The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009/01/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session (2)AGENDA JANUARY 26, 2009 6:00 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 2a. Conditional Use Permits & Variances – Communication Tower at 2301 Brunswick Ave S Recommended Action: Staff recommends a conditional use permit and variances only to accommodate a 199 foot tall communication tower. The Planning Commission recommends a conditional use permit and variances to accommodate the requested 284 foot tall communication tower. Attached are Resolutions of approval and denial needed for the Council to follow either the staff or the Planning Commission’s recommendation. 3. Adjournment 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Discussion Items 1. 7:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 2 and February 9, 2009 2. 7:05 p.m. Residential Survey Results 3. 8:05 p.m. 2009 Budget 4. 8:35 p.m. Council Policy Question – Refuse Billing 5. 8:50 p.m. Communications (Verbal) Written Reports 6. December 2008 Financial Reports 7. Quarterly Investment Report (October-December, 2008) 8. Domesticated Farm Animals 9. Comprehensive Plan Update 10. 2009 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund 11. Termination of Wireless Internet Circuit 9:00 p.m. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 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 – February 2 and February 9, 2009. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a possible special study session planned on February 2, 2009 and the regularly scheduled study session for February 9, 2009. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed? BACKGROUND: At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for a possible special study session on February 2, 2009 and the regularly scheduled study session on February 9, 2009. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for February 2 and 9, 2009 Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Future Study Session Agenda Planning Tentative Discussion Items Special Study Session, Monday, February 2, 2009 – 6 p.m. (tentative – alternate date: Feb. 9) 1. Review of the MSC Site and Energy Savings Design Options – Inspections (60 minutes) Staff and consultant are returning to the Council to discuss the MSC site and energy saving options. Does the Council agree with the proposed building and site design of the MSC? If so, should staff submit these plans to the Planning Commission to amend the special permit (conditional use permit) that would allow for the expansion of the MSC? Does the Council wish staff’s consultant to incorporate additional energy saving measures into the final design of the MSC? Tentative Discussion Items Study Session, Monday, February 9, 2009 – 6:30 p.m. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Comp Plan – Community Development (60 minutes) Staff to discuss proposed updates to the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which is required to be updated every 10 years. 3. Hwy 7/Wooddale Ave Interchange Project Update – Public Works (45 minutes) Public Works staff to provide an update on the Hwy 7/Wooddale Ave Interchange Project. 4. Discuss Utility Rate Study – Tiered Rate System – Finance (45 minutes) This intended to be a follow-up to an earlier conversation of adjusting the City’s utility rates and implementing a tiered rate system for water usage. 5. TAC 2008 Year End report and 2009 Work Plan – Administrative Services (10 minutes) The City Council will be asked to review the Telecommunication Advisory Commission’s work plan and annual report at the February 9 study session. On March 23, the Commissioners and staff liaisons will discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan with Council. Council will be asked to provide feedback to the Commissioners. 6. HRC 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan – Administrative Services (10 minutes) The City Council will be asked to review the Human Rights Commission’s work plan and annual report at the February 9 study session. On February 23, the Commissioners and staff liaisons will discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan with Council. Council will be asked to provide feedback to the Commissioners. 7. PAC 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan – Administrative Services (10 minutes) The City Council will be asked to review the Police Advisory Commission’s work plan and annual report at the February 9 study session. On February 23, the Commissioners and staff liaisons will discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan with Council. Council will be asked to provide feedback to the Commissioners. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning 8. BOZA 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan – Administrative Services (10 minutes) The City Council will be asked to review the Board of Zoning Appeal’s work plan annual report at the February 9 study session. The Commissioners and staff liaisons will discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan with Council at a future study session, date yet to be determined. Council will be asked to provide feedback to the Commissioners. 9. Communications – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session for the purposes of information sharing. End of Meeting: 9:55 p.m. Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Residential Survey Results. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. Bill Morris and Peter Leatherman, consultants from Decision Resources, will be in attendance to present to the City Council the results of the recent residential survey conducted by them for the City. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council have questions regarding the survey results? BACKGROUND: Decision Resources, Inc. conducted a city-wide residential survey this past November. The purpose of the residential survey was to measure and gather information from the community, track trends over time and find out how we are doing relative to Vision St. Louis Park. Department Heads, various staff members who work closely with Vision, along with the consultant, were involved with developing the survey. The City Council also reviewed the survey questions and their comments were considered in the survey as well. Content areas included: Baseline questions related to the first Vision in 1994 (Children First, public safety, and business), Updated questions relating to our 2006 Vision, Council’s 18 Month Strategic Directions, and Additional questions designed to get a better understanding of how people feel about the city. Bill Morris and Peter Leatherman, consultants from Decision Resources will be at the January 26, 2009 meeting to present the survey findings and the executive summary. NEXT STEPS: Further discussion about the residential survey results and the executive summary will occur at the Council Workshop on January 30, 2009. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. Meeting of January 26 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Residential Survey Results VISION CONSIDERATION: The residential survey is aligned with the Council’s strategic direction, “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.” Attachments: October 2008 Residential Survey and Responses Summary of Findings, 2008 City of St. Louis Park Residential Study Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Decision Resources, Ltd. CITY OF SAINT LOUIS PARK 3128 Dean Court Residential Study Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL OCTOBER 2008 Hello, I'm __________ of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide polling firm located in the Twin Cities. We've been retained to speak with a random sample of Saint Louis Park residents about issues facing the community. This survey is being taken because the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions about life in the community. All individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS....6% you lived in Saint Louis Park? TWO TO FIVE YEARS.....14% SIX TO TEN YEARS......16% 11 TO 20 YEARS........23% OVER TWENTY YEARS.....41% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 2. Thinking back to when you moved to Saint Louis Park, what factors were most important to you in selecting the city? ALWAYS LIVED HERE, 6%; CLOSE TO FAMILY/FRIENDS, 9%; CLOSE TO WORK, 23%; AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 25%; SMALL TOWN FEEL, 6%; SCHOOLS, 18%; SAFE, 2%; QUIET, 2%; CONVENIENT LOCA TION, 9%; SCATTERED, 2%. 3. As things now stand, how long LESS THAN ONE YEAR.....1% in the future do you expect to ONE TO TWO YEARS.......1% live in Saint Louis Park? TWO TO FIVE YEARS......2% SIX TO TEN YEARS......12% OVER TEN YEARS........71% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....13% IF LESS THAN FIVE YEARS, ASK: (N=16) 4. Why do you plan to move in the next ___ years? HIGHER END HOUSING, 48%; TOO MUCH DIVERSITY, 15%; WARMER WEATHER, 21%; MORE CONVENIENT LOCATION, 11%; SCATTERED, 5%. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 3 5. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT.............79% life in this community -- excel- GOOD..................18% lent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR..............1% POOR...................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% IF "GOOD," "ONLY FAIR," OR "POOR," ASK: (N=82) 6. If you could advise the City Council, what actions would you recommend to significantly improve the quali- ty of life in Saint Louis Park? UNSURE, 33%; MORE JOBS, 5%; LOWER TAXES, 21%; MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 2%; MORE POLICE PATROLLING, 12%; STOP REDEVELOPMENT, 6%; LESS DIVERSITY, 4%; MORE SENIOR PROGRAMS, 4%; MORE CODE ENFORCEMENT, 2%; TAKE MORE RECYCLING, 5%; MORE SCHOOL FUNDING, 4%; SCAT TERED, 2%. 7. What do you like MOST about living in Saint Louis Park? UNSURE, 2%; SENSE OF COMMUNITY, 8%; SCHOOLS, 8%; QUIET, 6%; FRIENDLY PEOPLE, 12%; SMALL TOWN FEEL, 6%; CONVENIENT LOCATION, 25%; SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES, 13%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 4%; NEIGHBORHOOD, 10%; WELL-MAINTAINED, 2%; SAFE, 4%; DIVERSITY, 1%. 8. In general, what do you think is the most serious issue facing the community today? UNSURE, 25%; NOTHING, 7%; HIGH TAXES, 18%; TOO MUCH REDEVELOPMENT, 7%; LACK OF ACTIVITIES FOR TEENS, 2%; RISING CRIME, 11%; POOR ECONOMY, 4%; LACK OF SCHOOL FUND ING, 10%; LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 2%; TOO MUCH DIVERSI TY, 3%; TRAFFIC CONGESTION, 9%; SCATTERED, 3%. As I read the following statements about public safety in Saint Louis Park, please answer "yes" or"no." (READ LIST) YES NO DKR 9. I have an overall feeling of safety in Saint Louis Park. 96% 4% 0% IF "NO," ASK: (N=16) Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 4 10. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? RISING CRIME, 69%; BURGLARIES, 31%. YES NO DKR 11. I feel safe walking in my neighborhood alone at night. 65% 34% 1% 12. My household is a part of our area's Neighborhood Watch. 53% 42% 5% 13. I have participated in National Night Out activities in the community. 66% 34% 1% 14. I can rely on my neighbors for help in a safety-threatening situation. 87% 9% 4% 15. I have participated in block parties in my neighborhood. 62% 38% 0% 16. Have you or anyone in your house- YES....................7% hold had contact with the Fire De- NO....................93% partment during the past two DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% years? IF "YES," ASK: (N=28) 17. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT.............50% ity of service provided by GOOD..................46% the Fire Department -- excel- ONLY FAIR..............4% lent, good, only fair, or POOR...................0% poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (N=1) 18. Why did you rate the service as (only fair/poor)? SLOW RESPONSE, 100%. 19. Have you or anyone in your house- YES...................18% hold had contact with the Police NO....................82% Department during the past two DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% years? IF "YES," ASK: (N=71) Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 5 20. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT.............41% ity of service provided by GOOD..................48% the Police Department -- ex- ONLY FAIR..............9% cellent, good, only fair, or POOR...................3% poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (N=8) 21. Why did you rate the service as (only fair/poor)? TOO MUCH SPEEDING, 38%; SLOW RESPONSE, 50%; NOT FRIENDLY, 13%. Moving on.... I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE) EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 22. Police protection? 33% 59% 2% 0% 6% 23. Fire protection? 34% 56% 1% 0% 9% 24. Recycling and brush pick-up? 29% 60% 3% 0% 8% 25. Storm drainage and flood control? 19% 64% 8% 1% 9% 26. Park maintenance? 27% 68% 2% 1% 3% 27. City-sponsored recreation programs? 22% 59% 5% 0% 15% 28. Animal control? 16% 74% 3% 1% 7% Now, for the next three city services, please consider only their job on city-maintained street and roads. That means excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are taken care of by other levels of government. Hence, Interstate 394, Highway 100, Highway 169, County Road 25 or Minnetonka Boulevard, should not be considered. How would you rate .... EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 29. City street repair and maintenance? 18% 62% 18% 2% 0% 30. Snow plowing? 27% 65% 7% 0% 1% 31. Street lighting? 16% 64% 15% 5% 1% Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 6 32. How would you rate St. Louis Park EXCELLENT.............13% city services in comparison with GOOD..................71% neighboring communities -- excel- ONLY FAIR..............4% lent, good,--only fair, or poor? POOR...................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....12% 33. When you consider the property EXCELLENT.............10% taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD..................65% city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR.............10% you rate the general value of city POOR...................1% services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....15% fair, or poor? Changing topics.... 34. In general, do you think the City TOO HIGH...............1% of Saint Louis Park's emphasis on ABOUT RIGHT...........91% environmental concerns is too TOO LOW................4% high, about right, or too low? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% IF "TOO HIGH" OR "TOO LOW," ASK: (N=20) 35. Why do you feel that way? UNSURE, 10%; TAKE MORE RECYCLING, 35%; POOR WATER QUALITY, 30%; NOT ENOUGH PUBLIC TRANSIT, 10%; SCAT TERED, 15%. 36. Do you think the City should pro- STRONGLY YES..........18% mote the use of alternative energy YES...................59% resources, such as wind power? NO....................14% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY NO............1% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....8% 37. Do you think the City should pro- STRONGLY YES..........20% mote the construction of energy- YES...................63% efficient public buildings? (WAIT NO.....................9% FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strong- STRONGLY NO............0% ly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....8% IF "STRONGLY YES" OR "YES" IN EITHER QUESTION 36 OR 37, ASK: (N=333) 38. Would you still support the YES...................74% City of Saint Louis Park un- NO....................15% dertaking these measures even DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....11% if they cost taxpayers more? Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 7 Moving on.... 39. Other than voting, do you feel YES...................81% that if you wanted to, you could NO.....................8% have a say about the way things DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....12% are run in this community? IF "NO," ASK: (N=30) 40. Why do you feel you cannot have a say? DON'T LISTEN, 83%; DON'T WANT A WAY/VOTE FOR THEM, 7%; DON'T KNOW HOW, 10%. Changing topics.... 41. How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL.............3% about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT...........47% City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE...........49% fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% 42. From what you know, do you approve APPROVE/STRONGLY......11% or disapprove of the job perform- APPROVE...............59% ance of the Mayor and City Coun- DISAPPROVE.............6% cil? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do DISAPPROVE/STRONGLY....1% you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....23% IF OPINION STATED, ASK: (N=310) 43. Why do you feel that way? UNSURE, 2%; GOOD JOB, 40%; NO PROBLEMS, 19%; COULD IMPROVE, 4%; GOOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 4%; TOO MUCH REDEVELOPMENT, 8%; GOOD COMMUNICATION, 10%; POOR JOB, 2%; POOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 4%; POOR COMMUNICA TION, 4%; WI-FI ISSUE, 3%; SCATTERED, 1%. 44. During the past year, have you YES...................27% visited or contacted Saint Louis NO....................73% Park City Hall either in-person, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% on the telephone, or by e-mail? IF "YES," ASK: (N=109) 45. Was your last contact with PERSONAL VISIT........64% the City by a personal visit, TELEPHONE CALL........35% a telephone call, or by e- E-MAIL.................1% mail? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 8 46. On your last contact with the City, which Department did you contact? UNSURE, 1%; POLICE, 6%; BUILDING INSPECTION, 11%; LICENSES/PERMITS, 17%; CODE ENFORCEMENT, 5%; GENERAL INFORMATION, 1%; ABSENTEE VOTING, 33%; GARBAGE/RECY CLING, 10%; PUBLIC WORKS, 9%; CITY COUNCIL/ADMINIS TRATION, 2%; TAX ASSESSMENT, 2%; PLANNING, 3%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 2%. Thinking about your last contact with the City, for each of the following characteristics, please rate the Saint Louis Park City Hall staff as excellent, good, only fair, or poor.... EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 47. Ease of reaching a City Staff member who could help you? 37% 56% 6% 2% 0% 48. Courtesy of the City Staff? 36% 61% 3% 1% 0% 49.. Promptness of response? 39% 55% 3% 4% 0% Moving on.... 50. How would you rate general redev- EXCELLENT.............13% elopment in the City of Saint GOOD..................55% Louis Park -- excellent, good, ONLY FAIR.............15% only fair or poor? POOR...................2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....15% IF A RATING IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=340) 51. Why do you feel that way? GOOD CITY PLANNING, 17%; CITY NEEDS REDEVELOPMENT, 24%; BRING IN BUSINESSES, 5%; TOO MANY APARTMENTS/CONDOS, 6%; SHOULD SPEND CITY FUNDS ELSE WHERE, 2%; IMPROVING APPEARANCE OF CITY, 28%; TOO MUCH GROWTH, 10%; NOT RIGHT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, 3%; NOT ENOUGH REDEVELOPMENT, 2%; ADDS TO CITY'S TAXBASE, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. 52. Do you support or oppose the con- STRONGLY SUPPORT......11% tinued redevelopment in the City SUPPORT...............54% of Saint Louis Park? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE................15% RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE........3% way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....18% Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 9 IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=328) 53. Why do you (support/oppose) the continued redevelopment in the city? UNSURE, 2%; CITY NEEDS REDEVELOPMENT, 31%; BRING IN BUSINESSES, 7%; TOO MANY APARTMENTS/CONDOS, 4%; SHOULD SPEND CITY FUNDS ELSEWHERE, 3%; CITY NEEDS MORE JOBS, 3%; IMPROVING APPEARANCE OF CITY, 29%; TOO MUCH GROWTH, 15%; NOT RIGHT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, 2%; ADDS TO CITY'S TAXBASE, 4%; SCATTERED, 1%. I would like to read you a list of some characteristics of a community. For each one, please tell me if you think Saint Louis Park currently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the right amount. (ROTATE) MANY FEW/ ABT DK/ /MCH LITT RGHT REFD 54. apartment units? 33% 2% 56% 10% 55. single family homes for rent? 9% 9% 58% 25% 56. higher cost housing? 18% 6% 62% 15% 57. affordable housing? 5% 17% 69% 10% 58. starter homes for young families? 3% 12% 74% 11% 59. "move up" housing? 7% 13% 65% 15% 60. condominiums and townhouses? 33% 4% 56% 8% 61. senior housing? 4% 23% 50% 23% 62. full-time job opportunities? 0% 44% 28% 28% 63. part-time job opportunities? 1% 30% 42% 27% As you may know, the populations of most inner ring suburban areas are becoming more diverse in terms of age, household income, race, and ethnicity. 64. In general, do you think that GOOD THING............77% growing population diversity is a BAD THING..............7% good thing or a bad thing for the BOTH (VOL).............7% community? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....9% IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=363) Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 10 65. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? UNSURE, 3%; TEACH TOLERANCE, 28%; CITY NEEDS A MIX, 8%; EMBRACE DIVERSITY, 22%; BRINGS VARIETY TO THE ECONOMY, 13%; RISING CRIME, 6%; DIVERSITY IS WAY OF THE WORLD, 14%; TOO MUCH ISN'T GOOD, 4%; SOME GOOD/SOME BAD, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. 66. Currently, how well prepared do VERY WELL.............20% you think the community is to meet SOMEWHAT WELL.........62% the growing diversity of residents NOT TOO WELL...........4% -- very well, somewhat well, not NOT AT ALL WELL........1% too well, or not at all well? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....14% IF "NOT TOO WELL" OR "NOT AT ALL WELL," ASK: (N=19) 67. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? UNSURE, 11%; NOT ENOUGH TEEN ACTIVITIES, 5%; RISING CRIME, 42%; NOT ENOUGH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 16%; LANGUAGE BARRIERS, 26%. 68. Do you, yourself, feel welcomed YES...................97% in the community? NO.....................3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 69. Do you feel accepted by the com- YES...................99% munity? NO.....................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% Now, let's discuss your neighborhood in more detail.... 70. First, do you know what neighborhood you live in? (IF "YES," ASK:) What is its name? NO, 14%; AQUILA, 3%; BIRCHWOOD, 5%; BLACKSTONE, 2%; BROOKLAWNS, 2%; BROOKSIDE, 3%; BROWNDALE, 2%; CEDAR MANOR, 2%; CEDARHURST, 4%; COBBLECREST, 2%; ELIOT, 4%; ELMWOOD, 7%; FERN HILL, 7%; LAKE FOREST, 2%; LENOX, 3%; MINIKAHDA VISTA, 4%; OAK HILL, 7%; PENNSYLVANIA PARK, 2%; TEXA TONKA, 5%; WESTWOOD HILLS, 8%; SCATTERED NEIGHBOR HOODS, 12%. As I read the following statements about your neighborhood, please answer "yes" or"no." (READ LIST) Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 11 YES NO DKR 71. The appearance of housing in my neighbor- hood has improved during the past few years. 92% 6% 2% 72. Homes in my neighborhood are well- maintained. 98% 2% 1% 73. People know and care about their neighbors and participate in solving problems with their business and residential neighbors. 83% 6% 12% 74. Property values are increasing in this neighborhood. 60% 21% 19% 75. I would feel comfortable in discussing neighborhood problems with my neighbors. 89% 9% 2% 76. This neighborhood is a good place to raise children. 94% 3% 3% 77. People have pride and ownership in our neighborhood. 95% 3% 3% 78. I feel a part of my neighborhood. 95% 4% 1% 79. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT.............15% aesthetics, the pleasing appear- GOOD..................79% ance, of residential neighborhoods ONLY FAIR..............6% in Saint Louis Park -- excellent, POOR...................0% good, only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 80. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT..............8% aesthetics, the pleasing appear- GOOD..................83% ance, of commercial and retail ONLY FAIR..............8% areas in Saint Louis Park -- ex- POOR...................1% cellent, good, only fair or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 81. Are there any specific areas in Saint Louis Park where aesthetics should be improved? (PROBE FOR SPECIFICS) UNSURE, 21%; NO, 59%; LOUISIANA AND MINNETONKA BOULEVARD, 2%; MEADOWBROOK, 2%; LAKE STREET 2%; TEXA TONKA, 3%; EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, 2%; KNOLLWOOD, 4%; PARK PLACE, 2%; SCATTERED, 3%. 82. Are there properties in your neighborhood you would consider to be a problem? (IF "YES," ASK:) What makes the property a problem? UNSURE, 3%; NO, 87%; YARD MAINTENANCE, 4%; UNKEMPT RENTAL PROPERTIES, 2%; VACANT PROPERTIES, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 12 I am going to read you a list of home improvement programs offered by the City to residents. For each one, please tell me if you were aware of it prior to this survey.... YES NO DKR 83. Remodeling and architectural advice? 47% 52% 1% 84. Energy rebates? 52% 47% 1% 85. Loans and financing? 52% 46% 2% Changing topics.... 86. Do you leave the City of Saint YES...................59% Louis Park on a regular or daily NO....................41% basis to go to work, school or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% shopping? IF "YES," ASK: (N=236) 87. How would you rate the ease EXCELLENT.............28% of getting to and from your GOOD..................62% destination -- excellent, ONLY FAIR..............9% good, only fair or poor? POOR...................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 88. How would you rate the ease of EXCELLENT.............20% getting from place to place within GOOD..................76% the City of Saint Louis Park -- ONLY FAIR..............3% excellent, good, only fair, or POOR...................1% poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 89. Prior to this survey, were you YES...................81% aware Hennepin County is proposing NO....................19% the construction of the Southwest DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Light Rail line connecting Eden Prairie and Saint Louis Park to downtown Minneapolis? 90. How likely would you or members VERY LIKELY...........25% of your household be to regularly SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......31% use this service -- very likely, NOT TOO LIKELY........20% somewhat likely, not too likely or NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....21% not at all likely? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% Changing topics again.... Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 13 91. Prior to this survey were you YES...................56% aware of Saint Louis Park NO....................44% "Children First" Initiative? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=224) 92. And, were you aware of the YES...................46% set of forty developmental NO....................54% assets focused on by this DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% initiative for assuring the success of city children? IF "YES," ASK: (N=103) 93. Have you, yourself, been YES...................46% actively involved in any NO....................53% activities to help the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% asset-building process? 94. Prior to this survey, were you YES...................81% aware of STEP, Saint Louis Park NO....................19% Emergency Program? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Turning to parks and recreation.... 95. In general, do you feel that YES...................93% existing recreational facilities NO ....................3% offered by the City meet the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% needs of you and members of your household? IF "NO," ASK: (N=11) 96. What additional recreational facilities would you like to see the City offer its residents? INDOOR PLAYGROUND, 36%; INDOOR POOL, 36%; OFF-LEASH DOG PARK, 9%; COMMUNITY CENTER, 9%, TENNIS COURTS, 9%. 97. Does the current mix of City park YES...................93% and recreation programming meet NO.....................3% the needs of your household? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% IF "NO," ASK: (N=11) Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 14 98. What program(s) do you feel are lacking? WALKING PROGRAMS, 82%; SWIMMING LESSONS, 9%; YOUTH SPORTS, 9%. 99. Do you or members of your household currently leave the city for park and recreation facilities or activities? (IF "YES," ASK:) What would that be? NO, 59%; COMMUNITY CENTER, 4%; PICNICS, 2%; TRAILS, 15%; LAKES/BOATING, 8%; CULTURAL EVENTS, 5%; PARKS, 3%; SCAT TERED, 4%. 100. Do you think the City of Saint YES...................87% Louis Park has enough places for NO.....................7% residents to meet with family, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....6% friends and business associates? IF "NO," ASK: (N=27) 101. What kind of places would you like to see available in the City? UNSURE, 4%; COFFEE SHOPS, 33%; FAMILY RESTAURANTS, 15%; PARKS AND TRAILS, 37%; UPSCALE RESTAURANTS, 7%; SCATTERED, 4%. 102. How important do you think it is VERY IMPORTANT........40% to the quality of life in a com- SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT....52% munity to have a strong arts and NOT TOO IMPORTANT......6% cultural presence -- very impor- NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT...1% tant, somewhat important, not too DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% important, or not at all impor- tant? Moving on.... 103. What is your principal source of information about Saint Louis Park City government and its activities? CITY NEWSLETTER, 37%; SUN NEWSPAPER, 37%; MAILINGS, 2%; WEBSITE, 10%; CABLE TELEVISION, 7%; WORD OF MOUTH, 4%; STAR TRIBUNE, 4%; SCATTERED, 1%. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 15 104. How would you prefer to receive information about Saint Louis Park City Government and its activities? CITY NEWSLETTER, 33%; SUN NEWSPAPER, 33%; MAILINGS, 10%; WEBSITE, 12%; CABLE TELEVISION, 7%; WORD OF MOUTH, 2%; STAR TRIBUNE, 3%; SCATTERED, 1%. 105. During the past year, did you YES...................92% receive the "Park Perspective" the NO ....................8% City's bi-monthly newsletter? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=368) 106. Do you or any members of your YES...................95% household regularly read it? NO ....................5% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% As you may know, the City currently cablecasts and webcasts City Council and Planning Commission meetings. 107. How often do you watch City Coun- FREQUENTLY.............5% cil or Planning Commission meet- OCCASIONALLY..........24% ings -- frequently, occasionally, RARELY................25% rarely, or never? NEVER.................46% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 108. Have you accessed the City's YES...................41% website? NO....................59% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% IF "YES," ASK: (N=163) 109. Were you able to find what YES...................95% you were looking for? NO.....................4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 110. What information would you like to see on the City's website? FINE AS IS, 41%; RECYCLING, 15%; DEVELOPMENT, 7%; LICENSES, 3%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 4%; GENERAL INFORMATION, 10%; COMMUNITY EVENTS, 9%; CRIME STATIS TICS, 4%; CODES AND ORDINANCES, 3%; SCATTERED, 5%. Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 16 Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to young- est, and be sure to include yourself.... 111. First, persons 65 or over? NONE..................77% ONE...................13% TWO OR MORE...........10% 112. Adults under 65? NONE..................17% ONE...................23% TWO...................57% THREE OR MORE..........4% 113. School-aged children, 5 to 18 NONE..................76% years old? ONE...................11% TWO OR MORE...........14% 114. Pre-schoolers? NONE..................93% ONE....................6% TWO OR MORE............2% 115. Do you reside in an apartment, APARTMENT.............21% townhouse or condominium, duplex, TOWNHOUSE/CONDO.......15% or a detached single family home? DUPLEX.................5% SINGLE-FAMILY HOME....59% SOMETHING ELSE.........1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 116. Do you own or rent your present OWN...................66% residence? RENT..................34% REFUSED................0% 117. What is your age, please? 18-24..................5% 25-34.................15% 35-44.................20% 45-54.................17% 55-64.................23% 65 AND OVER...........20% REFUSED................1% 118. Is a language other than English spoken in your home? ("IF YES," ASK:) What is it? NO, 87%; SCATTERED ASIAN, 2%; GERMAN, 1%; SPANISH, 6%; SOMALI, 1%; RUSSIAN, 1%, SCATTERED, 2%. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 17 119. Which of the following categories WHITE.................81% represents your ethnicity -- AFRICAN-AMERICAN.......9% White, African-American, Hispanic- HISPANIC-LATINO........3% Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, ASIAN-PACIFIC ISLANDER.3% Native American, or something NATIVE AMERICAN........0% else? (IF "SOMETHING ELSE," ASK:) SOMETHING ELSE.........1% What would that be? MIXED/BI-RACIAL........4% DON'T KNOW.............0% REFUSED................0% 120. Is your pre-tax yearly household UNDER $25,000..........7% income over or under $50,000? $25,001-$50,000.......26% IF "OVER," ASK: $50,001-$75,000.......22% Is it over $75,000? (IF "YES," $75,001-$100,000......16% ASK:) Is it over $100,000? OVER $100,000..........9% IF "UNDER," ASK: DON'T KNOW.............1% Is it under $25,000? REFUSED...............20% 121. Gender. MALE..................48% FEMALE................52% 122. REGION OF CITY: WARD 1................27% WARD 2................26% WARD 3................25% WARD 4................23% Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 18 Page 1 of 8 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2008 City of Saint Louis Park Residential Study Residential Demographics: Saint Louis Park is a mature, highly stable community, with a significant element of transience, particularly among a segment of younger renters. The median longevity of adult residents is 16.8 years. Twenty percent of the sample report moving to the city during the past five years, while 41% have been there over two decades. Three reasons are given by 66% of the sample for moving to Saint Louis Park: affordable housing, proximity to work, and high quality schools. Only four percent of the sample expect to move out of Saint Louis Park during the next five years; in contrast, 84% intend to remain in the community for at least ten years. Most potential move-outs cite “higher-end housing” as the reason for leaving. The average age of respondents is 50.7 years old. While 20% of the sample fall into the 18-34 year age range, 20% are at least 65 years old. Twenty-three percent of the households contain seniors; in fact, 17% are composed only of senior citizens. Twenty-five percent of the city’s households contain school-aged children, and eight percent report the presence of pre-schoolers. Whites compose 81% of the sample. Nine percent are African-American, while three percent are Asian-Pacific Islander, and another three percent are Hispanic-Latino. Eighty-seven percent report only English is spoken in their household. Spanish is also spoken in six percent of the households. Women outnumber men by four percent. The median household income is $58,500.00 annually. Seven percent report household incomes under $25,000.00, while nine percent post annual incomes over $100,000.00. Fifty-nine percent live in single family homes, while 21% reside in apartments and 15%, in townhouses or condominiums. Sixty-six percent own their present residence. Residents are classified according to the Ward in which they live. Twenty-seven percent reside in Ward One; 26% live in Ward Two; 25% reside in Ward Three, while 23% live in Ward Four. General Perspectives: A solid 97% rate the quality of life as either “excellent” or “good;” seventy-nine percent rate it as Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 19 City of Saint Louis Park Executive Summary January, 2009 Page 2 of 8 “excellent,” a 40% increase since the 2006 study. The “excellent” rating is the highest across the Metropolitan Area suburbs. Respondents rating the quality lower than “excellent” advise the City Council to lower taxes and increase police patrolling. “Location” within the Metropolitan Area is the most liked feature of the city. At 25%, it outdistances all other responses, but is much lower than the 2006 level of 46% . Twelve percent point to “friendly people,” while 13% like the “shopping and services.” “Strong neighborhoods” are next at ten percent. Eight percent each point to “sense of community” or “high quality schools.” In thinking about serious issues facing the city, 18% point to “high taxes.” Ten percent worry about “lack of school funding,” and 11% cite “rising crime.” Nine percent indicate “traffic congestion.” Seven percent are concerned about “too much growth.” Seven percent are “boosters,” who feel there are “no” serious issues facing the community today. Public Safety Issues: Ninety-six percent say they have an overall feeling of safety in Saint Louis Park; only four percent feel unsafe. But, in nearby areas to their homes, 65% feel safe in walking in their neighborhood alone at night, while 34% disagree. Fifty-three percent of the households are part of their area’s Neighborhood Watch, up nine percent in two years. Sixty-six percent report their household participates in National Night Out activities in the community, an increase of 24% since 2006. A solid 87% can rely on their neighbors for help in a safety-threatening situation, and 62% participated in neighborhood block parties. Contact with the Fire Department during the past two years is limited at seven percent. Among those reporting contact, 96% rate the quality of service as either “excellent” or “good.” Eighteen percent report contacting the Police Department during the past two years. Among those having contact, 89% rate the service favorably, and 12%, unfavorably. Fifty percent of the dissatisfied point to “slow response,” while 38% report “too much speeding.” Eighty-one percent report awareness of STEP, the Saint Louis Park Emergency Program. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 20 City of Saint Louis Park Executive Summary January, 2009 Page 3 of 8 City Services and Taxes: Seventy-five percent of the residents view city services as either an “excellent” or a “good” value for the property taxes paid; only 11% rate the value as “only fair” or “poor.” Compared with communities previously lived in, a very solid 84% see them as “excellent” or “good,” while only four percent are more critical. While evaluating specific city services, the mean approval rating is 87.2%, an exceptionally high rating. Among those having opinions, over 90% rate police protection, fire protection, recycling and brush pick-up, storm drainage and flood control, park maintenance, city-sponsored recreation programs, animal control and snow planning as “excellent” or “good.” Exactly 80% of the residents with opinions award high ratings to city street repair and maintenance and street lighting. Environment and Energy Issues: Ninety-one percent think, in general, the City of Saint Louis Park’s emphasis on environmental concerns is “about right.” This is the highest level of satisfaction among Metropolitan Area communities. By a decisive 77%-15% majority, residents think the City should promote the use of alternative energy resources, such as wind power. By an even more solid 83%-9% majority, residents think the City should promote the construction of energy-efficient public buildings. In fact, 61% still support the City of Saint Louis Park undertaking these measures even if they cost taxpayers more. City Hall: A very large 81% feel they can have an impact of the way things are run in Saint Louis Park; only eight percent feel they cannot. Among this latter group of only eight percent, 84% feel they would be ignored by City Hall. Overall, this level of empowerment is at the top of Metropolitan Area suburbs. Saint Louis Park residents, then, are feeling connected to their local decision- makers. Fifty percent report having a “great deal” or “fair amount” of knowledge about the work of the Mayor and City Council. A large 70% either “strongly approve” or “approve” of their job, while only seven percent register “disapproval.” Positive ratings are based upon the perception of a “good job,” “good communications,” and “lack of city problems.” Critics point to “too much redevelopment” “poor financial management,” and “poor communications.” During the past year, 27% either contacted City Hall by telephone or in-person. Sixty-four Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 21 City of Saint Louis Park Executive Summary January, 2009 Page 4 of 8 percent of these contacts were by personal visits, while 35% telephoned and only one percent used e-mail. Five Departments received nearly two-thirds of the contacts: Building Inspections, Licenses and Permits, Absentee Voting, Public Works, and Garbage and Recycling. In rating the last contact with respect to aspects of customer service, 93% rate the ease of reaching a City Staff member who could help as either “excellent” or “good,” while 97% similarly rate the staff’s courtesy highly. Finally, 94% think the promptness of the response is either “excellent” or “good.” Community and Neighborhood: When looking at their community, a majority of residents think there are “about the right number” of apartment units, single family homes for rent, higher cost housing opportunities, affordable housing, starter homes for young families, “move-up” housing, condominiums and townhouses, and senior housing. But, 33% each think there are “too many” apartment units and condominiums and townhouses. While 42% think there are “about the right number” of part-time job opportunities in the community, 30% think there are “too few.” And, while 28% think the number of full-time job opportunities is “about the right number,” 44% see “too few.” Ninety-eight percent think homes in their neighborhood are well-maintained. Ninety-five percent report people have pride and ownership in their neighborhood, and 95% also feel a part of their neighborhood. Ninety-four percent think their neighborhood is a good place to raise children, and 86% feel comfortable in discussing neighborhood problems with their neighbors. Ninety-two percent, up 20% in two years, think the appearance of housing in their neighborhood has improved during the past few years. Eighty-nine percent would feel comfortable in discussing neighborhood problems with their neighbors. Eighty-three percent assert people know and care about their neighbors and participate in solving problems with their business and residential neighbors. But, despite the current housing bubble, 60% feel property values are increasing in their neighborhood, while only 21% disagree. A very large 94% rate the overall aesthetics, the pleasing appearance, of residential neighborhoods as either “excellent” or “good.” Only six percent are more critical in their judgements. A similarly large 91% rate the overall aesthetics of commercial and retail areas in Saint Louis Park highly, while only nine percent view them negatively. A modest number of residents point to “Texa-Tonka” and Knollwood” as specific areas in Saint Louis Park where aesthetics should be improved. Similarly, 90% say there are no properties in their neighborhood they consider to be a problem; “poor yard maintenance” is the key definition of a problem property. About 50% of the respondents say they are aware of home improvement programs Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 22 City of Saint Louis Park Executive Summary January, 2009 Page 5 of 8 offered by the City to residents: remodeling and architectural advice, energy rebates, and loans and financing. Sixty-eight percent rate general redevelopment in the City of Saint Louis Park as either “excellent” or “good;” but, 17% rate it as “only fair” or “poor.” Higher ratings are based on “good city planning,” “city needs redevelopment,” and “improving appearance of the community.” Lower ratings stem from “too many apartments and condominiums” and “too much growth.” By a 65%-18% margin, residents support the continued redevelopment in the City of Saint Louis Park. Reasons for support and opposition mirror the reasons given for the rating of the general redevelopment in the community. Community Diversity: Seventy-seven percent think the growing population diversity is a “good thing,” while seven percent each see it as either a “bad thing” or “both good and bad.” Reasons for seeing growing diversity as a good thing include “teaching tolerance,” “embracing diversity,” “way of the world,” and “brings variety to the local economy.” Reasons for seeing it as a bad thing are “rising crime” and “too much diversity is not a good thing.” Eighty-two percent think the City is either “very well” or “somewhat well” prepared to meet the growing diversity of residents; only five percent disagree. Agreement is based on “rising crime,” “language barriers,” and “not enough affordable housing.” Personally, 97% feel welcomed in the community. And, 99% feel accepted by the community. Transportation Issues: Fifty-nine percent leave the City of Saint Louis Park on a regular or daily basis to go to work, school, or shopping. Similarly, 90% of these commuters traveling outside of the city rate the ease of their commute as either “excellent” or “good,” while 10% see it as “only fair” or “poor.” Ninety-six percent, an increase of 20% since the last study, rate the ease of getting from place to place within the city as either “excellent” or “good,” while only four percent rate it lower. Eighty-one percent are aware Hennepin County is proposing the construction of the Southwest Light Rail line connecting Eden Prairie and Saint Louis Park to Downtown Minneapolis. And, a comparatively high 56% report they are “likely” to regularly use this service. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 23 City of Saint Louis Park Executive Summary January, 2009 Page 6 of 8 Children in Saint Louis Park: Fifty-six percent are aware of the Saint Louis Park “Children First Initiative.” Among those aware of the program, 46% also report awareness of the set of forty developmental assets focused on by the initiative for assuring the success of city children. And, among the smaller group familiar with the assets, 46% have actively been involved in activities to help the asset-building process, an increase of 11% since the 2006 study. At the current time, then, 12% of the citizenry are actively involved in the asset-building process. Parks and Recreation Issues: Ninety-three percent feel the existing recreational facilities offered by the City meet the needs of their household. Similarly, 93% also think the current mix of City park and recreation programming meets the needs of their household. Forty-one percent leave the city for park and recreational facilities or activities elsewhere, particularly for trails. A large 87% think the City has enough places for residents to meet with family, friends and business associates. Ninety-two percent think a strong arts and cultural presence is either “very important” or “somewhat important” to the quality of life in a community; in fact, 40% feel it is “very important.” Communications: The “Sun Newspaper” and “City Newsletter,” each at 33%, dominate the principal sources of information about City government and activities. Ten percent use the “city’s website,” double the 2006 level. Television is used by seven percent, and the “grapevine” is relied upon by only four percent. Thirty-three percent each prefer to receive their information through the “Sun Newspaper” or the “City Newsletter.” Twelve percent opt for the “website,” while 10% prefer “mailings.” Ninety-two percent report receiving the “Park Perspective,” the City’s bi-monthly newsletter. A very high 95% report household members regularly read it. The reach of the City Newsletter is 87% across the community. Twenty-nine percent watch City Council or Planning Commission Meetings either “frequently” or “occasionally.” Forty-one percent accessed the City’s website. Among those accessing the website, a solid 95% were able to find what they sought. Website visitors would like to see more “recycling Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 24 City of Saint Louis Park Executive Summary January, 2009 Page 7 of 8 information” and “general City information.” But, 41% of the visitors report, however, the website is “fine as is.” Concluding Thoughts: In this survey, Saint Louis Park residents express an optimism and satisfaction unique among Metropolitan Area suburbs, not to mention within the inner suburban ring. A very small percentage of residents, particularly renters, plan to leave the City of Saint Louis Park within the next five years; but a comparatively large percentage, 84%, plan to remain in the community for at least 10 years. One of the major successes of the community lies in the way it has embraced diversity. Another success is the sense of community and connectedness fostered over the years. 1. High taxes and crime remain key issues for many residents, but continue to diminish in its intensity; maturity-related issues, such as redevelopment, aging infrastructure, and traffic congestion continue to rise. Worries about crime are moderating, though, as greater participation in Neighborhood Watch programs, block parties, and the National Night Out occurs. 2. The Saint Louis Park City enterprise remains very well regarded by residents. Contact levels with the City Council and City Staff are higher than suburban norms. The job evaluations of both groups are strongly positive and impressive in comparison with other first-ring suburban communities. Dissatisfaction with policy-makers and policy- implementers is very low. Interactions with City Hall prove to be uniformly very positive. More impressive, though, is the 81%, highest in the Metropolitan Area, who believe they can have a say about the way things are run in this community. 3. Saint Louis Park registers the highest “excellent” ratings across the Metropolitan Area. At 79%, this City rating exceeds the Metropolitan Area norm by 35%. Residents rating the quality of life as lower than “excellent” suggest two actions to significantly improve it: “Lower property taxes” and “more police patrolling.” Underpinning the quality of life rating is the connectedness among neighbors: residents feel at ease with them, and more important, feel they can rely upon them if the need arose. In addition, participation in neighborhood activities is among the highest among Metropolitan Area suburbs. 4. Residents rated city services uniformly high. In every case, ratings exceeded Metropolitan Area suburban norms. Eighty-four rate Saint Louis Park city services as either “excellent” or “good.” By almost seven-to-one, residents also consider the value of city services for the taxes paid to be very favorable. Residents rate the City highly on its environmental Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 25 City of Saint Louis Park Executive Summary January, 2009 Page 8 of 8 emphasis, endorse its promotion of alternative resources, and also back the promotion of construction of energy-efficient public buildings. 6. In evaluating the status of current development in the community, residents do not see any “lopsidedness.” Instead they see a generally good balance of various types of development. But, they would assign a greater priority to attracting both full-time and part-time job opportunities. The overall aesthetics of the city is viewed very positively, and no area is cited by meaningful numbers of residents as needing improvement. 7. The communications linkage between the City and its residents is impressive. The City newsletter, “Sun Newspaper,” and the City’s website are relied upon by 84% of the residents. The reach of “Park Perspective” is 87% of the city’s households, among the highest in the Metropolitan Area. A comparatively high 41% of the households accessed the City’s website, while 29% watch City Council or Planning Commission Meetings at least “occasionally.” Once again, the city enterprise is viewed exceptionally strongly. City services are well-regarded. City government and staff are rated very positively. Residents rate their quality of life impressively high and place a value on maintaining the diversity, sense of community, and strong neighborhoods that are a hallmark of Saint Louis Park. The City established a great reservoir of goodwill across the community in the past, and has clearly extended this to remarkably high levels; this level of citizen trust will surely serve Saint Louis Park well in the years ahead. Methodology: Decision Resources, Ltd., contacted 400 randomly selected households in the City of Saint Louis Park. Residents were interviewed by telephone between November 11 and 20 , 2008. Thethth average interview took 26 minutes. The results of this sample may be projected to the universe of all adult residents of the City of Saint Louis Park within ± 5.0% in 95 out of 100 cases. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Residential Survey Results Page 26 Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 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: 2009 Budget – Contingency Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires to discuss with the City Council recommended budget strategies to balance the anticipated 2009 loss of Market Value Homestead Credit aid from the State of Minnesota in the amount of $632,000. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council agree with the recommendations presented? Are there other approaches that might be preferred by the City Council? BACKGROUND: Finance staff has met with all department directors to discuss ways of solving a possible 2009 budget gap created by the likely loss of Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC). In those discussions, it has been clear that the work load has generally not gone down, and economic stress may actually create more staff work in areas such as housing maintenance and crime investigation. Knowing that, we have tried to craft this recommendation in the least intrusive way possible in regards to staff disruption. We have also developed the 2009 contingency plan with the thought that we would look at 2009 as a bridge year with a bigger picture/longer term view undertaken for the 2010 budget and beyond. We will be discussing this very thing at the Council Workshop on January 30 – 31. Thus, the recommendations provided in this report are not necessarily intended to be longer term solutions. The recommendations put forward to allow for a balanced budget for 2009 are as follows: • Reduce the 2009 levy allocation to the Park Improvement Fund by $315,000. • Keep existing unfilled staff positions open for varying periods of time and use the savings to help offset the potential budget gap. This is estimated to save approximately $167,000 • Reduce certain line item expenditures by approximately $100,000. • Shift $50,000 of Street Light Replacement expense from the Public Works Operations budget to the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR). These items total the $632,000 that we may need to offset. Further background on these recommendations is as follows: Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject 2009 Budget • The City levies approximately $1 million annually as an ongoing funding source for the City’s Park Improvement Fund (PIF). The PIF is used for capital improvements in the City’s parks system. This fund is in a healthy financial condition given the significant amount of park dedication fees placed in this account over the last several years. For example, $900,000 was provided to the City to meet park dedication requirements for the West End project. As such, this fund can withstand a reduction of $315,000 from the normal transfer to this account from the City’s property tax levy (from $1 million to $685,000). To support this approach, as some Council members may recall, during the 2003/04 budget cycle (when the City lost its LGA) discussion took place on measures the City might take, at least short term, if the State also cut the MVHC payment to the City. The solution identified at that time was to take the entire cut from the levy allocation to the PIF. The proposal recommended now would only reduce the allocation to the PIF by 50% of the anticipated MVHC cut. Staff is not suggesting this be assumed as a longer term solution. Further discussion will need to occur in the future regarding the long term capital funding needs for our parks system. • The suggested savings in the staffing area by keeping vacant positions open for a period of time will have some impact on service delivery, but should not be critical. Again, these are not recommended as a long term solution. • There are certain line item budget areas that we could look at for reduction. For example, we budgeted fuel costs at the height of the market last summer and fall. Since that time, fuel prices have come down and we have locked in fuel costs thru a state fuel consortium. We should see savings in this area by as much as $50,000. • Currently, the Public Works Operations budget includes expenses for capital types of items such as random sidewalk and curb and gutter replacement and street light replacement. Short term, it is proposed that part of this expense for 2009 be paid from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR). Long term we need to look at ways to pay for these capital type costs other than from our operating budget. The PIR fund is healthy and can cover the shift proposed. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These recommendations will provide for reasonable operations of existing programs, while providing a bridge solution as we work on the 2010 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: The recommendations in this report should not have a long term impact on the four Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council. Attachments: None Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 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: Council Policy Question – Refuse Billing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Councilmember C. Paul Carver will lead the Council in a discussion about a refuse billing policy question relative to military service. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City Council direct staff to research possible changes to the refuse billing policy? BACKGROUND: Not applicable. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: None. Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 Agenda Item #: 5 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Communications (Verbal). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Not Applicable. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. BACKGROUND: At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the purpose of information sharing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: None. Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 Agenda Item #: 6 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: December 2008 Monthly Financial Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. This is a written report for information sharing purposes. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None. BACKGROUND: This report is intended to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund along with department level reports. These funds are the primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent most of the discretionary use of tax levy dollars. For the month of December, actual revenues and expenditures should generally run about 100% of the annual budget. It is natural for some of items to vary, such as exceeding budget for Supplies but being significantly below for Services as seen in Administration, but overall the expenditures should be at or below the authorized total for each department. Significant variances from budget are highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion for the variance. General Fund Revenues: • The final tax settlement will not be received until the end of January. This represents late property tax payments that were received by Hennepin County after the October 15 due date but prior to January 1. Remembering that we were un-allotted $316,000 of our Market Value Homestead Credit by the Governor in December, we are still in good shape with our largest revenue source. • Permit revenues have already exceeded the annual budget. This has been primarily driven by significant redevelopment activity and roofing and siding permits in response to the hail damage from the May 31 storm. License and permit revenues are $1,406,680 above the budgeted amount, some of which will be used to offset inspection costs that will not be incurred until next year. • Charges for service are lagging behind because there is a delay between billing for services and the actual receipt of the revenue. We accept invoices for payment out of the 2008 budget up until February 15 to accommodate our vendor’s billing cycles for goods and services received in 2008. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Subject: December 2008 Monthly Financial Report • Interest earnings will be posted in February, when we have adjusted our investments to their market value at year end to show the appropriate gain or loss and when we have final balances for so we can properly allocate the earnings to each respective fund. Expenditures: • Inspection Services – Their high volume of permits has required the department to supply additional resources to meet customer service needs so they exceed their budget for both supplies and other services. This $80,215 amount is not a concern given the additional revenue that has been received which exceeds expenses by $1,298,430. • Public Works – Engineering has not had all their projects closed out for this year. After that step is completed, Finance will transfer an amount equal to the time spent by each employee on the various projects. This will add somewhere around $300,000 to their revenues and put them into a positive budget variance. • Public Works – Operations has purchased most of the salt and sand needed for the year along with their sign materials which has caused the supplies budget to be exceeded. This is offset by lower usage in the services and other charges category. For the year, this budget should be below the maximum expenditure amount. The net balance for the general fund at this point in our accounting cycle is $876,900 of revenues over expenditures. This number should grow as we finalize property taxes and investment earnings. Parks and Recreation Revenues/Expenditures: • Organized Recreation – This budget is in slight deficit. Revenues and donations were slightly below budget and expenditures were slightly over for the year. • Recreation Center – Revenues at this point are substantially below budget, but not all of the accruals for ice rental have been booked at this time. Finance typically does this as part of our audit preparations. • Park Maintenance has exceeded budget for the year by $87,500, but it is partially offset by $20,700 of additional revenue to help offset the expenses. • Environment is high for Services & Other Charges due to a high volume of diseased tree removal work. This item depends on the number of diseased trees needing to be removed and is less controllable than other budget items. The expense is partially offset by increased revenues. The net variance above budget is $23,309. • Vehicle Maintenance is exceeding budget as a result of several factors: First, petroleum products (gas, diesel, and lubricants) are exceeding budget by $129,600 due to unprecedented prices earlier this year. Staff has joined the state bid for 2009 to mitigate this problem. We also completed the $75,000 transfer at the end of 2007 as part of closing the former MSC fund, so that amount is built into the beginning Park & Recreation fund balance. Overall, the Park and Recreation budget expenditures exceed revenues by $451,000 at this point. That number will be reduced somewhat as Finance staff completes our year-end adjustments. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Subject: December 2008 Monthly Financial Report FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This report indicates that overall we are tracking well with budgeted revenues and expenditures. It appears that we should have a healthy surplus in the General Fund at the end of the year which will increase our fund balance. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 1/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:00:00R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 14,107,179.00- 5,987,250.59- 13,122,090.81- 985,088.19- 93.02 |13,170,348.00-12,332,530.33- 93.64 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,712,715.00- 125,946.93- 4,122,395.16- 1,409,680.16 151.97 |2,636,500.00-2,940,136.75- 111.52 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,000.00- 21,826.24- 297,861.96- 13,138.04- 95.78 |309,600.00-277,004.90- 89.47 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,709,365.00- 57,486.14- 1,865,379.14- 156,014.14 109.13 |1,628,804.15-2,283,250.82- 140.18 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,084,975.00- 116,229.87- 766,404.69- 318,570.31- 70.64 |1,045,828.63-1,044,318.07- 99.86 5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |2,467.97- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-7,083.33- 87,350.07- 12,649.93- 87.35 |111,400.00-115,456.99- 103.64 4001 REVENUES 20,025,234.00-6,315,823.10-20,261,481.83-236,247.83 101.18 |18,902,480.78-18,995,165.83-100.49 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 17,638,555.00 1,572,816.38 17,522,026.60 116,528.40 99.34 |16,858,062.07 16,549,756.99 98.17 6210 SUPPLIES 758,098.00 48,372.30 721,855.16 36,242.84 95.22 |686,448.00 617,428.10 89.95 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 71,350.00 3,228.31 34,333.85 37,016.15 48.12 |63,950.00 73,833.28 115.45 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,258,872.00 277,584.08 3,497,676.27 761,195.73 82.13 |4,077,004.00 3,995,342.43 98.00 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 248.23 248.23-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 22,726,875.00 1,902,001.07 21,776,140.11 950,734.89 95.82 |21,685,464.07 21,236,360.80 97.93 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,555,694.00- 212,974.51- 2,555,694.12-.12 100.00 |2,654,836.00-2,659,532.08- 100.18 8065 SALE OF SALVAGE |10,063.00- 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-445.00-1,555.00- 22.25 |2,000.00-4,340.10- 217.01 8100 INTEREST 325,000.00-.73- 86,600.64 411,600.64- 26.65- |301,099.00-526,346.10- 174.81 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 600.00-700.00-700.00 |4,800.00- 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 5,925.00-5,925.00 |6,000.00-7,825.00- 130.42 8200 MISC REVENUE 952.12-952.12 |328.55- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,882,694.00-213,575.24-2,477,115.60-405,578.40-85.93 |2,963,935.00-3,213,234.83-108.41 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT |785,000.00 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 17.04 17.04-|13.27 8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,650.00 2,600.62 63,854.58 116,795.42 35.35 |180,650.00 7,721.84 4.27 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 400.00 1,250.73 21,683.15 21,283.15- 5,420.79 |300.00 17,513.93 5,837.98 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 181,050.00 3,851.35 85,554.77 95,495.23 47.25 |180,950.00 810,249.04 447.78 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3.00-4,623,545.92-876,902.55-876,899.55 *********|1.71-161,790.82-********* 01000 GENERAL FUND 3.00-4,623,545.92-876,902.55-876,899.55 *********|1.71-161,790.82-********* Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 4 1/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:00:00R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 3,750,197.00- 1,875,098.50- 3,750,197.00-100.00 |3,540,854.00-3,541,219.76- 100.01 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 175.00- 6,275.00-6,275.00 |6,300.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 56,402.00- 26,148.19- 86,454.46- 30,052.46 153.28 |56,402.00-55,840.78- 99.00 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,058,170.00- 80,796.60- 1,084,257.08- 26,087.08 102.47 |1,077,220.00-1,304,159.79- 121.07 5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |66,052.46- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 823,061.00- 110,737.67- 807,266.70- 15,794.30- 98.08 |809,061.00-1,031,908.22- 127.54 4001 REVENUES 5,687,830.00-2,092,955.96-5,734,450.24-46,620.24 100.82 |5,483,537.00-6,005,481.01-109.52 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,403,854.00 266,526.89 3,425,921.76 22,067.76- 100.65 |3,286,328.13 3,341,392.32 101.68 6210 SUPPLIES 795,292.00 46,596.64 911,972.74 116,680.74- 114.67 |768,832.00 869,067.10 113.04 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,500.00 3,900.62 599.38 86.68 |4,500.00 8,454.31 187.87 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,543,904.00 89,889.00 1,831,116.75 287,212.75- 118.60 |1,520,731.00 1,838,748.06 120.91 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 19,000.00 19,000.00 |19,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 5,766,550.00 403,012.53 6,172,911.87 406,361.87-107.05 |5,599,391.13 6,057,661.79 108.18 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 75,000.00-75,000.00-|100,000.00-198,791.00- 198.79 8100 INTEREST 1,600.00-1,600.00-|8,000.00-1,976.31 24.70- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 11,100.00-500.00- 5,548.00-5,552.00- 49.98 |16,600.00-9,111.99- 54.89 8200 MISC REVENUE 45,435.26 1,013.17-1,013.17 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 87,700.00-44,935.26 6,561.17-81,138.83-7.48 |124,600.00-205,926.68-165.27 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT 8,981.00 748.42 8,981.04 .04- 100.00 |8,745.73 8,745.96 100.00 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 14.23-123.40 123.40-|66.82 8580 MISC EXPENSE .80 .80-|2,375.75 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 671.57 10,050.45 10,050.45-|14,628.48 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8,981.00 1,405.76 19,155.69 10,174.69-213.29 |8,745.73 25,817.01 295.20 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1.00 1,643,602.41-451,056.15 451,055.15-*********|.14-127,928.89-********* 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 1.00 1,643,602.41-451,056.15 451,055.15-*********|.14-127,928.89-********* Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 5 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 100 GENERAL 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,107,179.00- 5,987,250.59- 13,122,090.81- 985,088.19- 93.02 |13,170,348.00-12,332,530.33- 93.64 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00- 27,209.27- 368,917.81- 323,712.81 816.10 |45,205.00-707,273.36- 1,564.59 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 248.40-248.40 |1,129.35 5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |2,467.97- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 85,124.16-124.16 100.15 |85,000.00-85,194.56- 100.23 4001 REVENUES 14,237,384.00-6,021,543.19-13,576,381.18-661,002.82-95.36 |13,300,553.00-13,126,336.87-98.69 6001 EXPENDITURES 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 52.50 52.50-|21.50 6001 EXPENDITURES 52.50 52.50-|21.50 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,471,711.00- 212,974.51- 2,555,694.12- 83,983.12 103.40 |2,571,039.00-2,659,532.08- 103.44 8065 SALE OF SALVAGE |10,063.00- 8100 INTEREST 325,000.00-86,604.42 411,604.42- 26.65- |292,599.00-526,035.12- 179.78 8200 MISC RECEIPTS |100.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,796,711.00-212,974.51-2,469,089.70-327,621.30-88.29 |2,863,638.00-3,195,730.20-111.60 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT |785,000.00 8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,000.00 2,600.00 2,600.00 177,400.00 1.44 |180,000.00 6,807.59 3.78 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,000.00 2,600.00 2,600.00 177,400.00 1.44 |180,000.00 791,807.59 439.89 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 16,854,095.00-6,231,917.70-16,042,818.38-811,276.62-95.19 |15,984,191.00-15,530,237.98-97.16 100 GENERAL 16,854,095.00-6,231,917.70-16,042,818.38-811,276.62-95.19 |15,984,191.00-15,530,237.98-97.16 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 6 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 178,000.00-700.00- 180,716.65-2,716.65 101.53 |174,000.00-178,608.30- 102.65 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-4,000.00-4,000.00- 50.00 |3,000.00-14,000.00- 466.67 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |14,500.00-14,405.00- 99.34 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |60.00- 4001 REVENUES 186,000.00-700.00-184,716.65-1,283.35-99.31 |191,500.00-207,073.30-108.13 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 511,250.00 46,001.78 526,230.09 14,980.09- 102.93 |507,731.60 495,261.10 97.54 6210 SUPPLIES 4,350.00 231.32 7,146.21 2,796.21- 164.28 |3,950.00 2,614.03 66.18 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 518,727.00 30,347.12 481,256.22 37,470.78 92.78 |471,249.00 438,830.90 93.12 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,034,327.00 76,580.22 1,014,632.52 19,694.48 98.10 |982,930.60 936,706.03 95.30 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE 30.00-30.00 |43.25- 8001 OTHER INCOME 30.00-30.00 |43.25- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 8.25 8.25-|8.91 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 24.93 24.93-|5.29 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 33.18 33.18-|14.20 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 848,327.00 75,880.22 829,919.05 18,407.95 97.83 |791,430.60 729,603.68 92.19 110 ADMINISTRATION 848,327.00 75,880.22 829,919.05 18,407.95 97.83 |791,430.60 729,603.68 92.19 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 7 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 50,000.00-7,818.50- 46,911.00-3,089.00- 93.82 |47,000.00-68,028.50- 144.74 5200 MISCELLANEOUS |50.00- 4001 REVENUES 50,000.00-7,818.50-46,911.00-3,089.00-93.82 |47,000.00-68,078.50-144.85 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 951,407.00 80,410.50 885,901.19 65,505.81 93.11 |898,670.00 840,231.24 93.50 6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 746.86 3,725.81 274.19 93.15 |3,600.00 4,323.82 120.11 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 167,356.00 15,149.93 156,938.00 10,418.00 93.77 |150,762.00 254,913.07 169.08 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,122,763.00 96,307.29 1,046,565.00 76,198.00 93.21 |1,053,032.00 1,099,468.13 104.41 8001 OTHER INCOME 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 5,925.00-5,925.00 |6,000.00-7,825.00- 130.42 8200 MISC REVENUE 281.71-281.71 |4.80- 8001 OTHER INCOME 6,206.71-6,206.71 |6,000.00-7,829.80-130.50 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 8.79 8.79-| 8580 MISC EXPENSE 150.00 .62 61,254.58 61,104.58- ********* |150.00 648.77 432.51 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 300.00 10.16 289.84 3.39 |300.00 418.50 139.50 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 450.00 .62 61,273.53 60,823.53-*********|450.00 1,067.27 237.17 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,073,213.00 88,489.41 1,054,720.82 18,492.18 98.28 |1,000,482.00 1,024,627.10 102.41 120 FINANCE 1,073,213.00 88,489.41 1,054,720.82 18,492.18 98.28 |1,000,482.00 1,024,627.10 102.41 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 8 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 9,000.00-750.00- 3,758.00-5,242.00- 41.76 |9,000.00-26,826.00- 298.07 4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-750.00-3,758.00-5,242.00-41.76 |9,000.00-26,826.00-298.07 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 459,624.00 40,806.22 463,094.72 3,470.72- 100.76 |433,712.46 447,642.45 103.21 6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 450.01 1,552.11 447.89 77.61 |2,000.00 1,892.87 94.64 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 168,050.00 7,947.73 116,332.00 51,718.00 69.22 |132,660.00 132,337.91 99.76 6001 EXPENDITURES 629,674.00 49,203.96 580,978.83 48,695.17 92.27 |568,372.46 581,873.23 102.38 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE |117.50- 8001 OTHER INCOME |117.50- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |.21 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |.21 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 620,674.00 48,453.96 577,220.83 43,453.17 93.00 |559,372.46 554,929.94 99.21 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 620,674.00 48,453.96 577,220.83 43,453.17 93.00 |559,372.46 554,929.94 99.21 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 9 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 12,000.00-840.00- 12,505.00-505.00 104.21 |12,000.00-12,250.00- 102.08 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,667.00- 1,667.00-1,667.00 | 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 572,675.00- 91,112.37- 596,709.13- 24,034.13 104.20 |553,028.63-538,329.82- 97.34 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 14,862.42 14,862.42-|14,862.42- 4001 REVENUES 584,675.00-93,619.37-596,018.71-11,343.71 101.94 |565,028.63-565,442.24-100.07 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,019,147.00 87,384.01 1,001,970.55 17,176.45 98.31 |968,204.14 969,732.00 100.16 6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 44.27-883.88 2,116.12 29.46 |3,000.00 985.65 32.86 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 219.09 780.91 21.91 |1,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 57,750.00 2,239.24 46,917.04 10,832.96 81.24 |52,750.00 56,561.31 107.23 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,080,897.00 89,578.98 1,049,990.56 30,906.44 97.14 |1,024,954.14 1,027,278.96 100.23 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 496,222.00 4,040.39-453,971.85 42,250.15 91.49 |459,925.51 461,836.72 100.42 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 496,222.00 4,040.39-453,971.85 42,250.15 91.49 |459,925.51 461,836.72 100.42 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 10 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 8,200.00-8,200.00-|8,200.00-17,510.00- 213.54 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-15,313.33-313.33 102.09 |16,400.00-15,350.01- 93.60 4001 REVENUES 23,200.00-15,313.33-7,886.67-66.01 |24,600.00-32,860.01-133.58 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 510,784.00 41,696.65 497,540.03 13,243.97 97.41 |484,355.24 487,901.68 100.73 6210 SUPPLIES 109,500.00 12,676.59 76,819.47 32,680.53 70.15 |110,500.00 121,354.01 109.82 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 31,000.00 1,314.83 9,474.48 21,525.52 30.56 |30,000.00 23,290.97 77.64 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 536,642.00 24,692.84 406,371.34 130,270.66 75.72 |539,512.00 502,648.95 93.17 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,187,926.00 80,380.91 990,205.32 197,720.68 83.36 |1,164,367.24 1,135,195.61 97.49 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE 385.09-385.09 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 385.09-385.09 | 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 20.00 34.26 34.26-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 20.00 34.26 34.26-| 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,164,726.00 80,400.91 974,541.16 190,184.84 83.67 |1,139,767.24 1,102,335.60 96.72 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,164,726.00 80,400.91 974,541.16 190,184.84 83.67 |1,139,767.24 1,102,335.60 96.72 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 11 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00-75.00 | 4001 REVENUES 75.00-75.00 | 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 566,679.00 56,480.13 640,696.27 74,017.27- 113.06 |613,992.71 606,923.86 98.85 6210 SUPPLIES 31,200.00 1,762.09 24,494.09 6,705.91 78.51 |29,400.00 32,353.27 110.05 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,300.00 374.12 3,926.57 1,626.57- 170.72 |300.00 17,817.63 5,939.21 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,660.00 50,037.15 707,014.85 153,645.15 82.15 |846,483.00 888,014.71 104.91 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,460,839.00 108,653.49 1,376,131.78 84,707.22 94.20 |1,490,175.71 1,545,109.47 103.69 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 52.75 52.75-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 52.75 52.75-| 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,460,839.00 108,653.49 1,376,109.53 84,729.47 94.20 |1,490,175.71 1,545,109.47 103.69 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,460,839.00 108,653.49 1,376,109.53 84,729.47 94.20 |1,490,175.71 1,545,109.47 103.69 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 12 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 2,500.00-2,500.00 | 4001 REVENUES 2,500.00-2,500.00 | 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 173,932.00 7,133.75 87,555.73 86,376.27 50.34 |99,061.47 70,157.57 70.82 6210 SUPPLIES |93.16 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |797.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 113,850.00 10,971.75 153,306.60 39,456.60- 134.66 |119,690.00 121,059.12 101.14 6001 EXPENDITURES 287,782.00 18,105.50 240,862.33 46,919.67 83.70 |218,751.47 192,106.85 87.82 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 16.18 16.18-|9.71 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 16.18 16.18-|9.71 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 287,782.00 18,105.50 238,378.51 49,403.49 82.83 |218,751.47 192,116.56 87.82 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 287,782.00 18,105.50 238,378.51 49,403.49 82.83 |218,751.47 192,116.56 87.82 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 13 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 55.00-55.00 |105.00- 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 302,600.00- 21,826.24- 293,203.96-9,396.04- 96.89 |306,600.00-262,692.90- 85.68 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 882,160.00- 28,609.87- 832,199.28- 49,960.72- 94.34 |841,075.15-882,920.46- 104.98 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 110,300.00- 15,197.50- 103,999.66-6,300.34- 94.29 |119,300.00-123,661.12- 103.66 4001 REVENUES 1,295,060.00-65,633.61-1,229,457.90-65,602.10-94.93 |1,266,975.15-1,269,379.48-100.19 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,185,321.00 555,212.35 6,217,056.94 31,735.94- 100.51 |5,965,980.09 5,754,997.07 96.46 6210 SUPPLIES 155,300.00 6,442.73 89,417.71 65,882.29 57.58 |142,700.00 92,339.30 64.71 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,550.00 1,539.36 19,958.37 13,591.63 59.49 |27,350.00 28,426.44 103.94 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 552,343.00 21,764.91 375,035.37 177,307.63 67.90 |540,073.00 414,783.23 76.80 6001 EXPENDITURES 6,926,514.00 584,959.35 6,701,468.39 225,045.61 96.75 |6,676,103.09 6,290,546.04 94.22 8001 OTHER INCOME 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-445.00-1,555.00- 22.25 |2,000.00-4,340.10- 217.01 8100 INTEREST .73-3.78-3.78 |8,500.00-310.98- 3.66 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |4,800.00- 8200 MISC REVENUE 39.72-39.72 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00-.73-488.50-1,511.50-24.43 |10,500.00-9,451.08-90.01 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00 262.48 52.50 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 100.00 17.80 166.30 66.30- 166.30 |240.23 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 600.00 17.80 166.30 433.70 27.72 |500.00 502.71 100.54 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 5,630,054.00 519,342.81 5,471,688.29 158,365.71 97.19 |5,399,127.94 5,012,218.19 92.83 160 POLICE 5,630,054.00 519,342.81 5,471,688.29 158,365.71 97.19 |5,399,127.94 5,012,218.19 92.83 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 14 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 73,127.00 6,617.79 74,096.34 969.34- 101.33 |71,292.35 70,165.95 98.42 6210 SUPPLIES 1,100.00 473.75 626.25 43.07 |1,100.00 232.63 21.15 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 9,756.00 828.77 6,059.64 3,696.36 62.11 |44,005.00 41,155.68 93.53 6001 EXPENDITURES 83,983.00 7,446.56 80,629.73 3,353.27 96.01 |116,397.35 111,554.26 95.84 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 83,983.00-83,983.00-|83,797.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 83,983.00-83,983.00-|83,797.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 7,446.56 80,629.73 80,629.73-|32,600.35 111,554.26 342.19 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 7,446.56 80,629.73 80,629.73-|32,600.35 111,554.26 342.19 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 15 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 55,000.00-5,160.28- 49,322.93-5,677.07- 89.68 |55,000.00-38,152.90- 69.37 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 332,000.00-218,787.00- 113,213.00- 65.90 |298,024.00-276,688.70- 92.84 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-1,267.50- 12,597.50-8,597.50 314.94 |5,500.00-2,220.52- 40.37 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,700.00-1,700.00 | 4001 REVENUES 391,000.00-6,427.78-282,407.43-108,592.57-72.23 |358,524.00-317,062.12-88.44 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,712,378.00 252,038.78 2,614,819.06 97,558.94 96.40 |2,494,897.00 2,542,189.21 101.90 6210 SUPPLIES 93,648.00 18,432.89 88,094.37 5,553.63 94.07 |60,398.00 38,109.41 63.10 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,700.00 3,501.24 205.96 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,092.00 27,517.63 194,061.57 29,030.43 86.99 |199,527.00 178,898.73 89.66 6001 EXPENDITURES 3,029,118.00 297,989.30 2,896,975.00 132,143.00 95.64 |2,756,522.00 2,762,698.59 100.22 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 600.00-700.00-700.00 | 8200 MISC REVENUE |23.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 600.00-700.00-700.00 |23.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |4.36 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |30.82 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |35.18 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,638,118.00 290,961.52 2,613,867.57 24,250.43 99.08 |2,397,998.00 2,445,648.65 101.99 165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,638,118.00 290,961.52 2,613,867.57 24,250.43 99.08 |2,397,998.00 2,445,648.65 101.99 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 16 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 2,392,615.00- 118,246.65- 3,791,615.58- 1,399,000.58 158.47 |2,347,200.00-2,549,660.55- 108.63 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 445.65-445.65 | 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 800.00-84.00- 1,106.00-306.00 138.25 |800.00-16,152.91 2,019.11- 4001 REVENUES 2,393,415.00-118,330.65-3,793,167.23-1,399,752.23 158.48 |2,348,000.00-2,533,507.64-107.90 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,771,747.00 159,079.59 1,797,536.31 25,789.31- 101.46 |1,703,179.00 1,650,137.88 96.89 6210 SUPPLIES 11,500.00 1,179.09 18,736.78 7,236.78- 162.93 |12,500.00 12,293.08 98.34 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 69,627.00 16,328.22 116,816.43 47,189.43- 167.77 |77,627.00 64,237.30 82.75 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,852,874.00 176,586.90 1,933,089.52 80,215.52-104.33 |1,793,306.00 1,726,668.26 96.28 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC RECEIPTS 215.60-215.60 |40.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 215.60-215.60 |40.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE |3.00 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 1,212.93 21,322.15 21,322.15-|16,809.17 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,212.93 21,322.15 21,322.15-|16,812.17 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 540,541.00-59,469.18 1,838,971.16-1,298,430.16 340.21 |554,694.00-790,067.21-142.43 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 540,541.00-59,469.18 1,838,971.16-1,298,430.16 340.21 |554,694.00-790,067.21-142.43 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 17 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |3,000.00-23,191.03- 773.03 4001 REVENUES |3,000.00-23,191.03-773.03 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 793,133.00 73,803.08 795,127.66 1,994.66- 100.25 |766,936.63 774,591.07 101.00 6210 SUPPLIES 4,500.00 9.57 2,318.98 2,181.02 51.53 |5,000.00 2,434.28 48.69 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,500.00 1,500.00 |2,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 33,450.00 678.19 27,133.06 6,316.94 81.12 |25,650.00 20,087.86 78.32 6001 EXPENDITURES 832,583.00 74,490.84 824,579.70 8,003.30 99.04 |799,586.63 797,113.21 99.69 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 31.15 31.15-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 31.15 31.15-| 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 832,583.00 74,490.84 824,610.85 7,972.15 99.04 |796,586.63 773,922.18 97.15 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 832,583.00 74,490.84 824,610.85 7,972.15 99.04 |796,586.63 773,922.18 97.15 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 18 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 75,000.00-1,000.00- 88,150.00- 13,150.00 117.53 |48,000.00-161,300.00- 336.04 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-1,075.00- 328,925.00-.33 |300,000.00-261,773.34- 87.26 4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-1,000.00-89,225.00-315,775.00-22.03 |348,000.00-423,073.34-121.57 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 690,511.00 58,853.51 716,249.67 25,738.67- 103.73 |660,469.39 693,465.91 105.00 6210 SUPPLIES 7,000.00 15.16 4,105.35 2,894.65 58.65 |6,800.00 3,360.73 49.42 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |1,600.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 85,671.00 1,556.34 31,001.67 54,669.33 36.19 |76,433.00 119,671.25 156.57 6001 EXPENDITURES 785,182.00 60,425.01 751,356.69 33,825.31 95.69 |745,302.39 816,497.89 109.55 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 25.27 25.27-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 25.27 25.27-| 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 380,182.00 59,425.01 662,156.96 281,974.96-174.17 |397,302.39 393,424.55 99.02 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 380,182.00 59,425.01 662,156.96 281,974.96-174.17 |397,302.39 393,424.55 99.02 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 19 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 100.00-30.00-70.00- 30.00 |300.00-60.00- 20.00 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 400.00-658.00-258.00 164.50 |312.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-440,862.40-9,137.60- 97.97 |430,000.00-401,963.30- 93.48 5200 MISCELLANEOUS |10,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 450,500.00-441,550.40-8,949.60-98.01 |440,300.00-402,335.30-91.38 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,219,515.00 107,298.24 1,204,152.04 15,362.96 98.74 |1,189,579.99 1,146,360.00 96.37 6210 SUPPLIES 331,000.00 6,470.26 404,086.65 73,086.65- 122.08 |305,500.00 305,041.86 99.85 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 755.34 755.34-| 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 861,898.00 67,524.26 679,379.98 182,518.02 78.82 |800,583.00 761,830.91 95.16 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 248.23 248.23-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 2,412,413.00 181,292.76 2,288,622.24 123,790.76 94.87 |2,295,662.99 2,213,232.77 96.41 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,961,913.00 181,292.76 1,847,071.84 114,841.16 94.15 |1,855,362.99 1,810,897.47 97.60 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 1,961,913.00 181,292.76 1,847,071.84 114,841.16 94.15 |1,855,362.99 1,810,897.47 97.60 01000 GENERAL FUND 3.00-4,623,545.92-876,902.55-876,899.55 *********|1.71-161,790.82-********* Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 20 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 3,750,197.00- 1,875,098.50- 3,750,197.00-100.00 |3,540,854.00-3,541,219.76- 100.01 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00- 22,351.00- 44,702.00-100.00 |44,702.00-44,702.00- 100.00 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 242,070.00- 49,234.49- 239,865.34-2,204.66- 99.09 |242,870.00-260,262.16- 107.16 5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |66,052.46- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 19,600.00-4,336.36- 16,471.58-3,128.42- 84.04 |19,600.00-35,104.21- 179.10 4001 REVENUES 4,056,569.00-1,951,020.35-4,051,235.92-5,333.08-99.87 |3,848,026.00-3,947,340.59-102.58 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 711,222.00 62,180.06 735,896.17 24,674.17- 103.47 |685,781.00 716,028.78 104.41 6210 SUPPLIES 66,892.00 7,947.97 41,434.05 25,457.95 61.94 |69,832.00 44,746.18 64.08 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 472,585.00 10,657.65 472,107.23 477.77 99.90 |467,741.00 464,582.58 99.32 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,250,699.00 80,785.68 1,249,437.45 1,261.55 99.90 |1,223,354.00 1,225,357.54 100.16 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN |98,791.00- 8100 INTEREST 1,600.00-1,600.00-|8,000.00-1,976.31 24.70- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,100.00-3,000.00- 10,100.00- 22.90 |18,600.00-3,405.00- 18.31 8200 MISC REVENUE 45,435.26 1,013.17-1,013.17 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 14,700.00-45,435.26 4,013.17-10,686.83-27.30 |26,600.00-100,219.69-376.77 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 14.23-42.55 42.55-|56.70 8580 MISC EXPENSE |2,375.75 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 631.83 9,510.23 9,510.23-|13,970.07 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 617.60 9,552.78 9,552.78-|16,402.52 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,820,570.00-1,824,181.81-2,796,258.86-24,311.14-99.14 |2,651,272.00-2,805,800.22-105.83 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 2,820,570.00-1,824,181.81-2,796,258.86-24,311.14-99.14 |2,651,272.00-2,805,800.22-105.83 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 21 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 22Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 645,500.00- 12,944.80- 564,237.62- 81,262.38- 87.41 |642,500.00-627,948.01- 97.74 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 691,200.00- 97,685.84- 653,688.07- 37,511.93- 94.57 |678,200.00-856,141.62- 126.24 4001 REVENUES 1,336,700.00-110,630.64-1,217,925.69-118,774.31-91.11 |1,320,700.00-1,484,089.63-112.37 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 765,999.00 47,839.66 733,208.44 32,790.56 95.72 |735,941.56 706,040.73 95.94 6210 SUPPLIES 167,100.00 5,848.15 172,244.16 5,144.16- 103.08 |160,300.00 184,982.23 115.40 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |4,832.97 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 413,284.00 28,012.27 458,783.67 45,499.67- 111.01 |411,358.00 418,679.34 101.78 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 12,000.00 12,000.00 |12,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,358,383.00 81,700.08 1,364,236.27 5,853.27-100.43 |1,319,599.56 1,314,535.27 99.62 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 2.28 2.28-|10.12 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2.28 2.28-|10.12 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 21,683.00 28,930.56-146,312.86 124,629.86-674.78 |1,100.44-169,544.24-********* 201 RECREATION CENTER 21,683.00 28,930.56-146,312.86 124,629.86-674.78 |1,100.44-169,544.24-********* Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 22 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 23Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 175.00- 6,275.00-6,275.00 |6,300.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 8,700.00-8,700.00-|8,700.00-11,255.00- 129.37 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 11,600.00-31.95 34,733.06- 23,133.06 299.42 |10,600.00-34,942.73- 329.65 4001 REVENUES 20,300.00-143.05-41,008.06-20,708.06 202.01 |19,300.00-52,497.73-272.01 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 961,356.00 79,499.37 992,456.78 31,100.78- 103.24 |933,626.73 954,290.00 102.21 6210 SUPPLIES 88,700.00 2,462.31 101,569.93 12,869.93- 114.51 |88,700.00 97,765.84 110.22 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,000.00 3,900.62 99.38 97.52 |4,000.00 3,196.12 79.90 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 316,462.00 30,095.34 367,119.57 50,657.57- 116.01 |300,055.00 341,648.20 113.86 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,377,518.00 112,057.02 1,465,046.90 87,528.90-106.35 |1,333,381.73 1,396,900.16 104.76 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,357,218.00 111,913.97 1,424,038.84 66,820.84-104.92 |1,314,081.73 1,344,402.43 102.31 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,357,218.00 111,913.97 1,424,038.84 66,820.84-104.92 |1,314,081.73 1,344,402.43 102.31 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 23 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 24Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 80,150.00-5,999.75- 86,130.85-5,980.85 107.46 |78,700.00-80,688.09- 102.53 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 9.00-282.95-282.95 |482.00- 4001 REVENUES 80,150.00-6,008.75-86,413.80-6,263.80 107.82 |78,700.00-81,170.09-103.14 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 404,679.00 29,989.17 400,914.02 3,764.98 99.07 |394,252.59 402,948.41 102.21 6210 SUPPLIES 22,650.00 1,278.75 17,982.02 4,667.98 79.39 |22,300.00 20,831.86 93.42 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |200.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 39,349.00 2,717.19 38,270.00 1,079.00 97.26 |35,532.00 31,216.68 87.86 6001 EXPENDITURES 466,678.00 33,985.11 457,166.04 9,511.96 97.96 |452,084.59 455,196.95 100.69 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 500.00- 3,657.75-3,657.75 |8,018.89- 8001 OTHER INCOME 500.00-3,657.75-3,657.75 |8,018.89- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 39.74 508.40 508.40-|658.41 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 39.74 508.40 508.40-|658.41 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 386,528.00 27,516.10 367,602.89 18,925.11 95.10 |373,384.59 366,666.38 98.20 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 386,528.00 27,516.10 367,602.89 18,925.11 95.10 |373,384.59 366,666.38 98.20 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 24 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 25Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 204 ENVIRONMENT 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 29,500.00- 29,500.00 | 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 81,750.00- 12,617.56- 194,023.27- 112,273.27 237.34 |69,450.00-306,134.80- 440.80 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 350.00- 1,430.00-1,430.00 | 4001 REVENUES 81,750.00-12,967.56-224,953.27-143,203.27 275.17 |69,450.00-306,134.80-440.80 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 99,297.00 5,956.31 100,838.52 1,541.52- 101.55 |96,662.52 106,182.68 109.85 6210 SUPPLIES 17,900.00 219.36 17,070.12 829.88 95.36 |13,600.00 11,323.22 83.26 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 500.00 500.00 |500.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 171,285.00 14,142.30 338,475.34 167,190.34- 197.61 |165,835.00 413,668.45 249.45 6001 EXPENDITURES 288,982.00 20,317.97 456,383.98 167,401.98-157.93 |276,597.52 531,174.35 192.04 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 1,109.75 890.25 55.49 |2,000.00 2,311.90 115.60 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 1,109.75 890.25 55.49 |2,000.00 2,311.90 115.60 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE .80 .80-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE .80 .80-| 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 209,232.00 7,350.41 232,541.26 23,309.26-111.14 |209,147.52 227,351.45 108.70 204 ENVIRONMENT 209,232.00 7,350.41 232,541.26 23,309.26-111.14 |209,147.52 227,351.45 108.70 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 25 1/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:52R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 26Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 200812/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008 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 11,700.00-3,797.19- 12,252.46-552.46 104.72 |11,700.00-11,138.78- 95.20 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |35,000.00-17,871.73- 51.06 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,661.00-8,388.42- 100,661.04-.04 100.00 |100,661.00-105,237.66- 104.55 4001 REVENUES 112,361.00-12,185.61-112,913.50-552.50 100.49 |147,361.00-134,248.17-91.10 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 461,301.00 41,062.32 462,607.83 1,306.83- 100.28 |440,063.73 455,901.72 103.60 6210 SUPPLIES 432,050.00 28,840.10 561,672.46 129,622.46- 130.00 |414,100.00 509,417.77 123.02 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |225.22 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 130,939.00 4,264.25 156,360.94 25,421.94- 119.42 |140,210.00 168,952.81 120.50 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,024,290.00 74,166.67 1,180,641.23 156,351.23-115.26 |994,373.73 1,134,497.52 114.09 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 75,000.00-75,000.00-|100,000.00-100,000.00- 100.00 8001 OTHER INCOME 75,000.00-75,000.00-|100,000.00-100,000.00-100.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT 8,981.00 748.42 8,981.04 .04- 100.00 |8,745.73 8,745.96 100.00 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 78.57 78.57-| 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 31.82 31.82-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8,981.00 748.42 9,091.43 110.43-101.23 |8,745.73 8,745.96 100.00 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 845,910.00 62,729.48 1,076,819.16 230,909.16-127.30 |755,758.46 908,995.31 120.28 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 845,910.00 62,729.48 1,076,819.16 230,909.16-127.30 |755,758.46 908,995.31 120.28 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 1.00 1,643,602.41-451,056.15 451,055.15-*********|.14-127,928.89-********* Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 6) Subject: December 2008 Financial Report Page 26 Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 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: Quarterly Investment Report (October-December, 2008). RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. This is a written report for information sharing purposes. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None. BACKGROUND: Our portfolio has become focused on short term cash flow needs, with only a few longer term securities locked in to try to maximize interest income potential in the recent precipitous fall in interest rates. We have been a part of the flight to quality in the sense that we have avoided commercial paper for the last five months due to concerns over credit quality. It is always necessary to have a reasonable amount of cash available to cover the normal cash flow needs for payroll and general expenses, in addition to large payments for debt service that is due February 1 each year. As of December 31, the balance in the city’s money market funds is higher than normal as a significant amount of cash was received in December from the second half tax settlement, the two bond issue proceeds, and a substantial number of called bonds. Since commercial paper is no longer considered as secure as it once was, we have very few options to lock in short-term investments for cash flow purposes. Investment totals by type are: Longer term investments are being purchased whenever reasonable interest rates can be obtained. The definition of reasonable has dropped considerably since last year. Treasury bond yields remain mere basis points away from their historical lows of last month as shown on the following graph. Two-year notes are trading around 0.76%, while the ten-year bill is yielding 2.43%. 12/31/08 9/30/08 <1 Year 45% 28% 1-2 Years 4% 4% 2-3 Years 9% 7% >3 Years 42% 61% Commercial Paper None Agency Bonds/CD’s $45,314,121 Money Market $33,116,085 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Subject: Quarterly Investment Report (October-December, 2008) Our current portfolio yield is roughly 2.7%. Cities generally use a short horizon benchmark such as the two year Treasury (.76% at 12/31 down from 2.00% at 9/30) or some similar measure. This is calculated by taking the yield times the current value for each investment and dividing the resulting amount by the total portfolio value. While our primary money market investment, the 4M Fund, has dropped to an average yield of .55%, longer term investments that have been purchased raise the total portfolio yield. Most of our recent purchases are callable agency bonds. They typically have reasonable interest rates for the final maturity date which is in three to five years, but are callable in three months to a year. This effectively reduces the average life of our investments, since we expect most of these securities to be called. We need to be careful though – if inflation and interest rates jump up dramatically, we will be stuck holding these bonds at low interest rates. Staff intends to carefully review our options in order to keep sufficient liquidity to lock in higher rates once the economy begins to expand again. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: Quarterly Investment Report Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City of St. Louis Park Investments December 31, 2008 Institution Main Type Maturity Yield Basis Market Value 12/31/08 Unrealized Gain or (Loss) 4M MM 0.55%24,099,804 Citigroup/Smith Barney FFCB 08/25/2009 4.75% 763,598 770,625 7,028 Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 12/9/2010 3.00% 1,000,000 1,003,440 3,440 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 12/29/2010 2.00% 750,000 755,393 5,393 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLB 10/26/2011 5.25% 1,029,060 1,035,000 5,940 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLB 11/21/2011 5.10% 1,018,130 1,015,940 (2,190) Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLB 01/04/2012 5.00% 1,027,190 1,039,690 12,500 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 06/18/2012 4.15% 672,819 674,350 1,531 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 8/24/2012 3.00% 1,000,000 997,360 (2,640) Citigroup/Smith Barney FFCBC 2/13/2013 3.90% 1,000,000 1,003,130 3,130 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 5/14/2013 4.15% 1,000,000 1,006,560 6,560 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLB 05/20/2013 4.00% 1,000,000 1,015,420 15,420 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 6/11/2013 4.38% 998,750 1,012,810 14,060 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 7/2/2013 5.00% 1,000,000 1,017,720 17,720 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 7/30/2013 4.00% 1,000,000 1,001,880 1,880 Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 8/19/2013 4.10% 1,000,000 1,003,770 3,770 Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 7.19%59,175 Citigroup/Smith Barney MM 1.36%3,144,943 17,557,205 93,541 Prudential/Wachovia CD 1/7/2009 4.55% 95,000 95,000 - Prudential/Wachovia CD 1/9/2009 4.55% 95,000 95,073 73 Prudential/Wachovia CD 1/12/2009 4.60% 95,000 95,093 93 Prudential/Wachovia CD 1/16/2009 4.50% 95,000 95,120 120 Prudential/Wachovia CD 12/24/2009 2.25% 250,000 250,515 515 Prudential/Wachovia CD 12/30/2009 2.20% 250,000 250,000 - Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 96,686 686 Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 96,686 686 Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 96,686 686 Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/19/2010 4.25% 96,000 96,684 684 Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/19/2010 4.25% 96,000 96,684 684 Prudential/Wachovia FHLB 10/14/2011 4.00% 1,000,000 1,001,875 1,875 Prudential/Wachovia Fannie Mae 6/3/2013 4.13% 1,624,028 1,634,648 10,620 Prudential/Wachovia FHLMC 6/10/2013 4.00% 1,000,000 1,010,057 10,057 Prudential/Wachovia FNMA 7/8/2013 4.50% 1,000,000 1,002,812 2,812 Prudential/Wachovia Freddie Mac 12/15/2013 3.00% 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 7,013,621 29,593 UBS/Paine Webber FHLB 2/13/2012 5.40% 1,017,190 1,005,000 (12,190) UBS/Paine Webber Cashfund 1.29%5,747,091 6,752,091 (12,190) Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLB 02/12/2010 5.00% 1,075,900 1,072,850 (3,050) Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FNMA 6/22/2011 5.50% 1,968,768 1,962,778 (5,990) Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLMC 9/30/2011 2.25% 1,000,000 1,000,000 - Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLB 12/9/2011 2.63% 1,026,113 1,054,890 28,777 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLB 7/23/2012 4.15% 1,048,200 1,061,810 13,610 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLB 8/27/2012 5.05% 1,035,900 1,056,140 20,240 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLB 08/27/2012 2.81% 1,063,803 1,058,740 (5,063) Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FNMA 10/22/2012 1.76% 1,031,768 1,030,930 (838) Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLB 10/29/2012 4.03% 1,031,600 1,054,700 23,100 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FNMA 01/04/2013 2.77% 1,041,216 1,021,930 (19,286) Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FNMA 1/18/2013 3.85% 1,004,210 1,030,770 26,560 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLMC 2/5/2013 4.14% 999,682 1,001,490 1,808 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Quarterly Investment Report (October-December, 2008)Page 3 City of St. Louis Park Investments December 31, 2008 Institution Main Type Maturity Yield Basis Market Value 12/31/08 Unrealized Gain or (Loss) Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLB 2/25/2013 3.65% 523,010 537,626 14,617 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FNMA 2/26/2013 3.05% 1,022,043 1,022,200 158 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FNMA 03/18/2013 3.96% 1,000,000 1,032,210 32,210 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FNMA 4/29/2013 3.60% 815,084 822,777 7,693 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FHLMC 5/6/2013 4.00% 999,663 1,012,000 12,337 Sterne, Agee & Leach Inc FNMA 5/28/2013 4.05% 999,000 1,059,340 60,340 Sterne, Agee Cash Trust MM 124,248 19,017,429 207,222 Wells Fargo Fr Mac Note 02/02/2012 5.40% 1,521,870 1,505,250 (16,620) Wells Fargo FHLMC 03/01/2009 3.50% 428,798 458,407 29,609 Wells Fargo Fr Mac Note 01/09/2012 5.30% 1,000,000 1,000,770 770 Wells Fargo FHLB 07/20/2012 5.70% 1,030,000 1,025,630 (4,370) 3,990,057 9,389 GRAND TOTAL 78,430,206 327,555 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Quarterly Investment Report (October-December, 2008)Page 4 Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 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: Domesticated Farm Animals. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has collected ordinance information from other cities about the keeping of domesticated farm animals (the initial question was focused on chickens) within city limits for Council’s information and based on Councils request for this information. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to discuss domesticated farm animals at a future study session? BACKGROUND: City Council directed staff to look at the city’s ordinance as it pertains to domestic animals (chickens) and how our codes compare with other cities. Under Chapter 4 of our Animal Ordinance, we have a section regulating the keeping of domestic animals including “chickens.” As stated below in this section of the Ordinance, a domesticated animal is only allowed to be kept with written permission from the city and is as follows: Sec. 4-1. Regulating the keeping of domestic animals. No person shall keep or harbor any fowl, horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine in the city, or permit the same to be done upon premises the person owns, occupies or controls without written permission from the city. (Code 1976, § 11-310) In reviewing this ordinance with staff, we do not have records that show we have granted written permission for a property allowing hens or chickens within city limits. Survey information: Staff has researched neighboring cities and has attached this information for Council’s review. St. Louis Park’s adjacent neighbors, Hopkins, Plymouth, Golden Valley and Edina do not allow chickens or other farm animals; Minneapolis and Minnetonka allow hens/chickens in some instances. Minneapolis allows an owner to keep chickens through a permit process that requires the signature of 80% property owners within 100 feet of the proponent’s property. Minnetonka allows for 5 or fewer chickens to be kept on one-half acre lots for non-commercial purposes. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals Richfield is the least restrictive of the cities in the survey: three chickens is the maximum and owners do not need a permit or prior notification to neighbors. Bloomington only allows chickens in the large lot single family residential district and owners must maintain a 100 foot setback from the coop to the property line. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Domesticated Farm Animals – Neighboring Cities’ Ordinances City Ordinance Chapter 4 - Animals Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals Domestic Farm Animals – Neighboring Cities’ Ordinances City Chicken defined Allowed? City Code/Zoning Ordinance Bloomington Farm Animal Yes, only in the RS-1 district, need to maintain 100 foot setback from the coop to the property line. Section 19.27.01. LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RS-1. (a) Purpose - To provide for areas within the City primarily intended for low-density residential development which are: (1) Adjacent to the Minnesota River Bluff; or (2) Located in areas of steep slopes, significant vegetation, wetlands or other unique natural features which, in the opinion of the City Council, are necessary to maintain the character of the area or the community and which would be irreparably harmed by denser development; or (3) Substantially developed with single-family detached dwellings on parcels in excess of 30,000 square feet. (b) Uses - (1) Permitted Principal Uses - A. Detached single-family dwellings B. Public governmental uses C. Golf courses, public and private D. Agriculture - except fur farms, kennels, poultry farms and commercial animal farms. .. (f) Special Provisions - (1) General - A. No development shall be permitted unless public sewer and water services are available. B. When nearby structures in existence on October 7, 1974 have a greater front yard setback than that required in the RS-1 District, the minimum front yard setback of a new structure shall conform to the prevailing setback of adjacent structures, up to a Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 4 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals City Chicken defined Allowed? City Code/Zoning Ordinance maximum of 65 feet. C. No more than one principal use shall be permitted on a platted lot or parcel of record. D. All developed properties shall display the street address on at least one street frontage. E. No fence greater than three feet in height shall be erected within 20 feet of any street right-of-way line. F. Any enclosure, private stable, or other structure used for keeping farm animals, including bees, shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property line. Edina Livestock No 300.11 Keeping of Certain Animals Prohibited. No person shall keep within the City: A. Any livestock. B. Any mammal belonging to the order of Carnivore except dogs, cats and ferrets. For the purposes of this paragraph, the bloodline of an individual animal must comprise not less than 51 percent domestic breeds. C. Honeybees and apiaries. D. Venomous snakes Golden Valley Farm Animal No Section 10.32: Animals and Fowl-Keeping, Transporting, Treatment, and Housing Subdivision 1. Definitions As used in this Section, the following definitions shall apply. A. Farm Animals: Cattle, horses, mules, sheep, goats, swine, ponies, ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens and honey bees. B. Animals: Includes farm animals and all other animals, reptiles and feathered birds or fowl except dogs, cats, gerbils, hamsters and caged household birds. Subdivision 2. Keeping It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any animal, not in transit, except (1) animals kept as part of a show licensed under the City Code, or, (2) animals used in a parade for which a permit has been issued, or, (3) animals kept in a laboratory for scientific Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 5 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals City Chicken defined Allowed? City Code/Zoning Ordinance or experimental purposes, or, (4) animals kept in an animal hospital or clinic for treatment by a licensed veterinarian. Hopkins Farm Animal No 940.02 Prohibited Animals. No person shall keep, maintain or harbor within the City of Hopkins any of the following animals. Subd.3. Any Farm Animal. Minneapolis Fowl Yes, by permit 70.10. Permit required. (a) No person shall anywhere in the city keep, harbor, or maintain care, custody, or control over any small animal or any fowl such as a chicken, turkey, duck, or pigeon, without obtaining a permit issued by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. (b) The Manager of Minneapolis Animal Care and Control may grant permit pursuant to this section after the applicant has sought the written consent of at least eighty (80) percent of the occupants of the several descriptions of real estate situated within one hundred (100) feet of the applicant's real estate. Such written consent shall be required on the initial application and as often thereafter as the Manager of Minneapolis Animal Care and Control deems necessary. (c) No permit shall be granted to keep any animal, fowl, or pigeon within a dwelling unit or part thereof, nor on any real estate which contains three (3) or more dwelling units. (d) This section shall not apply to dogs, cats, ferrets, or rabbits nor to veterinarians or licensed pet shops or licensed kennels. (e) Application for permit. Any person desiring a permit under this chapter shall make written application to Minneapolis Animal Care and Control Approval of application is subject to conditions prescribed by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. Failure to adhere to conditions is cause for cancellation of the permit and/or result in an administrative fine. (f) Duration of permit. All permits issued shall expire on January 31 of the following year after its issuance unless sooner revoked. The annual fee for such permit shall be thirty dollars ($30.00) which shall be paid at time of application. Minneapolis Animal Care and Control will inspect the premise annually or as deemed necessary. (g) Refusal to grant permit. Minneapolis Animal Care and Control may refuse a permit to keep or maintain animals or fowl hereunder for failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter, and shall refuse a permit if such animals or fowl should not be kept upon the premises described in the application for the permit. If any such permit is refused, the fee paid with the application shall be retained by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. (h) Enforcement. Minneapolis Animal Care and Control shall enforce the provisions of this chapter. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 814.010; Ord. of 6-13-75, § 2; Ord. of 3-12-76, § 1; Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 6 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals City Chicken defined Allowed? City Code/Zoning Ordinance 85-Or-040, § 1, 2-22-85; 2005-Or-085, § 2, 9-23-05; 2006-Or- 143, § 1, 12-22-06) Minnetonka Small Farm Animal Yes, up to 5 chickens on one-half acre lots with conditions 925.115. Farm Animals. 1. A person who keeps or allows the keeping of a farm animal on property in the city must comply with the following: a. The parcel of property where a large farm animal is kept must be at least one acre in size, not counting wetlands and undeveloped land not usable for pasture. The parcel of property where a small farm animal is kept may be smaller than one-half acre, but the number of small farm animals allowed must be reduced proportionally, rounded down to the nearest whole number. When determining the size of the property under this paragraph, and paragraph b below, only one parcel of land can be included. Parcels of land cannot be combined to meet the minimum area unless those parcels are already combined under one property identification number. b. The maximum number of farm animals allowed are: Category number large farm animals over six months in age one per acre small farm animals over six months, except fowl five per half acre small farm animals that are fowl of any age five per half acre c. A farm animal must not be kept or maintained on a regular basis on the front yard of the property, as defined by the zoning ordinance. d. A farm animal that is kept outside must be provided a shelter structure of appropriate size, that is accessible to the animal at all times. The shelter structure may not be located closer to the boundary line of adjacent occupied property than it is to the principal structure on the animal owner's property, but not less than 10 feet. e. The farm animal must be contained on the property by the use of a fence or other appropriate device. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 7 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals City Chicken defined Allowed? City Code/Zoning Ordinance f. Crowing roosters are not allowed if the crowing can be heard off the property of the owner. g. A farm animal must not be kept on residentially-zoned property if it is being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially- zoned property. This provision does not apply to a property that is being used for agricultural purposes and that qualifies for the agricultural property tax classification established in Minn. Stat. § 273.11. h. The ground or floor of the area where a farm animal is kept must be covered with vegetation, concrete, or other surface approved by the Minnetonka health authority, so that it can be, and is, sufficiently maintained to adequately dissipate offensive odors, in compliance with section 925.080(2)(a) and (c). Plymouth Farm Animal Only in the FRD District (agricultural and large lot residential). Chickens are not allowed in the residential districts. 21170.01. KEEPING ANIMALS: The following animals may be kept in the City: Subd. 1. Domestic animals are allowed in all zoning districts, as regulated by Chapter 9 of the City Code. Subd. 2. In all residential zoning districts except FRD, the raising or keeping of animals of any type for slaughter is prohibited. Subd. 3. The keeping of horses, including miniature horses, is an allowed use in the FRD district provided: (a) The minimum lot size is two and one-half (2.5) acres. (b) The number of horses does not exceed one (1) per acre unless a higher number is granted by the issuance of an interim use permit. Subd. 4. Except as provided in the FRD district, farm animals (including miniatures) are prohibited in the City. Furthermore, any pen, pasture, paddock, feedlot or building designed to confine a farm animal shall be located not less than one hundred (100) feet away from any residential dwelling that is not owned or leased by the person owning the farm animal. Richfield Fowl Yes – limit of 3, no permit or permission required 905.37. Maintenance of fowl and birds. Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No person owning or keeping chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl or birds may permit the same to run at large or enter upon the premises of another without permission, nor may any such fowl or birds be kept, raised or permitted to go on any street, park, lake or public ponding area. Subd. 2. Limitation on number. No more than three fowl or birds may be kept or raised on any residential property in the city. This limitation does not apply to the keeping of pigeons pursuant to a Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 8 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals City Chicken defined Allowed? City Code/Zoning Ordinance license under the provisions of this section. St. Louis Park Domestic animal Not without written permission from city. Sec. 4-1. Regulating the keeping of domestic animals. No person shall keep or harbor any fowl, horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine in the city, or permit the same to be done upon premises the person owns, occupies or controls without written permission from the city. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 9 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals City of St. Louis Park Ordinance Chapter 4 ANIMALS* Article I. In General Sec. 4-1 Regulating the keeping of domestic animals. Sec. 4-2. Animal quarantine. Secs. 4-3--4-40. Reserved. Article II. Nondomesticated Animals Sec. 4-41. Purpose of article. Sec. 4-42. Definitions. Sec. 4-43. Prohibited animals. Sec. 4-44. Deer and raccoon. Sec. 4-45. Exceptions. Sec. 4-46. Impounding. Secs. 4-47--4-80. Reserved. Article III. Dogs Sec. 4-81. Purpose. Sec. 4-82. Findings of the City Council. Sec. 4-83. Definitions. Sec. 4-84. General dog regulations. Sec. 4-85. Animal boarding facility. Sec. 4-86. Dog impoundment procedures. Sec. 4-87. Destruction of dogs in certain circumstances. Sec. 4-88. Regulations regarding dangerous dogs. Sec. 4-89. Regulations regarding potentially dangerous dogs. Sec. 4-90 Complaint procedure Secs. 4-91--4-130. Reserved. Article IV. Cats Sec. 4-131. Certain cats declared a nuisance. Sec. 4-132. Notice to owner. Sec. 4-133. Abatement of nuisance when owner is unknown. Sec. 4-134. Impounding, redemption and disposal of unredeemed cats. ________ *Cross reference(s)--Dog kennels, § 8-441 et seq.; environment and public health, ch. 12. State law reference(s)--Animals, stray animals and companion animals, M.S.A. ch. 346. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 10 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 4-1. Regulating the keeping of domestic animals. No person shall keep or harbor any fowl, horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine in the city, or permit the same to be done upon premises the person owns, occupies or controls without written permission from the city. (Code 1976, § 11-310) Sec. 4-2. Animal quarantine. (a) Whenever any person owning, possessing or harboring any dog or cat within the city shall learn that the dog or cat has potentially exposed any human being to rabies, the person shall immediately impound the dog or cat in a place of confinement where it cannot escape or have access to any human beings or other animals and shall also immediately notify the chief of police. Whenever the chief of police shall learn that any human being has been potentially exposed to rabies by any dog or cat within the city, the chief of police shall ascertain the identity of the dog or cat, and of the person owning, possessing or harboring it, and shall direct that person immediately to impound the dog or cat as required in this section. The chief of police shall notify the health authority of the place where the animal is impounded. Any dog or cat so impounded under this section shall be kept continuously so confined for a period of ten days from the day the dog or cat potentially exposed a human being to rabies. (b) The health authority shall have access at all reasonable times to the premises where a dog or cat is kept and may take possession of the dog or cat and confine it in the city pound or other suitable place at the expense of the animal's owner. The owner or person in possession or harboring the dog or cat shall immediately notify the health authority of any evidence of sickness or the death of the dog or cat during its period of confinement. If the dog or cat dies during that period, the owner or person possessing or harboring the dog or cat shall promptly deliver its carcass to the health authority. (c) It shall be the duty of the health authority to determine by inspection or telephone call if such dog or cat is alive and in good health at the end of the ten-day confinement period. (d) In lieu of quarantine, or at anytime during the quarantine period, the owner may voluntarily, in consultation with the health authority, release the dog or cat to a veterinarian to destroy the dog or cat and subject it to laboratory examination for evidence of the rabies virus. The owner shall be responsible for all veterinarian and laboratory costs. The veterinarian shall report the results of the laboratory examination to the health authority immediately upon receipt. (e) The health authority, in agreement with an attending physician or the state department of health, may confiscate, destroy and subject to laboratory examination a dog or cat which has potentially exposed a human being to rabies if such dog or cat exhibits signs of illness indicating the presence of rabies during the quarantine period. The health authority, in consultation with the state department of health, may confiscate, destroy and subject to laboratory examination any animal other than a dog or cat if such animal has potentially exposed any human being to rabies. The owner or other person in possession of any animal confiscated by the health authority shall be notified prior to such action if the owner or other person is available. (f) If one or more of the provisions contained in this section shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this section, and this chapter shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this section. (Code 1976, § 11-312) Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 11 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals Secs. 4-3--4-40. Reserved. ARTICLE II. NONDOMESTICATED ANIMALS Sec. 4-41. Purpose of article. The purpose of this article is to protect the public health from disease transmission, animal bites and public nuisances arising from the keeping or escape of nondomesticated animals. (Code 1976, § 11-314) Sec. 4-42. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Nondomesticated animal means any wild animal, reptile or fowl, which is not naturally tame or gentle, but is of a wild nature or disposition and which, because of its size, vicious nature or other characteristics, would constitute a danger to human life or property. (Code 1976, § 11-315) Cross reference(s)--Definitions generally, § 1-2. Sec. 4-43. Prohibited animals. No person shall keep, maintain or harbor within the city the following animals: (1) Animal or species prohibited by state or federal law. (2) Any nondomesticated animal or species including, but not limited to, the following: a. Any skunk, whether captured in the wild, domestically raised, descented or not descented, vaccinated against rabies or not vaccinated against rabies. b. Any large cat of the family Felidae such as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, bobcats, lynx, cougars and ocelots, except commonly accepted domesticated house cats. c. Any member of the family Canidae, such as wolves, fox, coyote, dingoes and jackals, except domesticated dogs. d. Any hybrids such as wolf/dog and coyote/dog hybrids, but not including crossbred domesticated animals. e. Venomous snakes of the Family Viperidae, such as adders, gabon vipers and pit vipers, venomous snakes of the Family Elapidae, such as cobras, coral snakes and sea snakes, three snakes of the Family Colubridae, the African twig snake (Thelotornis kirtland), the rear fanged boomslang (Disphoiidus typus) and the Asian tiger snake (Rhabdophis forinus); whether captured in the wild or domestically raised, defanged or not defanged, devenomed or not devenomed. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 12 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals f. Any raccoon. g. Any other animal which is not listed explicitly in subsections (2)a.--(2)f. of this section, but which can be reasonably defined by the terms in section 4-42, including bears, badgers, ostriches, llamas, alligators and crocodiles. (Code 1976, § 11-316) Sec. 4-44. Deer and raccoon. Feeding deer, raccoon or Canada Goose is prohibited and declared a nuisance. Persons feeding deer, raccoon or Canada Goose shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Code 1976, § 11-313, Ord. No. 2270-04, 5-17-04) Sec. 4-45. Exceptions. Any person desiring to keep animals prohibited under section 4-43 shall obtain a temporary permit from the city manager or designee. The permit shall be issued for a period not to exceed 30 days and shall specify further conditions under which such animals shall be kept. This permit shall be issued only when such prohibited animal is brought into the city for entertainment, exhibition, show or promotional purposes. Before issuance of any temporary permit, the applicant shall provide the city manager with proof of insurance, including public liability insurance. The following are exempt from the provisions of this section and do not require a permit: (1) A public zoo or other institution engaged in a permanent display of animals, provided that applicable zoning requirements are met. (2) Nonvenomous snakes, birds kept indoors, hamsters, mice, rabbits, gerbils, white rats, guinea pigs, ferrets, chinchillas, lizards or similar animals capable of being maintained continuously in cages. (3) Persons keeping animals for a public zoo as volunteers, docents or otherwise, any bonafide research institutions and veterinary hospitals as long as protective devices adequate to prevent such animals from escaping or injuring the public are provided. (4) Persons with disabilities keeping monkeys trained as household helpers. (Code 1976, § 11-317) Sec. 4-46. Impounding. The city may impound any nondomesticated animal kept in violation of this article. If any such animal is impounded for five days without being reclaimed by the owner, the city may sell the animal or may follow the procedures set forth in section 4-88 for the redemption of dogs or, in an appropriate case, section 4-84 for the destruction of certain dogs. Any person reclaiming any such impounded animal shall pay the cost of impounding. (Code 1976, § 11-318) Secs. 4-47--4-80. Reserved. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 13 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals ARTICLE III. DOGS* Sec. 4-81. Purpose. The purpose of this Article is to enact regulations governing dogs, dangerous dogs, potentially dangerous dogs, and to provide for dog enforcement procedures. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Sec. 4-82. Findings of the City Council. The City Council of the City makes the following findings of fact regarding the need to regulate and license dogs: (a) The regulation of dogs is found by the City Council to be necessary in order to protect the health and safety of the community. Dogs at large can expose human beings and other animals to danger; can cause damage to public and private property; can exacerbate the existing overpopulation of dogs; can disrupt the quiet enjoyment of residential areas and parks; and can expose human beings and other animals to unsanitary and unhealthy conditions. (b) The improper impoundment or enclosure of dogs can constitute a public health nuisance. Nuisances can be created by site, odor, noise, and sanitation problems associated with improper dog enclosures and impound facilities. (c) The regulation of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs is deemed necessary by the City in light of the threat such dogs pose to the safety of human beings and other animals in the community. Dogs deemed to be dangerous or potentially dangerous pose a serious risk to the health and safety of the community. (d) Procedures for determining whether a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous to the community are warranted. The procedures prescribed herein balance the interest in immediate public protection from dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs with reasonable due process rights of dog owners. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Sec. 4-83. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Animal Control Authority means the city police officers, community service officers, and the animal control officer. Dangerous dog means any dog that has: (1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; (2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or (3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. Dog means any male or female of any breed of a domesticated dog. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 14 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals Great bodily harm has the meaning given to it under Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 8. Own means to keep, harbor, or have control, charge, or custody of a dog. Owner means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having care, custody, or control of a dog. Potentially dangerous dog means any dog that: (1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack; (3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. Proper enclosure means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the dog from exiting. Provocation means an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or bite. Substantial bodily harm means bodily injury that involves a temporary or permanent but substantial disfigurement, or which causes temporary or permanent but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Sec. 4-84. General dog regulations. (a) License. All dogs shall be licensed in compliance with section 8-626. The license tag must be displayed on the dog at all times. (b) Dogs running at large. (1) No person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog shall allow the dog to run at large within the corporate limits of the city except in a designated off-leash dog area after obtaining a permit in accordance with section 20-6 of this ordinance. (2) A dog shall be deemed to be running at large if the dog is off the premises of the person who owns, harbors or keeps the dog, and not under the control of that person or a designee. “Under control” means the dog is controlled by a leash no more than twenty (20) feet long, which is shortened to six (6) feet when another person or animal is within twenty (20) feet. (3) The term "premises," when used in this chapter, means the usual place of residence, including a building, structure or shelter and any land appurtenant thereto, of a person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, whether domesticated or non-domesticated; or the dog owned, harbored or kept by such a person. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 15 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals (c) Barking dogs. No person shall own, harbor, keep or possess any dog that by loud and frequent barking, howling or yelping, causes noise, disturbance or annoyance to persons residing in the vicinity of the dog. (d) Certain dogs declared a public nuisance. Every dog that runs at large or barks or causes disturbance, annoyance or noise in violation of any provision of subsections (b) or (c) of this section is hereby declared a public nuisance, and it is unlawful to own, harbor or keep such a dog. (e) Removal of excrement. (1) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit a dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, unless that person is carrying at the time a device for the removal of excrement and a depository for the transmission of excrement to a proper receptacle located upon property owned or possessed by that person. (2) It is unlawful for any person who causes or permits any dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, to fail to remove excrement left by that dog to a proper receptacle located on property owned or possessed by that person. (3) The provisions of this section do not apply to dogs when used by the city in connection with police activities, or tracking dogs when used by or with the permission of the city. (f) General duty of owners. Every owner of a dog must exercise reasonable care and take all necessary steps and precautions to protect other people, property and animals from injuries or damage that might result from the dog’s behavior, regardless of whether such behavior is motivated by playfulness or ferocity. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Sec. 4-85. Animal boarding facility. The city council shall from time to time designate a place as the city animal boarding facility where suitable arrangements are made for keeping and maintaining any domesticated animals that may be seized or taken into custody by any officer of the city pursuant to this article. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Sec. 4-86. Dog impoundment procedures. (a) Impoundment of dogs. The Animal Control Authority may impound any dogs found in the city without a tag or found running at large, harbored or kept contrary to any provisions of this article. (b) Notice. The Animal Control Authority shall, without delay, notify the owner, personally or through the United States mail, if the owner is known to the Animal Control Authority or can be ascertained with reasonable effort. (c) Redemption of impounded dogs. Any impounded dog shall be kept for five (5) regular business days by the city. For the purpose of this section, “regular business day” means a day during which the Animal Control Authority having custody of the dog is open to the public at least four consecutive hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The owner may redeem the dog by payment to the city treasurer of the current dog license fee, plus a penalty of an amount set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance, and an impounding fee according to the following schedule: Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 16 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals (1) When any one person has had a dog picked up and impounded one or more times during any consecutive 12-month period, the impounding charges shall be as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance. (2) In addition to the charges required under subsection (1) of this section, a sum for each day, as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance, will be charged for board for each day or part thereof during the time the dog is impounded. The boarding fees may be paid on authorization of the city council to its agent, pursuant to any contract currently in effect providing for the impounding of dogs within the city and its kennels. (d) Impounded dogs not reclaimed. If the owner does not reclaim the dog impounded under this section within five (5) regular business days after impounding, the dog will be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3. The owner will be responsible for the costs of confiscation, boarding, and destruction. (e) Records. The Animal Control Authority must maintain the following records of the dogs in custody and preserve the records for at least six (6) months: (1) the description of the breed, sex, approximate age, and other distinguishing traits; (2) the location at which the animal was seized; (3) the date of seizure; (4) the name and address of the person from whom any animal three months of age or over was received; and (5) the name and address of the person to whom any animal three months of age or over was transferred. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Sec. 4-87. Destruction of Dogs in Certain Circumstances. (a) Certain dogs may be destroyed. Upon notice to the owner and an opportunity for a hearing, a dog may be seized and destroyed in a proper and humane manner upon a finding of any of the following: (1) the dog has destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a damaging manner on property of persons other than the owner; (2) the dog is a public nuisance as defined by section 4-84(d); or (3) if the owner is in violation of quarantine under section 4-2, the dog may be seized and impounded, and destroyed at the end of the quarantine period. (b) Request for hearing. Within fourteen (14) days of the notice that the Animal Control Authority seeks to destroy the dog, the owner of the dog may request a hearing on the destruction. Failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this section. (c) Hearing procedure. (1) A hearing must be held fourteen (14) days after receipt of the request. (2) The hearing officer shall be the City Manager or other impartial city employee or person designated by the City Manager to conduct the hearing. “Impartial” means that the hearing officer did not have any direct involvement in the original determination that the dog is a dangerous dog or that the dog should be destroyed. (3) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The strict rules of evidence Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 17 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority officer are admissible without further foundation. (4) The City Manager or designee shall make a determination whether the dog shall be destroyed. The decision is final and there is no right to further administrative appeal. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Sec. 4-88. Regulations regarding dangerous dogs. (a) Determination of dangerous dog by city. An Animal Control Authority officer shall determine that a dog is a dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon the officer's professional judgment that the dog has: (1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; (2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or (3) been determined to be a potentially dangerous dog, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. (b) Exemption. Dogs may not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person: (1) who was committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog; (2) who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or who can be shown to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog; or (3) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime. (c) Destruction of dangerous dog. Upon a declaration by an Animal Control Authority officer that a dog is dangerous pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347, the dog shall be impounded immediately if the Authority intends to seek the dog’s destruction pursuant to this subsection and Minn. Stat. § 347.56. (1) Circumstances. A dog may be destroyed in a proper and humane manner by the Animal Control Authority if the dog: (a) inflicted substantial or great bodily harm on a human on public or private property without provocation; (b) inflicted multiple bites on a human on public or private property in the same attack without provocation; (c) bit multiple human victims on public or private property in the same attack without provocation; or (d) bit a human on public or private property without provocation in an attack where more than one dog participated in the attack. (2) Notice. The Animal Control Authority must provide notice of its intention to destroy a dangerous dog pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. (3) Appeal and hearing procedure. The appeal and hearing procedure shall be as set forth in subsections (f) and (g) of this section. (d) Notice of dangerous dog. Upon a determination by an Animal Control Authority officer that a dog is dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the Animal Control Authority shall provide a notice of this section by delivering or mailing it to the owner of the dog, or by posting a copy of it at the place where the dog is kept, or by delivering it to a person residing on the property, and telephoning, if possible. The notice must include: Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 18 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals (1) a description of the dog deemed to be dangerous; the authority for and purpose of the dangerous dog declaration and seizure, if applicable; the time, place, and circumstances under which the dog was declared dangerous; and if seized, the telephone number and contact person where the dog is kept, if seized; (2) the name of the officer making the determination; (3) a statement as to whether the dog’s destruction is being sought by the City pursuant to subsection (c) of this section and Minn. Stat. § 347.56; (4) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under subsection (e) of this section; (5) a statement of the criminal penalties for violating requirements pertaining to dangerous dogs; (6) a statement that the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the dangerous dog declaration and, if applicable, prior potentially dangerous dog declarations for the dog, and that failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this subsection; (7) a statement that if an appeal request is made within fourteen (14) days of the notice, the owners must immediately comply with the requirements of subsections (e) (3) and (8) and until such time as the hearing officer issues an opinion; (8) a statement that if the hearing officer affirms the dangerous dog declaration, the owner will have fourteen (14) days from receipt of that decision to comply with subsection (e) and all other requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51, 347.515, and 347.52; (9) a form to request a hearing under this section; and (10) a statement that all actual costs of the care, keeping, and disposition of the seized dog are the responsibility of the person claiming an interest in the dog, except to the extent that a court or hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not substantially justified by law. (e) Dangerous dog requirements. If an Animal Control Authority officer does not order the destruction of the dog pursuant to subsection (c), within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the notice that the dog has been declared dangerous, the owner must: (1) register the dog as a dangerous dog, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 347.51 in the city and renew the registration annually until the dog is deceased. The owner shall pay the fee set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance; (2) license the dog as a dangerous dog and photograph the dog on an annual basis; (3) keep the dog at all times, while on the owner’s property, in a proper enclosure; (4) secure surety coverage or liability insurance as required by Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 2(2), insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog; (5) if the dog is outside the proper enclosure, keep the dog muzzled and restrained by a substantial leash or chain and under the physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dog from biting any person or animal, but that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration; (6) have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification and provide the City with the name of the microchip manufacturer and the serial identification number; Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 19 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals (7) have the dog sterilized at the owner’s expense. If the owner does not have the animal sterilized within 30 days, the Animal Control Authority shall seize the dog and have it sterilized at the owner’s expense; (8) notify the Animal Control Authority in writing of the death of the dog or its transfer to a new location where the dog will reside within 30 days of the death or transfer and execute an affidavit under oath setting forth either the circumstances of the dog’s death and disposition or the complete name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom the dog has been transferred or the address where the dog has been relocated; (9) for a person who transfers ownership of a dangerous dog, notify the new owner that the Animal Control Authority has identified the dog as dangerous. The current owner must also notify the Animal Control Authority in writing of the transfer or ownership and provide the Animal Control Authority with the new owner’s name, address, and telephone number; (10) for a person who owns a dangerous dog and who rents property from another where the dog will reside, disclose to the property owner prior to entering a lease agreement and at the time of any lease renewal that the person owns a dangerous dog that will reside at the property; (11) post a clearly visible warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property, including a warning symbol to inform children; and (12) affix to the dog’s collar at all times, a standardized, easily identifiable tag identifying the dog as dangerous and containing the uniform dangerous dog symbol. (f) Appeal of the dangerous dog designation or destruction of dog. The owner of any dog declared dangerous has the right to a hearing by an impartial hearing officer. The owner of the dog may request in writing a hearing on the designation or on the destruction within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice. Failure to timely appeal the determination will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under subsection (g). The owner’s request for a hearing must be submitted on a form to the City Clerk. The form will be provided by the City Clerk. The form must contain the following information: (1) the full name, address, daytime and evening telephone numbers of the person requesting an appeal; (2) the full name and address of all of the dog’s owners; (3) the ownership interest of the person requesting the appeal; (4) the names of any witnesses to be called at the hearing; (5) a list and copies of all exhibits to be presented at the hearing; and (6) a summary statement as to why the dog should not be declared dangerous. (g) Hearing procedure. (1) Any hearing must be held within fourteen (14) days of the request to determine the validity of the dangerous dog declaration or destruction of a dangerous dog. The city shall mail written notice of the hearing to the owner requesting the hearing to the address provided on the request and to any person who was in the past a victim of the actions of the dog that is the subject of the hearing. (2) The hearing officer shall be the City Manager or designee or other impartial city employee or an impartial person designated by the City Manager to conduct the hearing. “Impartial” means that the hearing officer did not have any direct involvement in the original determination that the dog is a dangerous dog or that the dog should be destroyed. (3) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority officer are admissible without further foundation. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 20 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals (4) The City Manager or designee shall make written findings of fact and reach a written conclusion as to whether the dog is a dangerous dog pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or whether the dog is subject to destruction under subsection (c) and Minn. Stat. § 347.56 within ten (10) days after the hearing. The decision must be delivered to the dog’s owner by hand delivery or registered mail as soon as practical and a copy must be provided to the Animal Control Authority. (5) The decision of the City Manager or designee is final without any further right of administrative appeal. An aggrieved party may obtain review thereof by petitioning the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a Writ of Certiorari not more than thirty (30) days after service of the City Manager or designee’s written decision. (6) In the event that the dangerous dog declaration is upheld by the hearing officer, actual expenses of the hearing up to a maximum of $1,000 will be the responsibility of the dog’s owner. (h) Annual review of dangerous dog designation. (1) Beginning six months after a dog is declared dangerous, the owner may request annually that the city review the designation by serving upon the city a written request for review that includes the full name, address and telephone numbers of the requestor, a list of the names and addresses of all owners of the dog, and a summary of the basis for the claimed change in the dog’s behavior. The owner must submit the fee as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance along with the request for review. (2) If the Animal Control Authority finds sufficient evidence that the dog’s behavior has changed, the Authority may rescind the dangerous dog designation. (i) Violation of dangerous dog requirements. (1) The Animal Control Authority shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if: (a) after fourteen (14) days the owner has notice that the dog is dangerous, the dog is not validly registered pursuant to subsection (e)(1) and Minn. Stat. § 347.51; (b) after fourteen (14) days after the owner has notice the dog is dangerous, the owner does not secure the proper liability insurance or surety coverage pursuant to subsection (e)(4) and Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 2; (c) the dog is not maintained in a proper enclosure pursuant to subsection (e)(3) and Minn. Stat. § 347.52; (d) the dog is outside the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of a responsible person pursuant to subsection (e)(5) and Minn. Stat. § 347.52; or (e) the dog is not sterilized within thirty (30) days pursuant to subsection (e)(7) and Minn. Stat. § 347.52(d) (2) If the owner of the dog is convicted of a crime for which the dog was originally seized, the court may order that the dog be confiscated and destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner pay the costs incurred in confiscating, confining, and destroying the dog. (3) The dangerous dog may be reclaimed by the owner upon payment of impounding and boarding fees as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance and presenting proof to the Animal Control Authority that the dangerous dog requirements will be met. A dangerous dog not reclaimed within seven (7) days may be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3, and the owner is liable for all costs incurred in confining and disposing of the dog. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 21 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals (4) If the owner has been convicted for violating dangerous dog requirements and the owner is charged with a subsequent violation relating to the same dog, the dog must be seized by the Animal Control Authority. If the owner is convicted for the crime for which the dog was seized, the court shall order that the dog be destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner pay the costs of confining and destroying the dog. If the owner is not convicted and the dog is not reclaimed within seven (7) days after the owner has been notified that the dog may be reclaimed, the dog may be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3. (j) Ownership restrictions. (1) Dog ownership prohibited. Except as provided for in subsection (3), no person may own a dog if the person has: (a) been convicted of a third or subsequent violation of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51, 347.515, or 347.52; (b) been convicted of a violation under Minn. Stat. § 609.205(4); (c) been convicted of a gross misdemeanor under Minn. Stat. § 609.226, subd. 1; (d) been convicted of a violation under Minn. Stat. § 609.226, subd. 2; or (e) had a dog ordered destroyed under Minn. Stat. § 347.56 and been convicted of one or more violations of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51, 347.515, 347.52, or 609.226, subd. 2 (2) Household members. If any member of a household is prohibited from owning a dog in subsection (1), unless specifically approved with or without restrictions by an Animal Control Authority, no person in the household is permitted to own a dog. For purposes of this section, a “household” means any group of persons living together as one housekeeping unit. (3) Dog ownership prohibition review. Beginning three (3) years after a conviction under subsection (1) that prohibits a person from owning a dog, and annually thereafter, the person may request that the animal control authority review the prohibition. The Animal Control Authority may consider such facts as the seriousness of the violation or violations that led to the prohibition, any criminal convictions, or other facts that the Animal Control Authority deems appropriate. The Animal Control Authority may rescind the prohibition entirely or rescind it with limitations. The Animal Control Authority also may establish conditions a person must meet before the prohibition is rescinded, including, but not limited to, successfully completing dog training or dog handling courses. If the Animal Control Authority rescinds a person's prohibition and the person subsequently fails to comply with any limitations imposed by the Animal Control Authority or the person is convicted of any animal violation involving unprovoked bites or dog attacks, the Animal Control Authority may permanently prohibit the person from owning a dog in this state. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Sec. 4-89. Regulations regarding potentially dangerous dogs. (a) Determination of potentially dangerous dog by city. An Animal Control Authority officer shall determine that a dog is a potentially dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon the officer's professional judgment that a dog has: (1) when unprovoked, inflicted bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 22 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals (2) when unprovoked, chased or approached a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (3) a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. (b) Notice of potentially dangerous dog. Upon a determination by an Animal Control Authority officer that a dog is potentially dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the Authority shall provide a notice of this section by delivering or mailing it to the owner of the dog, or by posting a copy of it at the place where the dog is kept, or by delivering it to a person residing on the property, and telephoning, if possible. The notice must include: (1) a description of the dog deemed to be potentially dangerous; the authority for and purpose of the potentially dangerous dog declaration; the time, place, and circumstances under which the dog was declared potentially dangerous; (2) the identity of officer who has made the determination; (3) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under subsection (c) of this section; (4) a notice that if the dog endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals again, it will be considered a dangerous dog; (5) the criminal penalties for violation of the requirements pertaining to potentially dangerous dogs; and (6) a statement the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the potentially dangerous dog declaration and that failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this subsection. (c) Potentially dangerous dog requirements. Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the notice that the dog has been declared potentially dangerous, the owner must: (1) have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification, and the name of the manufacturer and identification number of the microchip must be provided to the Animal Control Authority within fourteen (14) days of the designation; and (2) register and license the dog as a potentially dangerous dog and photograph the dog on an annual basis. (d) Appeal and Hearing Procedure. The appeal and hearing procedure for a potentially dangerous dog shall be as set forth in section 4-88(f) and (g) relating to dangerous dogs. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Sec. 4-90. Complaint procedures. Any person may file a complaint of a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog as defined in this chapter with the Animal Control Authority. (Ord. No. 2360-08, 10-31-08) Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 23 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals Secs. 4-91--4-130. Reserved. ARTICLE IV. CATS Sec. 4-131. Certain cats declared a nuisance. No person shall own or possess any cat that runs at large or destroys, damages or defiles property, or that creates an offense by way of noise, odor or otherwise or molests other animals or human beings, or is unconfined while in heat, after receiving notice from the city of such prior behavior by the cat. A cat shall be deemed to be running at large if the cat is off the premises and not under the immediate control of the person who owns, harbors or keeps the cat, or a designee. Cats that run at large or otherwise behave as described in this section are declared to be a public nuisance. (Code 1976, § 11-307) Cross reference(s)--Nuisances, § 12-31 et seq. Sec. 4-132. Notice to owner. Any person seeking city action against a cat believed to be a nuisance, as defined in section 4-131, or a person who owns, harbors or keeps such a cat, must file a written complaint stating the following: (1) That any cat has behaved as described in section 4-131 with a brief description of the behavior that forms the basis of the complaint; (2) The name and address of the person owning or harboring the cat; and (3) The name and the address of the person making the complaint. Upon receiving a complete written complaint from any person, the city shall notify the person owning or harboring the cat of the behavior complained of and shall direct that person to restrain the cat from such behavior in the future. The city shall withhold the name of the complaining person from the public as private property complaint data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, M.S.A. § 13.01 et seq. (Code 1976, § 11-308) Sec. 4-133. Abatement of nuisance when owner is unknown. In the case of any cat constituting a nuisance under section 4-131 where no owner or responsible party is ascertainable, the city may follow the procedures set forth in section 4-88 for the redemption of dogs or, in an appropriate case, section 4-84 for the destruction of certain dogs. (Code 1976, § 11-309) Cross reference(s)--Nuisances, § 12-31 et seq. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 24 Subject: Domesticated Farm Animals Sec. 4-134. Impounding, redemption and disposal of unredeemed cats. The provisions of sections 4-87--4-89 apply to cats found to be running at large or otherwise violating sections 4-131--4-133, except that under no circumstance is a cat required to be licensed under city ordinances, nor must a cat owner be required to pay a license fee or a penalty for failing to license a cat as provided in section 4-87. An owner of an impounded cat is required to pay all impounding and boarding charges according to the schedule set forth in section 4-88. Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 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: Comprehensive Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is needed; this item is an update for a discussion scheduled for February 9, 2009. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the community input process and consideration of the key policy issues identified in the Comprehensive Plan update. BACKGROUND: We are working toward the completion of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The technical work needed to update the plan is nearly done; Barr Engineering is completing the Surface Water Management Plan, SRF Consulting is completing the Transportation Plan, SEH completed the Inflow & Infiltration Study, HKGi is drafting the Land Use and Housing sections and other components are being completed by staff internally. Community Engagement The next step is to design a process for sharing the draft plan to the community for input. This entails both meeting with our own residents, businesses and stakeholder groups. Staff has sent out a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) (attached) for a public process facilitator to help us conduct a series of meetings with neighborhoods grouped by location and common interests. Eight meetings are proposed; seven with groups of neighborhoods and one with the business community. The intent is to share the plan, and gain input on specific aspects of it. The consultant will work with us to design a specific process for the meetings to actively engage the community. The eight meetings will be held between March and May. Follow up meetings with neighborhoods or groups of neighborhoods would occur in the fall. A detailed scope of work and schedule for those meetings would be prepared this summer when we know more about neighborhood issues. Key Policy Issues The following are key issues and changes proposed for the Comprehensive Plan; these are identified for discussion and policy direction by the City Council: Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Land Use: 1. Create a “Business Park” (BP) category that designates areas for light industrial and/or office uses. This is to better distinguish between “heavy” industrial and industrial that is lighter in nature and may have a significant office component. These areas would be in our more visible industrial areas and be required to have a higher quality finish to the site and building. 2. Combine “Civic Mixed Use” with “Commercial Mixed Use” for a category that simply called “Mixed Use.” There are currently only two sites designated “Civic Mixed Use” and this would simplify the map. We would retain the “Civic” category as well. 3. Change some land use designations as shown on the attached list and maps – including several areas to the new BP category, some changes in the 36th Street area in accordance with the Elmwood Plan, and changes around Southwest LRT sites. Transportation: 1. Intent and desire to complete Major Transportation Improvements: a. Highway 100 b. Highway 7 and Wooddale c. Highway 7 and Louisiana 2. Need to continue further study of North/South transportation options 3. Need to undertake further study of these special areas, possibly including: a. Louisiana Avenue from I394 to Minnetonka Boulevard b. Cedar Lake Road from Flag Avenue to Zarthan Avenue c. Minnetonka Boulevard from TH 169 to TH 100 d. Texas Avenue from West 36th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard e. Excelsior Boulevard from Alabama Avenue to TH100 4. Address policies related to Southwest Transit and rail in the community 5. Incorporate Sidewalk and Trails Plan and note funding priorities will need to be discussed and decided in the future. Housing Met Council has established new affordable housing goals for St. Louis Park. The goal is to add 501 more affordable housing units between 2011 and 2030. Policies to address this goal will need to be discussed. It is unclear if Met Council will keep the current “benchmark” goals in the future. Stormwater 1. The Comprehensive Plan will call for updating ordinances to meet agency guidelines. 2. Funding priorities for the future addressing stormwater issues. SUMMARY The process for public input and the specific issues for more discussion will be the subject of the study session item on February 9, 2009. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 3 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: The Vision will set the stage for the direction of our Comprehensive Plan. All of the Vision elements will be incorporated throughout the plan. In this way, we build each Vