SB HWY100TOLEDO AVE S TO NB HWY100 SPARKDALE
D
RSB HWY
1
0
0
TO
G
LENWOOD
AVETEXAS AVE S28TH ST W
Junior High SchoolJunior High School
Benilde St. MargaretsBenilde St. Margarets
St. Louis Park High SchoolSt. Louis Park High School
Texa-Tonka MallTexa-Tonka Mall
Aquila Primary CenterAquila Primary Center
Groves Learning CenterGroves Learning Center
Beth El SynagogueBeth El Synagogue
Peter Hobart Peter Hobart
Primary CenterPrimary Center
Police StationPolice Station
Westwood Lutheran ChurchWestwood Lutheran Church
City HallCity Hall
Eliot Eliot
Community Community
CenterCenter
Lenox Senior CenterLenox Senior Center
St. George's EpiscopalSt. George's Episcopal
Evangelical Free ChurchEvangelical Free Church
Park Assembly of God ChurchPark Assembly of God Church
Hennepin County Library - SLPHennepin County Library - SLP
Benilde St. Margaret's Junior*Benilde St. Margaret's Junior*
Church of the Holy FamilyChurch of the Holy Family
Holy Family SchoolHoly Family School
Fire Fire
Station 2Station 2
Peace Presbyterian ChurchPeace Presbyterian Church
USPS - USPS -
SLP NorthSLP North
Nelson Nelson
Park Park
BuildingBuilding
1st Lutheran Church1st Lutheran Church
Luthern Church of the Reforma*Luthern Church of the Reforma*
Westwood Nature CenterWestwood Nature Center
SLP Brick HouseSLP Brick House
O t t e n P o n d
394
Text
Legend
City Parks
Community Destinations
Neighborhood Commercial Node
CP Rail Line
Existing Sidewalks
Existing Trails
Future Trails
Future Sidewalks
Future Bikeways
Commercial Corridor
0.1 0 0.10.05 Miles
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 12
Page 7DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
1. Mix of Medium Density Residential Land Uses
Future land uses should be a mix of at least two medium density residential uses that contribute to the
community’s long-term goal of being a livable community with a variety of lifecycle housing options and
leverage the site’s location and proximity to transit, parks, trails, bike routes, and commercial areas
2. Transition Building Heights across the Site from South to North
Concentrate taller and higher density buildings on southern half of site toward Cedar Lake Road and locate
lower buildings on the northern half of the site
3. Complement Existing Development Scale and Character
Building form, scale, placement and massing should be sensitive to the scale and character of the
surrounding homes
4. Neighborhood Open Space
Reuse of the site should incorporate open space that is located along a public street, visible to the public,
and ideally allows public access
5. Community Landmark and Neighborhood Gateway
Reflect the site’s role as a long-time community landmark and Eliot neighborhood gateway on Cedar Lake
Road by preserving the mature trees and enhancing triangular open space area fronting on Cedar Lake
Road
6. Neighborhood Connectivity
Support neighborhood connectivity by incorporating an east-west pedestrian connection through the site
7. Redevelopment Feasibility
Reuses of the site should achieve a reasonable financial return for the School District balanced with the
appropriate fit with the City’s goals and these reuse principles
3. Site Reuse Principles
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 13
Page 8 DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
8. Owner-Occupied Housing
Owner occupied housing is preferred, however, assisted living services could be an accessory use to an
owner-occupied senior housing development
9. School Building Reuse
There is neither strong community preference nor opposition to reusing the existing school building;
however, future developers are encouraged to evaluate the condition of the building to determine the
possibilities of reuse for residential units
10. Interim Property Maintenance
It is important for the property owner to keep the site and building properly maintained and in safe condition
prior to and during redevelopment construction
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 14
Page 9DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
A. Land use and development density
Reuse of the site should be guided for Medium Density Residential development allowing a net residential
density from six (6) to 30 dwelling units per acre or between 26 and 129 dwelling units on the Eliot School
property.
Residential development should include a minimum of two types of residential land uses that expand the
variety of lifecycle housing options in the neighborhood. Potential housing types are single family detached,
attached townhome, and multi-family buildings.
Redevelopment of the site is envisioned as a single complementary development consisting of two housing
areas. The southern area is to be higher density than the northern area of the site reflecting its location on
Cedar Lake Road, which is an arterial and transit street, and the scale and massing of the existing Eliot
Community Center building. The northern area is envisioned as lower density than the southern area
reflecting the local street frontages and surrounding single family residences.
Taller buildings should be located in the southern area and transition down to lower buildings in the
northern area.
Civic or institutional buildings, such as a community center, place of worship, senior activity center, or
educational facility, would also be appropriate in the southern area of the site.
Use of the small remnant piece of the Eliot School property located east of Hampshire Avenue should be
determined in conjunction with redevelopment of the overall site. The remnant land currently contains a
small parking lot. Potential uses include, but are not limited to, guest parking for the future redevelopment,
parking for the church located south of Cedar Lake Road, or sale to the adjoining residential property owner
to the east.
B. Open space
The triangular green space along Cedar Lake Road should be preserved and enhanced to reflect the site’s
history as a community landmark and gateway to the Eliot neighborhood. Regardless of whether or not the
existing school building is reused, this green space should continue to be a landmark that remains generally
as open space. This open space should not be used for parking.
It is encouraged that some open space on the site be oriented to the street, rather than enclosed between
the buildings, to enhance the visual character of the site’s redevelopment from adjacent homes and the
street. The development will need to meet the City’s zoning code requirements for Designed Outdoor
Recreation Area as well.
Although public open space is not planned for this sites, recreational open space is encouraged on the site
since this school site has historically had open space that was accessible to the neighborhood. Open space
on the site should be privately owned and operated. Public access to the open space, as appropriate, is
encouraged.
4. Site Design Guidelines
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 15
Page 10 DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Site Design Diagram
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 16
Page 11DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
C. Setbacks
Building(s) fronting onto Cedar Lake Road should have a setback from Cedar Lake Road similar to that of the
existing school building and achieving requirements of the City’s zoning code.
Building(s) should generally complement the setbacks of existing houses from Hampshire Ave., Idaho
Ave., and the northern property line.
D. Vehicle access and circulation
Current conditions: Today the site has one access point on Cedar Lake Road, one on Hampshire Ave, and
three on Idaho Ave. Cedar Lake Road is a designated A Minor Arterial (major roadway) and Hampshire Ave.
and Idaho Ave. are local streets. All three streets are under the City’s jurisdiction.Vehicle access points to
the site should be located on Hampshire Ave and/or Idaho Ave rather than Cedar Lake Road. Driveways for
individual housing units should generally be located internally, accessed by shared driveways, to reduce the
impact of and visibility from adjacent homes and the street, with the exception of single-family detached
houses.
Vehicle circulation within the site should not create a direct connection that has the potential for attracting
cut-through traffic.
E. Parking
Adequate parking should be provided on the site for residents and guests to minimize the need for on-street
parking. The provision of parking spaces will meet the requirements for residential land uses as defined by
the City’s zoning code and/or independently commissioned studies.
Parking for residents should be provided in garages or below the building(s). Guest parking could be
provided in the form of on-site surface parking areas.
Surface parking spaces for building(s) fronting onto Cedar Lake Road should be located on the north side of
the building(s) so that they are generally not visible from Cedar Lake Road.
All off-street surface parking areas should be located internally on the site and visually buffered from public
streets.
Landscaping in surface parking lots must meet the requirements of the City’s zoning code.
F. Traffic
New traffic generated as a result of site redevelopment will be limited by development density restrictions.
Additional traffic analysis may be required, contingent upon land use and density.
G. Pedestrian circulation
Sidewalks should be retained and enhanced on all three streets in conjunction with redevelopment.
A publicly accessible, landscaped mid-block pedestrian connection should be provided to enable an east-
west connection between Hampshire Ave. and Idaho Ave. .Design of this pathway is encouraged to be a
meandering route rather than simply a straight east-west route to create an aesthetically pleasing amenity
that integrates well with the new development and the neighborhood. The width of this pedestrian
connection and mid-block open space could be designed to provide a visual break and transition space
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 17
Page 12 DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
between the northern and southern buildable areas if appropriate.
H. Stormwater
Site related stormwater runoff should be managed to meet the City’s and watershed on-site water storage
and water quality requirements using best management practices (BMPs) as identified in the City’s
subdivision code, such as rain gardens, detention/treatment basins, pervious pavements, and green roofs.
I. Landscaping and buffering
Landscape and/or architectural buffering should be incorporated into redevelopment for adjacent properties
to the north.
Appropriate landscaping, including street trees, should be provided along Hampshire Ave. and Idaho Ave.
Existing mature trees should be preserved where feasible.
J. Regulatory process
The rezoning and development approach should be commensurate with the Medium Density Residential
(6 – 30 housing units per acre) land use designation.
Replatting of land at time of development should include dedication of the southeast corner of property as
public right-of-way for Hampshire Ave.
Park dedication should be received as cash in lieu of land since public park land is not planned in this area
of the City.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 18
Page 13DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
5. Building Design Guidelines
A. Massing and placement
The greatest building mass should be located in the southern area of the site in the general vicinity of the
existing school building. The goal is to allow a greater building mass nearer to Cedar Lake Road since the
existing building is a larger building mass and Cedar Lake Road is an arterial street with higher traffic levels
and transit services.
Placement of buildings should relate to the north-south streets (Hampshire and Idaho Aves.) rather than
the diagonal alignment of Cedar Lake Road. Building(s) in the southern area of the site should not be
located parallel to Cedar Lake Road.
B. Height
Building heights in the southern area of the site should be a minimum of two stories and up to five stories.
The Eliot School Site Reuse Task Force’s preference is for lower building heights, if possible.
Depending upon the actual placement and size of the building(s) in the southern area of the site, stepbacks
for upper floors (above three stories) may be desirable. For example, if a portion of the building is located
further north than the existing school building, stepbacks of the 4th and 5th floors are recommended.
Building heights in the northern area of the site should be two or three stories.
A variety of heights for both the taller and lower buildings is preferable to soften the overall scale of the
new development and prevent a cookie-cutter look. Taller building(s) should be oriented toward Cedar
Lake Road. For the taller building(s), it is preferable to have multiple heights rather than a uniform height.
The existing school building is a mix of two and three stories. This approach also enables building heights
to be concentrated at the appropriate locations while maintaining lower heights at the edges closest to the
existing single-family residences.
C. Frontage and articulation
Building façade “fronts” should face existing public streets, where possible.
Building(s) in the southern area of the site should have a frontage toward Cedar Lake Road, including a
clearly visible pedestrian entrance to the building, since this site has historically had a landmark building
and open space fronting onto Cedar Lake Road.
Building utility areas, e.g. electrical and trash should not be located with direct visibility from any public
street.
Building frontages facing public streets should include entries and direct sidewalk connections to the
existing public sidewalks.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 19
Page 14 DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Building Design Diagram
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 20
Page 15DRAFT Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Building frontages facing public streets should have facade articulation that reflects the presence of
individual housing units within the building, reduces building mass and scale, and enlivens the street
environment.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Page 21
Comments received at Eliot School Site Neighborhood Meeting
October 14, 2010
• Prefer 3-4 stories, not 5 or more. No apartments. More consideration for move-up
family housing.
• Is it necessary to have an open space. I don’t think people need to go into private
property. No one will use it anyway. I’ve lived in the park 50 years and have never
used the Eliot playground to get to Idaho Ave.
• I’ve lived on Hampshire for 19 years. There’s been minimal traffic during the day &
none on weekends at the current Eliot site. It should stat that way. We don’t need
any more multi buildings, that have 24/7 traffic & noise. Were a quiet neighborhood.
Except for the apartment building in my backyard which is noisy & can see into my
home (has trees between apt & my home). It generates & lot of foot traffic &
trespassing into my yard. So I feel sorry for those people that will be living right next
door to it. And they won’t be able to resell there homes, because of the building next
to them looking down on them. *It’s zoned single family it should stay single
family.* Also Hampshire park isn’t really a park any more, because you took out the
play set years ago & never replaced it. It’s kind of useless. Eliot Park gets used
daily. New houses will fit in just fine. A lot of the homes have been all redone on the
outside sine the hail storm. It really made a improvement to the neighborhood.
• I would prefer single family homes. A larger structure coming into the neighborhood
would be a determining factor in use moving out of the neighborhood. No apartment
buildings! Not 4-5 stories. Has there been any expressed interest in the site? And by
whom? Will Jersey neighborhood be kept in the loop as to what is going to happen at
the site? Will we have the ability to be involved in the future process(es)? I want
single family homes!
• Nothing higher than 3 stories. Building front face streets & back from street with
sidewalk.
Also:
• A petition stating “No more than three stories – would prefer two” signed by 59 area
residents, including five Task Force members.
Meeting Date: November 22, 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:
2011 Budget and Utility Rates.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested or required at this time. This study session discussion is a
continued discussion on the 2011 Budget and Utility Rates in preparation for the Truth in
Taxation public hearing, final tax levy, and utility rate adoption.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• What amount does the City Council wish to adopt as a property tax levy for 2011 (final
decision not needed until 12/20/10)?
• What additional communication methods would the City Council desire staff to
undertake regarding the 2011 Budget, utility rates, etc?
• What other information would the City Council like to receive to assist with decisions on
the budget?
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several months continued discussions regarding the 2011 Budget have taken place
with the City Council. On September 7, 2010 the City Council adopted a resolution and set the
Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $23,562,306, which is an increase of $1,096,913, or
approximately 4.88% from 2010. The City Council also adopted a Preliminary HRA Levy of
$1,028,888 for infrastructure purposes, which is a $14,453 decrease, or approximately a 1.39%
decrease from 2010. These amounts are included in notices mailed by Hennepin County to
taxpayers in mid-November. Final action on the 2011 Budget and Final Property Tax Levy will
not occur until December 20th. The final levy adopted by the City Council can not be more than
what was preliminarily certified in September.
Current Budget Status Update
• 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy increase of 4.88%, or $1,096,913 from the 2010
Final Property Tax Levy.
• The debt service levy decreased by $361,700 from 2010, due to the retirement of bonds.
• Of the total 2011 preliminary levy increase amount, $550,779 is being proposed to the
General and Park and Recreation Funds operational budgets and $907,834 is being
applied to capital needs.
Property Tax Levy
Attachment 1 titled “Proposed Levy Options for 2011 and 2012” shows several levy options
available to the City Council if it should desire to revisit the certified preliminary levy in
preparation for the December 6, 2010 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and Final Levy Adoption
on December 20, 2010. The Line 7 option reflects the 4.88% increase as set by Council for the
2011 Preliminary levy. Estimates for 2012 are very preliminary and based on the same level of
service delivery with modest increases in operation costs, which is similar to 2011.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates
Impact of a 4.00% Levy Increase Versus a 4.88% Levy Increase
During the October 25 Study Session the City Council discussed various levy options. During
this discussion the City Council asked staff to identify the impacts of a 4% levy increase option
assuming that the revenue adjustment would be made to the capital portion of the levy vs.
operations. As a part of the Long Range Financial Management Plan presented that evening, staff
had proposed that the $907,834 of the proposed levy increase identified for capital be
apportioned to the Park Improvement Fund to address longer term financial needs for this capital
fund. If the City Council desires to decrease the property tax levy from 4.88% to 4.00% for
example, this would result in a proposed reduction in funding to the Park Improvement Fund by
approximately $200,000. As a result, this fund would go from a projected 2020 fund balance of
approximately $142,000 to a deficit of approximately $96,000 (see Attachment 4). Staff will be
prepared to discuss this further during the study session and suggest other methods for
addressing this impact.
Other Budgets – Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Rev. and Select Capital Proj. Funds
Summaries for Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue and relevant Capital Projects Funds
that departments budgeted for in 2011 are provided in Attachment 2 showing a fairly
comprehensive picture of the resources of the City. The total approximate expenditures are:
• $51.6 million for all City budgets
• $29.7 million of the above amount, or approximately 57.6%, is for the General and Park
and Recreation Fund budgets.
• $21.9 million of the $51.6M or approximately 42.4%, is attributed to other funds.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) – 2011 - 2015
The next five years could be the most significant infrastructure construction period the City of St.
Louis Park has experienced. This is evident with the upcoming construction of two fire stations,
current completion of Wooddale Ave. and Highway 7, and the anticipated Highway 7 and
Louisiana Ave. interchange project scheduled during this period. In addition, continued
investment in the regular cycle of street reconstruction projects, utility infrastructure
improvements, and replacement of existing vehicles and equipment is occurring. Therefore, it is
vital that careful planning continues to occur in an effort to maintain financial stability while still
investing in capital.
The 2011 – 2015 CIP shows that:
• $168.8 million in planned investment over the next five years
• $109.4 million plus of this is planned as non-City resources such as federal, state and
county government, in addition to Municipal State Aid (MSA), Met Council and other
jurisdictions (not all of these dollars have been committed by these entities).
• $2.3 million of estimated project costs do not have a funding source, most of which
pertain to bikeways/sidewalks/trails.
• Resources that the city has direct control over will require an investment of
approximately $57.1 million over the next 5 years.
Not included in the proposed 2011 - 2015 Capital Improvement Plan at this time include:
• A civic/community center (Vision item).
• Expansion of the city’s streets and utility systems (other than interchange projects).
• Other non-planned projects or events.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates
Utility Rates
Attachment 3 contains information regarding the proposed 2011 Utility Rates and current 2010
Utility Rates. This attachment depicts the phased in approach over 10 years for the Water Utility
fixed rates beginning in 2011, as discussed by the City Council on November 15, 2010. In
addition, rates for Sewer, Solid Waste and Storm Water for 2011 are also shown consistent with
the City Councils study session discussion on November 15, 2010 meeting.
Long Range Financial Management Plan – Select Funds
Attachment 4 contains select funds from the Long Range Financial Management Plan that are
relevant to significant capital needs the City is anticipating through 2020.
Financial Impact to Residential Property Owners
Based on current Council direction, the approximate cumulative City effect on a residential
property at the median value of $223,400 for Pay 2011 would be approximately $168 for the
year, or approximately $14 per month. This figure includes the effect of a 4.88% levy increase,
the cumulative impact of utility rate adjustments for a family of four using 30 units of water per
quarter (22,500 gallons), a 60 gallon solid waste service, and a franchise fee increase of $1.50
per month ($.75 per utility/month).
If Council chooses a levy increase of 4.00%, the cumulative impact would be approximately
$160 per year or approximately $13.30 per month using all of the other assumptions listed above.
Staff will be available to provide the City Council with estimates for other scenarios at the study
session if so requested.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The decisions we make over the next month will shape the course of the City’s levy for the next
several years. We must carefully consider both the immediate and long-term effects on our
ability to provide services to our constituents.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
All areas of Vision are taken into consideration by Department Directors in preparing budgets,
CIP, and other future directions.
Attachments: 1 – Proposed Property Tax Levy Options for 2011 and 2012
2 – Budget Analysis Workbook – All Funds – 11-22-10
3 – St. Louis Park Utility Rates - 2011
4 – Long Range Financial Management Plan – Select Funds
Prepared by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKProposed Levy OptionsFor 2011 and 2012Levy YearLevy AmountTotal Change Percent Change201022,465,393$ 11,700$ 500,000$ 138,300$ 650,000$ 2.98%2011 Levy Options1) 2011 w/(38)K GF22,254,472$ (361,700)$ (38,300)$ -$ (400,000)$ -0.94%9.28%2) 2011 w/$551K GF22,654,472$ (361,700)$ 550,779$ -$ 189,079$ 0.84%7.35%3) 2011 w/551K GF & 361K Capital23,016,172$ (361,700)$ 550,779$ 361,700$ 550,779$ 2.45%5.66%4) 2011 w/551K GF & 474K Capital23,128,472$ (361,700)$ 550,779$ 474,000$ 663,079$ 2.95%5.15%5) 2011 w/551K GF & 597K Capital23,251,472$ (361,700)$ 550,779$ 597,000$ 786,079$ 3.50%4.59%6) 2011 w/551K GF & 709K Capital23,363,472$ (361,700)$ 550,779$ 709,000$ 898,079$ 4.00%4.09%7) 2011 Max Levy 23,562,306$ (361,700)$ 550,779$ 907,834$ 1,096,913$ 4.88%3.21%2012 (Projected)w/602K to Gen. Fund 24,319,655$ 1,062,600$ 602,583$ -$ 1,665,183$ Debt Service ChangeGeneral Fund and Park and Rec. Change Capital ChangeLevy Estimate for 2012Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FOR YEARS 2009 - 2012
2009 2009 2010 2011 2012
Budgeted Actual Adopted Preliminary Projected
Total General Fund Revenues 23,727,299$ 23,996,255$ 23,169,353$ 23,589,786$ 24,142,369$
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,893,279 23,877,873 23,169,353 23,589,786 24,142,369
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (165,980)$ 118,382$ -$ -$ -$
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,165,418$ 6,208,810$ 6,086,166$ 6,132,463$ 6,132,463$
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,165,418 5,835,524 6,086,166 6,132,463 6,132,463
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures -$ 373,286$ -$ -$ -$
Total Cable TV Revenues 580,000$ 616,859$ 600,000$ 555,000$ 569,104$
Total Cable TV Expenditures 658,563 600,146 576,415 619,341 637,921
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (78,563)$ 16,713$ 23,585$ (64,341)$ (68,817)$
Total Police & Fire Pension Revenues N/A 114,201$ 209,629$ 207,182$ 119,422$
Total Police & Fire Pension Expenses N/A 320,419 270,804 2,401,191 201,735
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures N/A (206,218)$ (61,175)$ (2,194,009)$ (82,313)$
Total HRA Levy Revenues 1,108,045$ 1,119,953$ 1,143,341$ 1,208,091$ 1,243,963$
Total HRA Levy Expenses 48,000 53,761 1,700,271 54,075 3,466,239
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 1,060,045$ 1,066,192$ (556,930)$ 1,154,016$ (2,222,276)$
Total Water Revenues 3,470,000$ 4,370,130$ 5,127,766$ 5,721,894$ 5,486,804$
Total Water Expenses 4,904,267 8,657,984 5,139,742 4,927,492 5,503,866
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (1,434,267)$ (4,287,854)$ (11,976)$ 794,402$ (17,062)$
Total Sewer Revenues 4,910,000$ 5,199,936$ 4,889,104$ 5,358,033$ 5,875,045$
Total Sewer Expenses 5,238,362 4,992,924 5,396,775 5,530,014 6,259,601
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (328,362)$ 207,012$ (507,671)$ (171,981)$ (384,556)$
Total Solid Waste Revenues 2,598,080$ 2,610,682$ 2,687,930$ 2,894,000$ 2,960,323$
Total Solid Waste Expenses 2,781,507 2,413,640 3,803,132 2,829,735 3,564,627
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (183,427)$ 197,042$ (1,115,202)$ 64,265$ (604,304)$
Total Storm Water Revenues 1,590,000$ 1,777,652$ 3,146,318$ 1,993,698$ 2,068,481$
Total Storm Water Expenses 1,661,366 1,655,693 2,604,098 2,341,597 1,988,260
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (71,366)$ 121,959$ 542,220$ (347,899)$ 80,221$
Total Housing Rehab Revenues 645,000$ 825,517$ 560,000$ 1,100,000$ 604,388$
Total Housing Rehab Expenses 1,362,555 1,735,319 1,270,305 1,273,015 1,311,205
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (717,555)$ (909,802)$ (710,305)$ (173,015)$ (706,817)$
Total Development Fund Revenues 2,386,545$ 1,037,064$ 961,892$ 1,010,892$ 1,147,481$
Total Development Fund Expenses 940,473 1,919,621 765,723 849,393 874,875
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 1,446,072$ (882,557)$ 196,169$ 161,499$ 272,606$
Total Uninsured Loss Revenues 50,000$ 113,119$ 47,000$ 37,000$ 47,648$
Total Uninsured Loss Expenses 15,200 205,105 134,850 184,495 190,030
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 34,800$ (91,986)$ (87,850)$ (147,495)$ (142,382)$
Total Employee Flex Revenues -$ 370,642$ 55,000$ 59,000$ (177,805)$
Total Employee Flex Expenses 575,000 666,121 553,000 614,000 632,420
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (575,000)$ (295,479)$ (498,000)$ (555,000)$ (810,225)$
Total CDBG Revenues 203,450$ 236,065$ 206,455$ 206,000$ N/A
Total CDBG Expenses 203,450 235,195 206,455 205,681 N/A
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures -$ 870$ -$ 319$ N/A
Grand Total Revenues 47,433,837$ 48,596,885$ 48,889,954$ 50,073,039$ 50,219,686$
Grand Total Expenditures 48,447,440$ 53,169,325$ 51,677,089$ 51,552,278$ 54,905,611$
Grand Total Net (1,013,603)$ (4,572,440)$ (2,787,135)$ (1,479,239)$ (4,685,925)$
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates
Page 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UTILITY RATES FOR 2011
Usage Charge
Residential Units 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Tier 1 0 - 40 1.29$ 1.35$ 0.06$
Tier 2 41 - 80 1.62$ 1.69$ 0.07$
Tier 3 81 - above 2.43$ 2.53$ 0.10$
Commercial All 1.29$ 1.35$ 0.06$
Irrigation All 1.82$ 2.53$ 0.71$
Fixed Charge
Meter
Size 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
5/8"6.36$ 10.15$ 3.79$
3/4"7.71$ 10.15$ 2.44$
1.0"11.30$ 14.21$ 2.91$
1.5"19.08$ 18.27$ (0.81)$
2.0"29.53$ 29.44$ (0.10)$
3.0"55.61$ 111.65$ 56.04$
4.0"90.03$ 142.10$ 52.07$
6.0"176.43$ 213.15$ 36.72$
2.0" Compound 29.53$ 29.44$ (0.10)$
3.0" Compound 55.61$ 111.65$ 56.04$
MDH Fee (pass thru)-$ 1.59$ 1.59$
Meter
Size 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
5/8"1.36$ 2.57$ 1.21$
3/4"1.53$ 2.57$ 1.04$
1.0"1.98$ 3.77$ 1.79$
1.5"2.91$ 6.36$ 3.45$
2.0"4.23$ 9.84$ 5.62$
3.0"7.43$ 18.54$ 11.10$
4.0"12.53$ 30.01$ 17.48$
6.0"24.22$ 58.81$ 34.59$
MDH Fee (pass thru)-$ 0.53$ 0.53$
Residential 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Base Charge 11.40$ 12.54$ 1.14$ Quarterly
Usage 2.21$ 2.43$ 0.22$ Quarterly
Apartments 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Base Charge 11.40$ 12.54$ 1.14$ Quarterly
Usage 2.21$ 2.43$ 0.22$ Quarterly
Commercial 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Base Charge 11.40$ 12.54$ 1.14$ Quarterly
Usage 2.21$ 2.43$ 0.22$ Quarterly
Base Charge 3.80$ 4.18$ 0.38$ Monthly
Usage 2.21$ 2.43$ 0.22$ Monthly
Water Rates (1 unit equals 750 gallons)
Residential (Quarterly)
Commercial (Monthly)
Sewer Rates
G:\CITYWIDE\PREPARE\11-10 November 2010 CC, SS, EDA\112210 SS\11-22-10 Council Work Session\3 - St. Louis Park Utility Rates - 2011.xls
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates
Page 6
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UTILITY RATES FOR 2011
Residential 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Quarterly 14.50$ 15.00$ 0.50$
Commercial 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Monthly 24.15$ 24.87$ 0.72$
Quarterly 72.50$ 74.68$ 2.18$
Residential 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
30-gallon 45.31$ 47.13$ 1.81$ Quarterly
60-gallon 57.63$ 59.94$ 2.31$ Quarterly
90-gallon 69.94$ 72.74$ 2.80$ Quarterly
120-gallon 82.27$ 85.56$ 3.29$ Quarterly
150-gallon 94.59$ 98.37$ 3.78$ Quarterly
180-gallon 106.90$ 111.18$ 4.28$ Quarterly
210-gallon 119.23$ 123.99$ 4.77$ Quarterly
240-gallon 131.53$ 136.80$ 5.26$ Quarterly
270-gallon 143.86$ 149.61$ 5.75$ Quarterly
360-gallon 180.82$ 188.05$ 7.23$ Quarterly
450-gallon 217.77$ 226.48$ 8.71$ Quarterly
540-gallon 254.72$ 264.90$ 10.19$ Quarterly
Solid Waste Rates (including tax)
Storm Drainage Rates
G:\CITYWIDE\PREPARE\11-10 November 2010 CC, SS, EDA\112210 SS\11-22-10 Council Work Session\3 - St. Louis Park Utility Rates - 2011.xls
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates
Page 7
11/18/2010City of St. Louis Park4.88% LevyFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 19, 2010Park Improvement Fund - This fund covers capital expenditures for the replacement and improvement of park facilitiesBased on Actual CIP as of 10/19/102007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues General Property Taxes 1,010,000 1,010,000 695,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 Additional Revenue907,834 - - - - - - - - - IntergovernmentalState Grants 388 - 14,900 - - - - - - - - - - - Hennepin County Grants 200,000 School District Contibutions 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 Charges For ServicesCost Reimbursement 15,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - MiscellaneousRent Revenue 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Transfers InOther Funds - - 107,097 - - - - - - - - - - - Other RevenueInterest Income 41,982 70,388 46,196 39,755 33,491 44,957 44,256 48,222 48,506 33,396 29,844 21,181 19,625 16,237 Park Dedication Fee 554,725 1,258,285 241,855 - 80,500 - - - - - - - - - Tree Replacement18,090 2,250 - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc/Other 28,934 12,000 23,000 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,722,821 2,406,625 1,181,750 903,457 2,085,527 908,659 907,958 911,924 912,208 897,098 893,546 884,883 883,327 879,939 Expenditures Capital OutlayTree Replacement 57,863 51,037 56,082 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Parks/Rec Ctr1,140,448 966,852 1,382,146 1,154,000 1,449,500 881,000 647,000 835,000 1,605,000 1,012,000 1,264,000 900,000 990,000 1,487,000 Other Insurance/Taxes 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 Transfers Out- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures1,198,311 1,020,589 1,440,928 1,216,700 1,512,200 943,700 709,700 897,700 1,667,700 1,074,700 1,326,700 962,700 1,052,700 1,549,700 Revenues less Expenditures524,5101,386,036(259,178) (313,243)573,327(35,041)198,25814,224(755,492) (177,602) (433,154) (77,817) (169,373) (669,761)Fund Balance - Beginning336,406 860,916 2,246,952 1,987,774 1,674,532 2,247,858 2,212,817 2,411,076 2,425,299 1,669,807 1,492,205 1,059,051 981,234 811,861 Fund Balance - Ending860,916 2,246,952 1,987,774 1,674,532 2,247,858 2,212,817 2,411,076 2,425,299 1,669,807 1,492,205 1,059,051 981,234 811,861 142,100 Fund Balance Percentage84.35% 155.94% 163.37% 110.73% 238.20% 311.80% 268.58% 145.43% 155.37% 112.47% 110.01% 93.21% 52.39%Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates Page 8
11/18/2010City of St. Louis Park4.00% LevyFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 19, 2010Park Improvement Fund - This fund covers capital expenditures for the replacement and improvement of park facilitiesBased on Actual CIP as of 10/19/102007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues General Property Taxes 1,010,000 1,010,000 695,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 Additional Revenue709,000 - - - - - - - - - IntergovernmentalState Grants 388 - 14,900 - - - - - - - - - - - Hennepin County Grants 200,000 School District Contibutions 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 Charges For ServicesCost Reimbursement 15,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - MiscellaneousRent Revenue 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Transfers InOther Funds - - 107,097 - - - - - - - - - - - Other RevenueInterest Income 41,982 70,388 46,196 39,755 33,491 40,980 40,200 44,084 44,286 29,092 25,454 16,703 15,057 11,578 Park Dedication Fee 554,725 1,258,285 241,855 - 80,500 - - - - - - - - - Tree Replacement18,090 2,250 - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc/Other 28,934 12,000 23,000 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,722,821 2,406,625 1,181,750 903,457 1,886,693 904,682 903,902 907,786 907,988 892,794 889,156 880,405 878,759 875,280 Expenditures Capital OutlayTree Replacement 57,863 51,037 56,082 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Parks/Rec Ctr1,140,448 966,852 1,382,146 1,154,000 1,449,500 881,000 647,000 835,000 1,605,000 1,012,000 1,264,000 900,000 990,000 1,487,000 Other Insurance/Taxes 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 Transfers Out- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures1,198,311 1,020,589 1,440,928 1,216,700 1,512,200 943,700 709,700 897,700 1,667,700 1,074,700 1,326,700 962,700 1,052,700 1,549,700 Revenues less Expenditures524,5101,386,036(259,178) (313,243)374,493(39,018)194,202 10,086(759,712) (181,906) (437,544) (82,295) (173,941) (674,420)Fund Balance - Beginning336,406 860,916 2,246,952 1,987,774 1,674,532 2,049,024 2,010,007 2,204,209 2,214,295 1,454,583 1,272,677 835,132 752,837 578,895 Fund Balance - Ending860,916 2,246,952 1,987,774 1,674,532 2,049,024 2,010,007 2,204,209 2,214,295 1,454,583 1,272,677 835,132 752,837 578,895 (95,525) Fund Balance Percentage84.35% 155.94% 163.37% 110.73% 217.13% 283.22% 245.54% 132.78% 135.35% 95.93% 86.75% 71.51% 37.36%Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates Page 9
11/18/2010City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 19, 2010Pavement Management Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to street reconstruction and chip-sealingBased on Actual CIP as of 10/19/102007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues General Property Taxes 415,000 415,000 415,003 415,003 315,003 315,003 315,003 315,003 315,003 315,003 315,003 315,003 315,003 315,003 Charges for ServicesFranchise Tax 917,153 922,194 922,437 922,437 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 Franchise Tax Increase410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 Transfers InPIR- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income (2%)100,690 57,101 42,852 30,843 32,665 38,144 32,792 33,437 34,276 40,378 42,603 37,808 32,156 25,615 Misc/Other 76,752 5,177 868 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,509,595 1,399,472 1,381,160 1,368,283 1,677,668 1,683,147 1,677,795 1,678,440 1,679,279 1,685,381 1,687,606 1,682,811 1,677,159 1,670,618 ExpendituresCapital Outlay 1,447,993 1,420,082 1,496,684 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534 1,374,134 1,574,154 1,927,362 1,965,409 2,004,218 2,008,572 Total Expenditures1,447,993 1,420,082 1,496,684 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534 1,374,134 1,574,154 1,927,362 1,965,409 2,004,218 2,008,572 Revenues less Expenditures61,602 (20,610) (115,524) 91,115 273,933 (267,598) 32,293 41,906 305,145 111,227 (239,756) (282,598) (327,059) (337,954) Fund Balance - Beginning1,616,660 1,678,262 1,657,652 1,542,128 1,633,243 1,907,175 1,639,577 1,671,869 1,713,776 2,018,920 2,130,148 1,890,392 1,607,794 1,280,734 Fund Balance - Ending1,678,262 1,657,652 1,542,128 1,633,243 1,907,175 1,639,577 1,671,869 1,713,776 2,018,920 2,130,148 1,890,392 1,607,794 1,280,734 942,780 Fund Balance Percentage118.18% 110.75% 120.75% 116.35% 97.77% 99.64% 102.16% 124.72% 128.25% 110.52% 96.18% 80.22% 63.76%* Increase is equal to $0.75 per utility per month for all types except Large C/I, which is $8.00. Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates Page 10
11/18/2010City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 19, 2010Capital Replacement Fund - Combines Technology, Buildings, and Equipment Based on Actual CIP as of 10/19/102007 2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020Actual ActualActualBudgeted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesProperty Tax Levy- - - 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 338,300 Additonal Property Tax Levy- - - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Housing Authority 6,089 6,089 6,089 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 Transfers In- - - - - - - - - - - - - - General Fund- - 1,100,000 PIR- - - - - 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 P&F Pension - 875,135 - 2,124,865 - - - - - - - - - - Other Funds 172,139 82,060 3,984,127 5,500,000 - - - - - - - Equipment Replacement Charges 975,282 616,732 626,983 705,791 726,965 748,774 771,237 794,374 818,205 842,751 868,034 894,075 920,897 948,524 Bond Proceeds- - - 5,500,000 7,500,000 - - - - - - - - - Other Revenue- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income 238,774 116,372 49,215 103,147 228,714 135,514 67,248 52,314 40,480 33,272 4,948 18,920 (38,047) (12,101) Misc/Other 109,350 215,445 91,148 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,501,634 1,911,833 5,857,562 14,283,606 8,905,481 1,634,091 1,588,288 1,596,490 1,608,488 1,625,826 1,622,785 1,662,798 1,632,653 1,686,226 Expenditures Supplies/Non-Capital/ServicesPC Hardware Replacement652,864 268,503 93,824 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 PC Software Replacement - - 96,037 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Network Hardware - - 44,989 125,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Annual Equip. Replace. Program 675,641 1,645,808 388,140 664,992 540,609 1,824,734 791,654 838,337 1,070,684 1,498,427 768,469 2,531,994 467,998 693,754 Current Facilities Constr/Renovation- - 284,902 335,000 430,000 760,000 335,000 141,000 138,000 287,500 140,000 120,000 - 170,000 New Technology Purchases- - 90,138 457,500 315,000 431,000 510,000 188,000 255,000 223,000 40,000 110,000 191,000 15,000 SCBA- - - - - - - 400,000 - - - - - - Other287,436 185,017 - - - - - - - - - - - - New Buildings- 875,135 5,342,439 9,657,561 9,624,865 - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures1,615,941 2,974,463 6,340,469 11,515,053 11,235,474 3,340,734 1,961,654 1,892,337 1,788,684 2,333,927 1,273,469 3,086,994 983,998 1,203,754 Revenues less Expenditures(114,307) (1,062,630) (482,907) 2,768,553 (2,329,993) (1,706,643) (373,366) (295,847) (180,196) (708,101) 349,316 (1,424,196) 648,655 482,472 Cash Available at Year End4,184,467$ 3,103,558$ 2,949,287$ 5,717,840$ 3,387,847$ 1,681,204$ 1,307,838$ 1,011,991$ 831,795$ 123,694$ 473,010$ (951,186)$ (302,531)$ 179,941$ 140.68% 48.95%25.61%50.89% 101.41% 85.70% 69.11% 56.58% 35.64% 9.71% 15.32% -96.67% -25.13%Equip Repl Charges 2011-2020 8,333,836 Equip Repl Costs 2011-2020 (11,026,660) Facilities Costs 2011-2020(2,521,500) New Tech Costs 2011-2020 (2,278,000) PC/Network Costs 2011-2020 (3,250,000) SCBA(400,000) Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 4) Subject: 2011 Budget and Utility Rates Page 11
Meeting Date: November 22, 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:
2010 City Manager Performance Evaluation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests feedback on City Council’s desired approach for an annual performance evaluation
for the City Manager.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What is the City Council’s desired approach for the City Manager’s 2010 annual performance
evaluation?
BACKGROUND:
The employment agreement between the City and the City Manager states “that the City may
conduct an annual review of the Manager’s performance.” The purpose of the evaluation
process is to provide feedback to the City Manager on performance so that he can strive for
continuous performance improvement based on City Council expectations.
Over the years, Council has used different methods to provide performance feedback to the City
Manager. These methods ranged from completing the process “in-house” assisted by staff, to
hiring consultants. In 2009, we hired consultant J. Forrest to compile and summarize Council
comments on the City Manager’s performance for a total cost of $1,000. In recent years, we
have also contracted with Roger Hokanson for a 360 degree evaluation, Larry Bakken, Jean
Morrison, and Bob Wittman. Attached is the form that was used by Council in 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Using in-house staff to facilitate the City Manager’s evaluation will not have a budget impact.
Consultant costs would be applied to the Human Resources budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
NA
Attachment: Evaluation Form
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: 2010 City Manager Performance Evaluation
City of St. Louis Park
CITY MANAGER APPRAISAL FORM
CHECK ONE BOX
FOR
EACH CATEGORY
PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR EACH
CATEGORY IN THIS COLUMN
Organizational Management &
Leadership
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Communication Skills and Public
Relations
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Relationship with the City Council
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Interagency Relations
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Long Range Planning
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: 2010 City Manager Performance Evaluation
CHECK ONE BOX
FOR
EACH CATEGORY
PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR EACH
CATEGORY IN THIS COLUMN
Staff Supervision/Overall
Performance of City Staff
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Fiscal/Business Management
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
OTHER COMMENTS:
___________________________________________________________
Signature Date
Meeting Date: November 22, 2010
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 22, 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:
October 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.
Through October, both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are
running below budget. Actual expenditures should generally run about 83% of the annual
budget in October. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 78.7% of the adopted
budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 80.4%. Certain revenues can tend
to be harder to gauge in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of
which would be property taxes and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA
Aid, etc).
It is important to note that there is more than a full week of October payroll expense which has
not been recorded at the time this report was prepared. Due to the conversion to the two-week
payroll delay, time earned for the period of October 23rd to October 31st will not be paid and
recorded until the November 19th pay date. Both funds would still be under budget through
October for expenditures, but this does account for a portion of the variance.
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 92.5% of budget through the month of October. This
is due in part to the license revenues, which in October have already exceeded the total
annual budget by nearly 14% or $89,000. 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 October, it is at 84.2% of
budget. Since permit revenue is a significant source of General Fund revenue, Staff will
continue to monitor this closely through the rest of the year.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
• The Human Resources budget shows training revenue will exceed the annual budget for
the year under Charges for Services. This will be consistent with the trend in prior years.
• 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 90% of
budget through October. This is due to progress payments made in May and July totaling
$13,850 for a Pavement Distress Survey. The contract is paid in full.
• Public Works Operations Supplies have exceeded budget through October by 13% or
$63,000. The most significant expenses in this category to date include $217,000 for
asphalt work, $141,000 for road salt, and $107,000 for street lights. There were some
asphalt expenses in 2010 that were not anticipated during the budget planning process,
including $33,000 for overlaying Utica Avenue. Salt and asphalt costs have also
continued to rise approximately 8% to 10% annually, which means that unanticipated
expenditures can have an even larger impact on the budget. It is expected that very few
additional supplies expenditures will be incurred for the remainder of the year.
Parks and Recreation
Revenues:
• Some Park & Rec revenues, such as Charges for Services under Organized Recreation
and Westwood, are exceeding budget through October. This is typical for this time of
year and consistent with prior year due to the seasonal nature of these revenues.
Expenditures:
• Park Maintenance Personal Services is at 88% through the month of October. 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.
• Supplies for the Rec Center are at 90% of budget through October. This is consistent
with prior years, as the amounts budgeted for pool chemicals and concession supplies are
fully spent over the summer pool season.
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
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:29:12R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 140,899.13- 2,123,335.68- 171,432.32- 92.53 |2,515,000.00-2,486,638.18- 98.87
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,750.00- 18,944.09- 241,475.21- 70,274.79- 77.46 |312,000.00-265,699.35- 85.16
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,598,787.00- 571,695.30- 1,468,998.72- 129,788.28- 91.88 |1,647,214.00-1,442,914.41- 87.60
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,138,018.00- 57,906.35- 676,200.56- 461,817.44- 59.42 |1,201,900.00-577,739.34- 48.07
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00- 15,846.91- 111,744.42- 11,744.42 111.74 |100,000.00-129,480.00- 129.48
4001 REVENUES 20,332,928.00-805,291.78-12,177,939.07-8,154,988.93-59.89 |20,429,389.00-12,111,464.59-59.28
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,132,004.00 1,130,227.25 14,387,831.96 3,744,172.04 79.35 |18,496,154.00 15,834,123.90 85.61
6210 SUPPLIES 846,535.00 176,295.72 735,701.48 110,833.52 86.91 |766,135.00 526,191.42 68.68
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 67,775.00 3,082.54 66,288.28 1,486.72 97.81 |70,775.00 42,101.95 59.49
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,922,858.00 348,666.42 2,684,431.52 1,238,426.48 68.43 |4,160,215.00 2,795,732.30 67.20
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 209,296.84 209,296.84 209,296.84-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 22,969,172.00 1,867,568.77 18,083,550.08 4,885,621.92 78.73 |23,493,279.00 19,198,149.57 81.72
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 2,153,187.40- 430,637.60- 83.33 |2,678,910.00-2,190,758.20- 81.78
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-539.87- 18,550.55- 17,050.55 1,236.70 |2,000.00-4,393.75- 219.69
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.22 261,747.22- 30.87- |350,000.00-177,160.73- 50.62
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,200.00- 2,202.00-2,202.00 |5,953.00
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 100.00- 5,903.00-5,903.00 |5,975.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE 100.00-36.14-63.86- 36.14 |340.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,785,425.00-218,158.61-2,118,131.87-667,293.13-76.04 |3,030,910.00-2,372,675.18-78.28
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,181.00 .55 1.47- 181,182.47 |181,000.00 78.96 .04
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,452.90 15,611.90 3,388.10 82.17 |19,000.00 20,033.33 105.44
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,181.00 1,453.45 15,610.43 184,570.57 7.80 |200,000.00 20,113.00 10.06
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 51,000.00 845,571.83 3,803,089.57 3,752,089.57-7,457.04 |232,980.00 4,734,122.80 2,031.99
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 845,571.83 3,803,089.57 3,752,089.57-7,457.04 |232,980.00 4,734,122.80 2,031.99
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 3
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:29:12R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 |6,660.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 56.25-56.25-56.25 |
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 71,219.00- 10,951.42 47,301.47- 23,917.53- 66.42 |55,702.00-41,879.98- 75.19
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,073,900.00- 34,680.86- 949,591.42- 124,308.58- 88.42 |1,141,598.00-975,214.96- 85.43
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 906,900.00- 60,276.70- 657,467.23- 249,432.77- 72.50 |883,000.00-633,491.57- 71.74
4001 REVENUES 6,073,166.00-84,062.39-3,662,474.37-2,410,691.63-60.31 |6,153,418.00-3,693,805.51-60.03
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,440,416.00 193,169.93 2,846,902.91 593,513.09 82.75 |3,503,813.00 3,029,966.19 86.48
6210 SUPPLIES 906,881.00 68,517.38 627,045.95 279,835.05 69.14 |872,131.00 602,293.65 69.06
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,681.57 561.57- 113.63 |4,120.00 4,409.36 107.02
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,712,749.00 138,048.63 1,402,104.48 310,644.52 81.86 |1,703,002.00 1,445,032.82 84.85
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |15,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,071,166.00 399,735.94 4,880,734.91 1,190,431.09 80.39 |6,098,418.00 5,081,702.02 83.33
8001 OTHER INCOME
8065 SALE OF SALVAGE 1,500.00-1,500.00 |
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,000.00-300.00- 7,182.69-5,817.31- 55.25 |12,000.00-6,323.00- 52.69
8200 MISC REVENUE 2,720.00- 8,160.00-8,160.00 |2,890.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 13,000.00-3,020.00-16,842.69-3,842.69 129.56 |12,000.00-9,973.08-83.11
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|12.97
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,446.01 17,846.29 2,846.29- 118.98 |15,644.92
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,446.01 17,885.29 2,885.29-119.24 |15,657.89
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 314,099.56 1,219,303.14 1,219,303.14-|67,000.00-1,393,581.32 2,079.97-
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 314,099.56 1,219,303.14 1,219,303.14-|67,000.00-1,393,581.32 2,079.97-
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 4
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 26.79-261.28-261.28 |372.72-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 75,863.84-9,136.16- 89.25 |85,000.00-71,065.09- 83.61
4001 REVENUES 15,019,810.00-7,110.12-7,654,912.10-7,364,897.90-50.97 |14,783,480.00-7,303,033.62-49.40
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 5,869.55 39,697.59 39,697.59-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 5,869.55 39,697.59 39,697.59-|
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 2,153,187.40- 430,637.60- 83.33 |2,678,910.00-2,190,758.20- 81.78
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-177,158.12- 50.62
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |500.00
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,783,825.00-215,318.74-2,091,439.97-692,385.03-75.13 |3,028,910.00-2,367,416.32-78.16
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |2,049.55
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00 2,049.55 1.14
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 17,622,954.00-216,559.31-9,706,654.48-7,916,299.52-55.08 |17,632,390.00-9,668,400.39-54.83
100 GENERAL 17,622,954.00-216,559.31-9,706,654.48-7,916,299.52-55.08 |17,632,390.00-9,668,400.39-54.83
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 5
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
110 ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 183,360.00-3,916.65- 206,782.43- 23,422.43 112.77 |215,500.00-169,476.96- 78.64
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-10,000.00-2,000.00 125.00 |8,000.00-6,750.00- 84.38
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |947.30-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 131.91-801.07-801.07 |97.00-
4001 REVENUES 191,360.00-4,048.56-217,583.50-26,223.50 113.70 |223,500.00-177,271.26-79.32
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 444,400.00 38,861.30 372,993.16 71,406.84 83.93 |531,500.00 453,549.21 85.33
6210 SUPPLIES 3,100.00 537.48 2,545.44 554.56 82.11 |3,700.00 2,594.83 70.13
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 476,972.00 32,531.09 297,631.63 179,340.37 62.40 |455,635.00 334,354.33 73.38
6001 EXPENDITURES 924,472.00 71,929.87 673,170.23 251,301.77 72.82 |990,835.00 790,498.37 79.78
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |340.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME |340.50-
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 67,881.31 455,586.73 277,525.27 62.14 |767,335.00 612,892.18 79.87
110 ADMINISTRATION 733,112.00 67,881.31 455,586.73 277,525.27 62.14 |767,335.00 612,892.18 79.87
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 6
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 FINANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 48,318.00-4,026.50- 44,682.38-3,635.62- 92.48 |50,000.00-35,886.75- 71.77
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00-150.00 |1,085.87-
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-4,026.50-44,832.38-3,485.62-92.79 |50,000.00-36,972.62-73.95
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 920,800.00 69,134.82 758,278.14 162,521.86 82.35 |937,200.00 853,648.51 91.08
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 296.85 3,351.89 873.11 79.33 |4,225.00 2,680.19 63.44
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 152,905.00 10,360.72 126,609.59 26,295.41 82.80 |162,555.00 117,937.20 72.55
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,077,930.00 79,792.39 888,239.62 189,690.38 82.40 |1,103,980.00 974,265.90 88.25
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 100.00- 5,725.00-5,725.00 |5,975.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE .60-.60 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-5,725.60-5,725.60 |5,975.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 .55 6.47-506.47 1.29- |500.00 21.04 4.21
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 .01-500.01 |500.00 22.97 4.59
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 .55 6.48-1,006.48 .65-|1,000.00 44.01 4.40
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,030,612.00 75,666.44 837,675.16 192,936.84 81.28 |1,054,980.00 931,362.29 88.28
120 FINANCE 1,030,612.00 75,666.44 837,675.16 192,936.84 81.28 |1,054,980.00 931,362.29 88.28
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 7
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 9,000.00-1,456.00- 10,482.00-1,482.00 116.47 |9,000.00-6,017.00- 66.86
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 264.00-264.00 |30.00-
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-1,456.00-10,746.00-1,746.00 119.40 |9,000.00-6,047.00-67.19
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 482,400.00 30,784.65 393,957.65 88,442.35 81.67 |481,000.00 418,581.20 87.02
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 103.75 1,211.67 788.33 60.58 |2,000.00 1,597.07 79.85
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 5,817.40 88,430.81 72,119.19 55.08 |160,550.00 91,292.67 56.86
6001 EXPENDITURES 644,950.00 36,705.80 483,600.13 161,349.87 74.98 |643,550.00 511,470.94 79.48
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 635,950.00 35,249.80 472,854.13 163,095.87 74.35 |634,550.00 505,423.94 79.65
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 635,950.00 35,249.80 472,854.13 163,095.87 74.35 |634,550.00 505,423.94 79.65
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 8
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 9,000.00-1,290.00- 10,965.00-1,965.00 121.83 |12,000.00-12,164.25- 101.37
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 594,000.00- 41,272.42- 520,618.88- 73,381.12- 87.65 |585,000.00-429,904.82- 73.49
4001 REVENUES 603,000.00-42,562.42-531,583.88-71,416.12-88.16 |597,000.00-442,069.07-74.05
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,001,700.00 85,135.17 838,808.67 162,891.33 83.74 |1,023,000.00 885,757.82 86.58
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 30.98 375.74 1,324.26 22.10 |3,000.00 624.53 20.82
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 47,750.00 35,876.79 38,648.12 9,101.88 80.94 |56,750.00 11,626.32 20.49
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,051,150.00 121,042.94 877,832.53 173,317.47 83.51 |1,083,750.00 898,008.67 82.86
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 448,150.00 78,480.52 346,248.65 101,901.35 77.26 |486,750.00 455,939.60 93.67
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 448,150.00 78,480.52 346,248.65 101,901.35 77.26 |486,750.00 455,939.60 93.67
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 9
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 13,943.67-1,056.33- 92.96 |15,000.00-13,750.00- 91.67
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,250.00-31,193.67-26,806.33-53.78 |23,200.00-25,250.00-108.84
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 546,200.00 27,844.27 387,620.61 158,579.39 70.97 |534,000.00 462,471.07 86.61
6210 SUPPLIES 86,150.00 7,514.34 56,804.57 29,345.43 65.94 |90,500.00 37,878.48 41.85
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 19,599.77 6,400.23 75.38 |26,000.00 13,885.05 53.40
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 423,392.00 36,809.82 259,435.28 163,956.72 61.28 |502,942.00 317,456.87 63.12
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,081,742.00 72,168.43 723,460.23 358,281.77 66.88 |1,153,442.00 831,691.47 72.11
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |37.02
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 2.95 56.95 56.95-|203.10
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2.95 56.95 56.95-|240.12
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,023,742.00 70,921.38 692,323.51 331,418.49 67.63 |1,130,242.00 806,681.59 71.37
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,023,742.00 70,921.38 692,323.51 331,418.49 67.63 |1,130,242.00 806,681.59 71.37
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 10
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 |
4001 REVENUES 50.00-50.00 |1,277.42-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 516,850.00 32,600.48 432,032.72 84,817.28 83.59 |562,500.00 504,097.53 89.62
6210 SUPPLIES 23,500.00 2,111.14 20,796.32 2,703.68 88.49 |30,800.00 17,188.31 55.81
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 23,556.10 23,556.10-|3,284.23
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,316.00 48,782.88 652,946.46 207,369.54 75.90 |877,970.00 591,352.11 67.35
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,400,666.00 83,494.50 1,129,331.60 271,334.40 80.63 |1,471,270.00 1,115,922.18 75.85
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 20.10-25.98-25.98 |113.97
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 20.10-25.98-25.98 |113.97
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,400,666.00 83,474.40 1,129,220.08 271,445.92 80.62 |1,471,270.00 1,114,758.73 75.77
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,400,666.00 83,474.40 1,129,220.08 271,445.92 80.62 |1,471,270.00 1,114,758.73 75.77
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 11
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 3,000.00-350.00-850.00-2,150.00- 28.33 |3,000.00-
4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-350.00-850.00-2,150.00-28.33 |3,000.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 188,280.00 11,651.56 127,922.26 60,357.74 67.94 |184,980.00 131,293.49 70.98
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 93,525.00 14,725.55 72,348.65 21,176.35 77.36 |104,245.00 123,104.02 118.09
6001 EXPENDITURES 281,905.00 26,377.11 200,270.91 81,634.09 71.04 |289,225.00 254,397.51 87.96
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |16.49
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |16.49
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 278,905.00 26,027.11 199,420.91 79,484.09 71.50 |286,225.00 254,414.00 88.89
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 278,905.00 26,027.11 199,420.91 79,484.09 71.50 |286,225.00 254,414.00 88.89
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 12
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
160 POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,050.00- 2,400.00-2,400.00 |
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 18,944.09- 231,335.78- 72,164.22- 76.22 |303,500.00-258,949.35- 85.32
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 800,582.00- 372,162.30- 753,672.02- 46,909.98- 94.14 |809,009.00-769,781.48- 95.15
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-9,853.75- 66,610.69- 43,089.31- 60.72 |109,700.00-74,868.52- 68.25
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 6,105.58- 19,995.11- 19,995.11 |43,523.85-
4001 REVENUES 1,213,782.00-408,115.72-1,074,013.60-139,768.40-88.48 |1,222,209.00-1,147,123.20-93.86
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,609,294.00 392,793.45 5,241,470.65 1,367,823.35 79.30 |6,546,794.00 5,613,207.66 85.74
6210 SUPPLIES 141,050.00 5,442.51 68,971.89 72,078.11 48.90 |150,900.00 64,387.92 42.67
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,775.00 3,082.54 20,532.41 13,242.59 60.79 |35,775.00 21,328.03 59.62
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 521,783.00 42,616.19 330,250.24 191,532.76 63.29 |547,053.00 326,558.55 59.69
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 209,296.84 209,296.84 209,296.84-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,305,902.00 653,231.53 5,870,522.03 1,435,379.97 80.35 |7,280,522.00 6,025,482.16 82.76
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-539.87- 18,550.55- 17,050.55 1,236.70 |2,000.00-4,393.75- 219.69
8100 INTEREST .21-.21 |2.61-
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-539.87-18,550.76-17,050.76 1,236.72 |2,000.00-4,396.36-219.82
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 15.08 193.38 306.62 38.68 |500.00 187.01 37.40
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 500.00 15.08 193.38 306.62 38.68 |1,000.00 187.01 18.70
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,091,120.00 244,591.02 4,778,151.05 1,312,968.95 78.44 |6,057,313.00 4,874,149.61 80.47
160 POLICE 6,091,120.00 244,591.02 4,778,151.05 1,312,968.95 78.44 |6,057,313.00 4,874,149.61 80.47
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 13
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 4,760.39 62,395.02 14,304.98 81.35 |76,500.00 66,489.63 86.91
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 4,512.96 51.84
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,255.00 4,760.39 66,960.00 19,295.00 77.63 |86,055.00 71,002.59 82.51
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,255.00 4,760.39 66,960.00 19,295.00 77.63 |86,055.00 71,002.59 82.51
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,255.00 4,760.39 66,960.00 19,295.00 77.63 |86,055.00 71,002.59 82.51
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 14
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-4,201.16- 29,092.77- 10,907.23- 72.73 |50,000.00-37,377.74- 74.76
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00- 199,183.00- 212,564.20- 87,435.80- 70.85 |300,000.00-194,560.63- 64.85
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-1,125.00- 13,507.35-9,507.35 337.68 |4,000.00-15,323.00- 383.08
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,382.00- 1,382.00-1,382.00 |
4001 REVENUES 344,000.00-205,891.16-256,546.32-87,453.68-74.58 |354,000.00-247,261.37-69.85
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,826,180.00 162,582.70 2,170,115.94 656,064.06 76.79 |2,815,680.00 2,350,480.84 83.48
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 8,093.51 27,775.64 44,034.36 38.68 |71,810.00 33,075.72 46.06
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 2,600.00 2,400.00 52.00 |5,000.00 2,909.64 58.19
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 219,183.00 17,566.83 115,258.65 103,924.35 52.59 |224,183.00 129,291.50 57.67
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,122,173.00 188,243.04 2,315,750.23 806,422.77 74.17 |3,116,673.00 2,515,757.70 80.72
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,200.00- 2,202.00-2,202.00 |5,453.00
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 178.00-178.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,200.00-2,380.00-2,380.00 |5,453.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |11.52
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |11.52
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,778,173.00 19,848.12-2,056,823.91 721,349.09 74.04 |2,762,673.00 2,273,960.85 82.31
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,778,173.00 19,848.12-2,056,823.91 721,349.09 74.04 |2,762,673.00 2,273,960.85 82.31
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 15
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 126,126.32- 1,825,368.48- 161,919.52- 91.85 |2,162,500.00-2,206,119.23- 102.02
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 13.98-336.91-336.91 |2,242.11-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 26.00-95.80-95.80 |25.19-
4001 REVENUES 1,987,288.00-126,166.30-1,825,801.19-161,486.81-91.87 |2,162,500.00-2,208,386.53-102.12
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,713,100.00 98,546.68 1,323,652.64 389,447.36 77.27 |1,915,500.00 1,601,788.35 83.62
6210 SUPPLIES 21,500.00 417.10 4,150.87 17,349.13 19.31 |22,300.00 10,375.09 46.53
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 63,627.00 3,516.95 50,115.85 13,511.15 78.77 |71,627.00 46,299.57 64.64
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,798,227.00 102,480.73 1,377,919.36 420,307.64 76.63 |2,009,427.00 1,658,463.01 82.53
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 100.00-100.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-100.00-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 5.00 5.00-|20.90
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,454.97 15,387.56 2,612.44 85.49 |18,000.00 17,402.12 96.68
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,454.97 15,392.56 2,607.44 85.51 |18,000.00 17,423.02 96.79
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 171,161.00-22,230.60-432,489.27-261,328.27 252.68 |135,073.00-532,500.50-394.23
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 171,161.00-22,230.60-432,489.27-261,328.27 252.68 |135,073.00-532,500.50-394.23
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 16
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 51,799.50 689,990.98 135,809.02 83.55 |826,500.00 777,918.92 94.12
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 238.06 2,594.67 1,405.33 64.87 |4,500.00 3,590.65 79.79
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 24,100.00 21,693.17 2,406.83 90.01 |22,950.00 16,328.32 71.15
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,900.00 52,037.56 714,278.82 140,621.18 83.55 |854,950.00 797,837.89 93.32
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 52,037.56 714,278.82 140,621.18 83.55 |854,950.00 797,859.63 93.32
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,900.00 52,037.56 714,278.82 140,621.18 83.55 |854,950.00 797,859.63 93.32
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 17
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-4,100.00- 48,242.00- 26,758.00- 64.32 |75,000.00-60,780.00- 81.04
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-1,650.00- 328,350.00-.50 |436,000.00-250.00- .06
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-4,100.00-49,892.00-355,108.00-12.32 |511,000.00-61,030.00-11.94
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 750,000.00 48,039.06 600,225.48 149,774.52 80.03 |844,000.00 648,985.11 76.89
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 372.17 4,547.60 2,502.40 64.50 |7,050.00 2,457.78 34.86
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 695.00 34.75
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 6,744.63 32,904.98 37,845.02 46.51 |70,750.00 49,203.38 69.55
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,800.00 55,155.86 637,678.06 192,121.94 76.85 |923,800.00 701,341.27 75.92
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 424,800.00 51,055.86 587,786.06 162,986.06-138.37 |412,800.00 640,311.27 155.11
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 424,800.00 51,055.86 587,786.06 162,986.06-138.37 |412,800.00 640,311.27 155.11
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 18
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 120.00-215.00-485.00-365.00 404.17 |720.00-
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 450,370.00-215.00-479,934.43-29,564.43 106.56 |490,500.00-455,742.50-92.91
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,230,300.00 75,693.22 988,368.04 241,931.96 80.34 |1,217,000.00 1,065,854.56 87.58
6210 SUPPLIES 479,500.00 151,250.23 542,687.58 63,187.58- 113.18 |374,500.00 349,740.85 93.39
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 799,300.00 87,493.02 553,940.52 245,359.48 69.30 |894,300.00 636,414.50 71.16
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,509,100.00 314,436.47 2,084,996.14 424,103.86 83.10 |2,485,800.00 2,052,009.91 82.55
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,058,730.00 314,221.47 1,605,061.71 453,668.29 77.96 |1,995,300.00 1,596,267.41 80.00
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,058,730.00 314,221.47 1,605,061.71 453,668.29 77.96 |1,995,300.00 1,596,267.41 80.00
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 845,729.23 3,803,246.97 3,752,246.97-7,457.35 |232,980.00 4,734,122.80 2,031.99
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 19
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 261,000.00-4,452.00- 232,584.13- 28,415.87- 89.11 |259,298.00-232,412.07- 89.63
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-2,057.00- 23,209.00-8,191.00- 73.91 |34,000.00-21,327.20- 62.73
4001 REVENUES 4,351,974.00-6,509.00-2,285,580.13-2,066,393.87-52.52 |4,411,118.00-2,312,649.27-52.43
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 715,280.00 40,354.96 565,716.42 149,563.58 79.09 |729,162.00 612,112.23 83.95
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 4,077.46 33,472.69 25,978.31 56.30 |59,451.00 31,128.65 52.36
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,677.00 16,689.01 387,292.18 68,384.82 84.99 |502,597.00 408,865.72 81.35
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,230,408.00 61,121.43 986,481.29 243,926.71 80.18 |1,291,210.00 1,052,106.60 81.48
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-350.00- 5,626.13-9,373.87- 37.51 |14,000.00-3,250.00- 23.21
8200 MISC REVENUE 2,720.00- 8,160.00-8,160.00 |2,890.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-3,070.00-13,786.13-1,213.87-91.91 |14,000.00-6,900.08-49.29
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|3.79
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,329.90 17,246.18 2,246.18- 114.97 |15,094.94
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,329.90 17,285.18 2,285.18-115.23 |15,098.73
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,121,566.00-52,872.33 1,295,599.79-1,825,966.21-41.50 |3,133,908.00-1,252,344.02-39.96
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,121,566.00-52,872.33 1,295,599.79-1,825,966.21-41.50 |3,133,908.00-1,252,344.02-39.96
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 20
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 630,000.00-7,124.35- 543,594.70- 86,405.30- 86.28 |679,000.00-494,376.05- 72.81
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 744,500.00- 49,379.37- 519,576.31- 224,923.69- 69.79 |722,000.00-480,811.96- 66.59
4001 REVENUES 1,374,500.00-56,503.72-1,063,171.01-311,328.99-77.35 |1,401,000.00-975,188.01-69.61
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 785,638.00 33,725.41 635,593.31 150,044.69 80.90 |792,467.00 685,639.36 86.52
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 11,697.87 154,087.35 16,262.65 90.45 |170,350.00 155,777.83 91.45
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 480,870.00 33,156.60 389,562.34 91,307.66 81.01 |491,950.00 348,691.45 70.88
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,436,858.00 78,579.88 1,179,243.00 257,615.00 82.07 |1,454,767.00 1,190,108.64 81.81
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 |9.18
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |9.18
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 62,358.00 22,076.16 114,571.99 52,213.99-183.73 |53,767.00 214,929.81 399.74
201 RECREATION CENTER 62,358.00 22,076.16 114,571.99 52,213.99-183.73 |53,767.00 214,929.81 399.74
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 21
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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 |6,660.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-15.00- 10,485.00-.14 |10,700.00-130.00 1.21-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30,000.00-451.91- 26,197.35-3,802.65- 87.32 |26,000.00-39,592.73- 152.28
4001 REVENUES 46,775.00-451.91-26,834.35-19,940.65-57.37 |36,700.00-46,122.73-125.68
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 926,500.00 54,444.63 818,864.84 107,635.16 88.38 |969,400.00 841,304.43 86.79
6210 SUPPLIES 97,755.00 7,226.02 79,410.25 18,344.75 81.23 |93,555.00 78,525.67 83.94
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 37,571.87 276,492.87 84,847.13 76.52 |369,510.00 279,639.36 75.68
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,396,715.00 99,242.52 1,179,121.71 217,593.29 84.42 |1,443,585.00 1,203,357.85 83.36
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,349,940.00 98,790.61 1,152,287.36 197,652.64 85.36 |1,406,885.00 1,157,235.12 82.26
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,349,940.00 98,790.61 1,152,287.36 197,652.64 85.36 |1,406,885.00 1,157,235.12 82.26
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 22
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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- 10,065.50- 91,544.79-5,144.79 105.95 |82,600.00-86,150.74- 104.30
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 2,347.25-2,347.25 |242.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,400.00-10,065.50-93,892.04-7,492.04 108.67 |82,600.00-86,392.74-104.59
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 421,200.00 26,204.92 343,670.82 77,529.18 81.59 |420,586.00 372,732.24 88.62
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 2,374.11 11,355.55 15,644.45 42.06 |26,700.00 14,980.83 56.11
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 327.82 327.82-|500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 45,250.00 5,850.41 30,100.39 15,149.61 66.52 |44,500.00 29,908.67 67.21
6001 EXPENDITURES 493,450.00 34,429.44 385,454.58 107,995.42 78.11 |491,786.00 418,121.74 85.02
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 450.00- 2,710.00-2,710.00 |1,273.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 450.00-2,710.00-2,710.00 |1,273.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 116.11 600.11 600.11-|549.98
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 116.11 600.11 600.11-|549.98
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,050.00 24,030.05 289,452.65 117,597.35 71.11 |409,186.00 331,005.98 80.89
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,050.00 24,030.05 289,452.65 117,597.35 71.11 |409,186.00 331,005.98 80.89
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 23
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>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
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 56.25-56.25-56.25 |
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 14,350.00 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,000.00- 13,039.01- 81,852.80-4,147.20- 95.18 |110,000.00-153,285.33- 139.35
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |3,860.98-
4001 REVENUES 86,000.00-1,254.74 81,909.05-4,090.95-95.24 |110,000.00-157,146.31-142.86
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,648.00 9,348.51 92,010.03 16,637.97 84.69 |108,898.00 97,667.66 89.69
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 3,431.84 13,590.24 5,834.76 69.96 |19,425.00 14,849.81 76.45
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,470.00 21,009.95 192,855.02 30,614.98 86.30 |158,470.00 269,642.07 170.15
6001 EXPENDITURES 351,543.00 33,790.30 298,455.29 53,087.71 84.90 |286,793.00 382,159.54 133.25
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 500.00 1,153.44 846.56 57.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00- 90.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 500.00 1,153.44 846.56 57.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00-90.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 267,543.00 35,545.04 217,699.68 49,843.32 81.37 |178,793.00 223,213.23 124.84
204 ENVIRONMENT 267,543.00 35,545.04 217,699.68 49,843.32 81.37 |178,793.00 223,213.23 124.84
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 24
11/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:31:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201010/31/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 26,517.00-3,398.58- 24,950.47-1,566.53- 94.09 |11,000.00-19,528.98- 177.54
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |9,120.77-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 86,137.32- 14,862.68- 85.28 |101,000.00-87,656.70- 86.79
4001 REVENUES 127,517.00-11,787.00-111,087.79-16,429.21-87.12 |112,000.00-116,306.45-103.85
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,150.00 29,091.50 391,047.49 92,102.51 80.94 |483,300.00 420,510.27 87.01
6210 SUPPLIES 532,900.00 39,710.08 335,129.87 197,770.13 62.89 |502,650.00 307,030.86 61.08
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |20.97
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 146,142.00 23,770.79 125,801.68 20,340.32 86.08 |135,975.00 108,285.55 79.64
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |8,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,162,192.00 92,572.37 851,979.04 310,212.96 73.31 |1,130,277.00 835,847.65 73.95
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,034,675.00 80,785.37 740,891.25 293,783.75 71.61 |1,018,277.00 719,541.20 70.66
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,034,675.00 80,785.37 740,891.25 293,783.75 71.61 |1,018,277.00 719,541.20 70.66
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 314,099.56 1,219,303.14 1,219,303.14-|67,000.00-1,393,581.32 2,079.97-
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 25
Meeting Date: November 22, 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:
Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the recent planning and project
development activities related to this project – Project No. 20120100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or comments that you might have.
BACKGROUND:
History
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project will provide for the
construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7. The project
also includes pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the
frontage roads in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Highway 7
corridor and Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting long term
transportation and safety needs of both Mn/DOT and the City.
RECENT ACTIVITIES:
Concept Designs
At the September 20, 2010 City Council Special Study Session, staff discussed with Council the
Project Management Team’s (PMT) recommendation for a new preferred concept based on
findings from a Value Engineering Study conducted by Mn/DOT in August 2010. The new
preferred concept is a tight diamond design with a 6 legged roundabout south of the Hwy 7 (see
attachment - Preferred Concept). This preferred design meets all the goals of the project and is
expected to be more positively received by the public as it minimizes or eliminates the right of
way and access concerns associated with previous concepts.
Public Involvement
In mid-October the third project newsletter was mailed out to area residents. The newsletter
provided an update of Phase 3 activities and information regarding selection of a preferred
concept including a drawing. An announcement of an Open House in early November was also
provided in the newsletter inviting residents to here more about the proposed project.
A Public Open House was held on November 4, 2010 from 5 to 7 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers. At the meeting, a presentation was made to the 20 or so residents and business
owners in attendance (see attached - Attendance Sheet). The presentation provided background
information on how 10 concepts had been developed and screened down to two finalists in June
2010. Information about the land use and Value Engineering Studies was also explained to show
how the final preferred concept was then developed from those two concepts. At the conclusion
of the presentation a question and answer period was provided for the audience.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
After the presentation, staff from the City and SEH, Inc. broke out to talk individually with the
residents and business owners to further discuss questions about the project and the preferred
concept. Overall those in attendance had favorable comments on the new preferred concept.
Everyone had a good understanding of how the new interchange would operate after it was
explained to them. A computerized traffic simulation was available for people to view to help
show how vehicles move through the interchange using the roundabouts.
Questions about access during construction and the construction schedule were also raised. It
was explained that the goal is to maintain traffic on both Hwy 7 and Louisiana Avenue during
construction but details on the construction staging would not be determined until the final
design process or when Phase 4 work is underway. One resident also provided comments about
on-street biking accommodations and the need for wider shoulders between the roundabouts to
allow bikers an area to move out of traffic as they progress through the intersections on
Louisiana Avenue. The City’s consultant will further examine this suggestion as they work
through the preliminary design. Those in attendance were all encouraged to provide written
comments and some did (see attachment – Comment Cards).
Next Steps
Phase 3 will continue with the preliminary design work to develop a geometric layout of the
preferred concept for approval by Mn/DOT and the City Council. The environmental assessment
work will also be carried through to completion. Additional work from Phase 4 will be added to
Phase 3 work at the request of Mn/DOT. This includes completing a Phase 2 Environmental Site
Assessment for the project. This work is necessary to indentify contaminated areas within the
project area and establish a plan to handle the materials should they be encountered or removed
from the site during construction. An amendment to the Phase 3 contract work with SEH, Inc.
providing for this accelerated environmental work will be presented to Council for approval
sometime in December 2010.
Completion of Phase 3 work is anticipated by July, 2011 (see attached - Schedule). Phase 4
work and project funding will be discussed with Council in the spring of 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The estimated total project costs for the Preferred Option at this time are:
Total Project Cost (construction, ROW, agreements, design, etc.)
Construction $16,500,000
Engineering $ 3,300,000
Right of Way $ 3,000,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $21,800,000
Funding Sources and Opportunities
$7,630,000 in federal funds have been secured through the Met Council’s State Transportation
Program Urban Grant solicitation. Staff is continuing efforts to pursue funding through other
grants, solicitations and agreements. Staff has applied for Mn/DOT Municipal Agreement funds
in the amount of $594,000. Results from this program should be known in early 2011. Staff is
also preparing to apply for funding (up to 50% of the total project cost) under a joint Mn/DOT
and Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) solicitation for a
Transportation Economic Development Pilot Program. This pilot program is designed to address
both the state’s transportation system needs and local/regional economic development objectives
in promoting job creation. This application will be submitted in December.
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
Results from the $600 million National Infrastructure Investments grants called TIGER II grants,
were announced in mid-October. The City submitted an application in the amount of
$14,000,000, but was unsuccessful. For Minnesota, two projects received TIGER II funding
totaling less than $8,000,000.
Current funding for Phases 1, 2 and 3 is coming from HRA levy proceeds which have been
designated to pay for infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area has been identified by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding
sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and
SWLRT.
Attachments: Preferred Concept Drawing
Attendance Sheet
Comment Cards
Schedule
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
TNN
T
R
WR W21
21
17 16
20 21 117117
17
20
1
4
17 16
1
4CENTER
TN R 21W 17 117
S
E
CTI
ON12’
12’
12’
12’
10’ SHLD.
10’ SHLD.
1:30
12’
12’
4’
5.83’
4’
5.83’
BARRIER TYPE F & GLARE SCREEN
REINFORCED CONCRETE MEDIAN
BARRIER TYPE F & GLARE SCREEN
REINFORCED CONCRETE MEDIAN
BARRIER TYPE F & GLARE SCREEN
REINFORCED CONCRETE MEDIAN
B424 C&G
B424 C&G
B424 C&G
B624 C&G
B624 C&G
B424 C&G
B424
C&G
B424
C&G
12’
12’
10’ SHLD.
4’
5.83’
1:50
12’
12’
12’
12’
+33
+53
1
:1
5
6’
SHLD
.
=15’R
=49’
R
12’
14’
14’=35’R14’14’14’12’14’ x 150’ LTL1:151
0’ WAL
K 14’14’14’14’14’14’=30’R=50’R=90’R
=70’
R
=69’
R
=59’R12’14’
14’ RTL
=90’R
B624 C&G
B624 C&G
B624 C&G
B624 C&G B624 C&G
B624 C&G
B624 C&G
S524
B6
B6
=34’
R
MN. T.H. 7
LOUISIANA AVE.
LOUISIANA AVE.
MINNESOTA
7
MN. T.H. 7MINNESOTA
7
6’ WALKS524
C
C
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 968+13.75
L E.B. T.H. 7
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 968+13.75
L W.B. T.H. 7
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
C
C
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 30+64.26
L N.B. LOUISIANA AVE.
END CONSTRUCTION
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 11+45.43
L N.B. LOUISIANA AVE.
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
C
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 11+30.00
L E.B. WALKER ST.
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 18+40.00
L E.B. WALKER ST.
END CONSTRUCTIONLouisiana AveTH 7
Walker St
Repu
blic Ave
Walker St
Monitor St
Loui
si
ana AveW Lake St
TH 7
16’16’NORPA KCURT ’21
=70’R
B624 C&G
B624 C&G
NORPA KCURT ’51N
ORPA KCURT ’51
S524
B6
=49’R=34’R12’=80’RB624 C&G
B624 C&G
CLOS
ECLOSE
CLOSE
CLOSE
CLOSE
C
L
OSE CLOSE
B424 C&G
B624 C&G
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 24+47.00
L E.B. T.H. 7
END CONSTRUCTION
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 24+47.00
L W.B. T.H. 7
END CONSTRUCTION
10’ WALK
=8
1’
R
B624 C&G
B624 C&G
21’
W 37th St
1
0’
T
RAI
L
L
IA
R
T
’01
LIART ’01CLOSE
C
C
C
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 16+07.09
L W 37TH ST.
END CONSTRUCTION
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 10+00.00
L W 37TH ST.
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
1
4’
1
4’
C
C
C
C
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 19+66.49
L E.B. LAKE ST.
END CONSTRUCTION
MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY
STA. 11+91.94
L EB LAKE ST.
END CONSTRUCTION
2031 ADT = 40,000
2010 ADT = 35,000
DESIGN SPEED = 50 MPH
CURRENT POSTED SPEED = 45 MPH
2031 ADT = 40,000
2010 ADT = 35,000
DESIGN SPEED = 50 MPH
CURRENT POSTED SPEED = 45 MPH
2031 ADT = 20,900
2010 ADT = 12,400
DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
CURRENT POSTED SPEED = 30 MPH
2031 ADT = 20,900
2010 ADT = 10,600
DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
CURRENT POSTED SPEED = 30 MPH
14’
14’14’14’=1
5’
R
=15’
R 25’=15’R=60’R
=65’R
B624 C&G
B624 C&G =50’R
42.43’38.86’
10’ SHLD.
10’ SHLD.
10’ SHLD.
+23
+41
16’
1:15 +96
+97
+97
+81
+86
1:15
+12+33+47
16’
16’
16’
16’
16’
16’
+46
+31
1:15
1:15
+73
12’
14’
14’
12’
0
feetscale
50 50 100
25
PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED
RETAINING WALLS
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
LEGEND
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, RAISED MEDIANS
PROPOSED CONCRETE BARRIER
SECTION LINE
DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY
PROPOSED MILL & OVERLAY
12
HI
GHWOODRD.BLACKSTONEAVE.MELROSEAVE.LANCASTERMERLKIAVE.P
ARK
LA.FORDRD.JORDANAVE.RUNN YMEADE
LA.FRANCEAVE.GLENHURST AVE.HUNTINGTON AVE.RANDALL
ST.FRANCEAVE.AVE.OTTAVE.AVE.QUENTINMIN NETONKA BLVD.
TERAVE.OTTAWA
LA KE
MONTEREYYEAVE.AVE.LYNNKIPLINGSUNSET BL VD.HUNTINGTONAVE.BASSWOOD RD.
CEDARWOOD RD.GLENHURSTRD.WILLOWLA.N.S.P
RD.
S.H
ILLLA.WESTRIDGEC
E ARWO
D
R
D.SPARKLANDRD.LA.UTICA33 ST.WEBSTERAVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.W.MARYLANDOREGONVANIAQUEBECMIN NE TO NK A BL VD.
2 ST.IDAH
OAVE.GORHAMLA.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.ST.UTAHWYOM INGAVE.AVE.VIRGINIATEXAT ONKACAVELLAVE.FLAGHILLSAVE.AVE.AVE. GETAVE.AVE.DECATURAVE.CIR.N.MINNE HAHA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
CIR.N.
CEDAR BRD.
5
5
17
ST.
394
City
Hall
169
169
25 GLENHURST25th
rd
32nd
nd
OAK LEAF
CT.PENNSYLW.
ST.
ST.
38LYNN
FRANCEAVE.AVE.AVE.JOPPAAVE.AVE.GLEN HURSTAVE.BLVD.
ST.
AVE.LYNNAVE.MONTEREYAVE.40th LA.
41st ST.
MORNINGSIDE OTTAWAAVE.AVE.TOLEDOSALEMAVE.MACKEY43
BROOKCOOLIDGEAVE.AVE.AVE.W.44th QUENTINAVE.35
ST.
W.
ST.
ST.
ST.
BR OOK VIEW
LA.WEBSTERXENWOODYOSEMITEZARTHANBRUNSWICKCOLORADOAVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.W.42 nd ST.
ST.
WOOD
LA.BROOKLA.MEA
DO
WBROOKBL
VD.DAKOTAAVE.OXFORDTAFT AVE.QUEBECDR.DR.ST.OREGONAVE.W.
NORTH
ST.
DR.
AQ
U
I
LA
C
IR
.
37th ST.
1st ST.BRO
WNLO
WA
VE.A
VE.
Minnehaha CreekEDGEWOODRail AV.YLVANIASNNPEAVE.AVE.AVE.ISLANDSUMTERDIVIS IONYUKONAVE.UTAHAVE.W.ST. 3
20
3
3
39th
36th
169
FLAG
CIR.S.BELT LINEAVE.BROOKSIDEGOLDEN VALLEY
EDINA
EDINA MINNEAPOLISMINNETONKA100
12 394
25
6 5
31 32
T28N
T29N R24W
5
M
innehahaCreek
CT.
W.
7
EXCELSIOR
19 20
18 17
T117N R21W
HOBARTLA.7 8
6 5
T28N R24W
17
42nd ST.1.AVE.DR EWAVE.
4
.WKP
KIPLINGRD.BROWNDALEST.
HAM N
N.W.RHODEMEADOWBROOKRD.BLVD.
HOPKINSAVE.ST.W.34
32nd ST.SPIEGEL PKWY.HOPKINSPARKER EDGEBROOKISLANDAV E.WO ODLANDBROOKVIEWLIBRARY
REPUBLICAVE.PENNSYLGETTYSBURGBOORHILLSBORONATCHEZAV E.VALLAC HERVB AVE.AVE.KIPLINGST.
ARCED
FORD CIR.
W. 18th
Y.W.
ST.DART AVE.GLEN PL.WOODALEAVE.OAKDALEAVE.CA MBRI DGE
INGLE WOODLOUISIANA CIR.LOUISIANAAVE.39 th
BLVD.Rail18th ST
ZATA
BLVD.
DEVANEY
ST.
5.FRANCEAVE.COLORADOAVE.AVE.DS
NAPARKL
6.PRINCETONAWAHAMPSHIRETYSBURGAV.BRUNSWICK AVE.CED
AR
RHODEXYLON34 th
AQUILAZINRANLA.MEADOW
B
RBLVD
.OO
K MINIKAHDACT.OTTAWAAV.AVE.36th
INDEPENDENRGBUYSTAV.GETNMO
NATCHE ZAVE.AVE.PL.
RD.PARK GLENLOUISIANA31st
3.FLAGST.
RD.
DR.POWELLCanadianPacificSystemCanadian Pacific
SystemC. P.
R.
Sys.
Twin
Lake
Cobble
Crest
L.
Victoria
L.
Hannan
Lake
PRINCETON AV.WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
WEBSTERT
E
R
A
V
E.UEQ AVE.AVE.CIR.S.
10.11.
12.13.14.AE.W
AZ
A
.ALABAMAARKWO OD3 MOREY
NTE
8.9.BLVD.PARKNICOLLETEXCELSI ORLA.
WOLFEPKWY.GRANDMERIDIA
N
L
A.BLVD.AVE.
AUTO
CLUB
WAY
VERMONTVERNONAVE.IAAVE.CALLAVE.VEA
Q
U
I
L
A
A
V
E.AVE.BOONECAVELLLA.AQUILAAQUIAST.34th
SUNSETRIDGERD.AVE.BOONELA.VWYOMINGDECATURAVE.ST.
CAMBRIDGE ST.AVE.Lake
Westwood
GO ODRI CHROLOCADOPHILLIPSPKWY.BOONEAVE.BNSF
Railway UTICAAVE. S.AVE.QUENTINOTTAWANATCHEZPRINCETONCEDAR LAKE RD.
D OUG LAS AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.WEBSTERST.AVE.7 MONTE REY AVE.34th ST.ZARTHANYOSEMITEXENWOODBRUNSWICKLAKE
ILTO
VE.AOTADAKSALEMPRINCETONAVE.AVE.LD.NHEZTAC AVE.100UTICAAVE.CE
D
A
R
L
A
KERD.
ST.
32 nd ST.TUCKYKENJERSEYIDAHOGEORGIAFLORIDAEDGEWOODDAKOTAW.33rd ST.
15.
D
R.
ST.VIRGINPARK COMM ONS DR.
P
RI
NCET
ONOXF ORD
AV.ST.T
O
R
MONI
WAYWESTMO
RELA
NDLA.AFLAGAVE.AVE.14th
FLAGAVE.FRANKLIN AVE.HILLSBORO18th ST. W.LA.FAIRWAYST.GETTYSBURG22nd
22nd
ST.
LA.
W.
W.
23rd
ST.W.
23
AVE.AVE.LAKECLUBRD.AVE.AVE.CAVELL 22nd ST.
rd ST.
25 th ST.
24th ST.W.DECATUR AVE.ST.25th
STANLEN RD
.AVE.BOONELONBURD PL.YUKONCT.AQUILAAV.BOONE ZINRANAVE.XYTEXASW.
nd
ST.AVE.AVE.V ANIAAVE.AVE.ST
.23rd
24 th
ST.
Q
U
E
B
E
C
AV.UTAHAVE.WS
T
WOI
LLS
DR.UTAVE.W.
14th
ST.
13th
LA.AVE.AVE.OREGONCT.FRANKL
IN AVE.AV.WESTWOODH
ILLS CV.SUMTERDR.WESTWOODHILLS16th TEXAS
CIR. ST
.DR.AHUTAHVIRGINIAAVE.ODEHVIRGINIA22
54.S.AVE.LOUISIANAMARY LANDAVE.ST.th18AVE.AVE.16thS.AVE.W.ST.PENNSYLVANIAW.
14th ST.AVE.AVE.W.HAMPSHIREAVE.18
ST.
thS.16 th
KENTUCKYE
N
22
KJERSEYIDAHOnd ST.W.
FR
RGIAAV
E.
ANK LIN AVE.W.AVE.W.DAKOTAEDGEWOODAVE.16th
ST.AVE.S.AVE.ST.ALABAMA AVE.ZARTHANAVE.W.S.PARK PLACEBLVD.WAY
RD.RIDGEDR.GAMBLE DR.
DR.PARKDALE
NEVADAELIOT VIEW
RD.
ST.T
U
CY
L
A.
ST.rd AVE.FLODGEOW.
23rd EDGEWOOD AVE.W.
23
24th ST.W.
K RAIST.
ST.th U
MSth26
W.25W.RHODEIS.ECOREGON28th ST. W.
29th
ST.W.
AVE.VIRGINIAAVE.AVE.AVE.S.AVE.S.LOUISIANA CT.
27th
28th
S.S.S.AVE.29 th
26th ST.W.S.ST.AVE.S.S.S.W.
ST.S.S.W.S.AVE.S.ST.W.WICKBRUNSAVE.AVE.26
W.
W.
th
th ST.
ST.27
25 ST.S.S.S.ST.AVE.W.VERNONAVE.th
ST.
28AVE.th29
YOSEMITEST.UTICA AVE.23rd
STEPHENS
25
ST.
26th ST.W.
25th ST.W.S.S.W.INGLEWOODAVE.JOPPA31st ST.TOLEDO31 st
RALEIGHST.W.SALEM29 th ST.W.AVE.S.28 th ST.
27 th ST.W.AVE.W.
W.
W.
31st ST.W.
32nd ST.W.
32
ST.W.
33rd ST.W.TEXAS31st
S
T
.W.AVE.S.S.S.30 ST.W.
ST.S.S.S.S.AVE.35th W.
37 th ST.W.
37 th ST.
35th
ST.W.RALEIGHW.AVE.34th ST.W.
36th ST.
W.
36
37 th W.ST.
39th ST. W.
ST.
40th
41
ST.W.
41st ST.W.S.S.S.S.AVE.S.W.ST.
40th QUENTI
NRALEI
GHS
ALE
MAV
E.AVE.S.AVE.WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E.
ST.
42 ST.W.UTICAS.S.S.FORD
BLVD.BLVD.
W
A
Y
ZA
TA
S.16th
ST.VE.S.EINDEPENDENCS.S.TYA13ST.
AVFRANKLINOREGONNEVADAS.COLORADOS.ST.th14
S.KEL
A
S.AVE.S.S.S.W.S.S.36 th
HUNTINGTONS.th
7.INDEPENDENCEAVE.LA.CEDARE.ER RD.VE.AENSIGNLCEVIRGINIAMEADOWBROOKWALKER
AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.XENWOODAV.AVE.st
nd
OAKDALEAVE.LITTLE ST.PRITONECNLYNN AVE.AVE.LA.OD
FOR
ESTRD.
AVE.
ST.
AV
E
.
ST.
100
CENTER
PARKMINNEHAHA
ST.
LAKE
ST.
35th ST.
Meadowbrook
Lake
0
feetscale
50 50 100
25
W Lake St
INTERCHANGE LAYOUT
T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE.
PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED
RETAINING WALLS
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
LEGEND
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, RAISED MEDIANS
PROPOSED CONCRETE BARRIER
SECTION LINE
DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY
PROPOSED MILL & OVERLAY
169
169
12
12
County
Hennepin
169
INTERSTATE
MINNESOTA
394
LOCATION MAP
PROJECT LOCATION
NOT TO SCALE
INTERSTATE
MINNESOTA
394
MINNESOTA
100
MINNESOTA
100
MINNESOTA
100
MINNESOTA
7
MINNESOTA
7
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 4
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 5
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 6
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 7
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 8
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 8) Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 9
Meeting Date: November 22, 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:
Community Recreation Survey Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None needed at this time. Please contact staff with any questions or comments you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. This report is an update on the process for retaining a consulting firm to assist
in determining what additional civic and/or recreational facilities residents would like to see in
our community. Please inform staff of any questions or comments you might have.
BACKGROUND:
Earlier this year the City Council asked staff to begin the process of going deeper into
understanding the community’s interest, as expressed during the recent Vision process, in
expanding on the civic and/or recreational facilities available for community use. At the August
23 study session staff presented a proposal for moving forward with obtaining more community
input. For the Study Session on October 18, 2010 staff updated the Council on the status for
retaining a consultant to assist with the survey process.
This survey is intended to build off the results of Vision and go much deeper in identifying
specifically what is missing in the community from a civic and or recreational facility
perspective. Staff feels this is an important first step. By having the community specifically
identify what is missing will provide the Council with good information on the types of facilities
or amenities it might wish to consider adding to the community. Once the City Council has this
information, subsequent steps can be taken to bring the community desires to fruition.
UPDATE ON THE PROCESS:
Staff sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek a qualified professional consultant to
construct a city-wide survey. Proposals to complete the survey work were received from four
firms: Schoenbauer Consulting, University of Minnesota Center for Survey Research, Corona
Insights, and RMS. Staff members from Parks and Recreation, Community Development,
Administration, and the City of St. Louis Park’s Community Liaison reviewed the proposals.
Staff is recommending that the City enter into a contract with Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC.
Kathy Schoenbauer, the president of the company, will be the main point of contact. While the
City of St. Louis Park has not worked directly with Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC, they are a
well known and reputable company for developing community outreach strategies, instrument
design, survey administration, facilitating public process, data analysis and park planning.
Schoenbauer Consulting’s relevant past work includes a comprehensive parks and recreation
plan for the City of Minneapolis, survey work and focus groups for the Minnesota DNR
regarding outdoor recreation participation and use, trail survey of law enforcement agencies and
officers, and best practices for parks and outdoor recreation for the Minnesota Recreation and
Parks Association and the MN DNR. Based on the past experience of this firm, staff believes
Study Session Meeting of November 22, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Community Recreation Survey Update
they will be able to gain a good understanding of our community, conduct the survey, and report
to staff and council the priorities for the future.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION:
The consultant’s proposal was for $8,750 plus direct expenses. The proposal also suggested
some additional surveying that could be designed and distributed to students. The cost to deliver
this service is within the cost estimate of $7,000 to $12,000 which was communicated to the City
Council earlier in the process. The source of funds for this survey work will come from either
the Park and Recreation Department’s operating budget or the Park Improvement Fund.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will meet with the consultant within the next week to begin to develop the survey. Staff will
then bring the draft questions back to Council in December for review.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This topic is directly related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and one of the adopted
Strategic Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community” and the related Focus Area of “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center,
including indoor/winter use”.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager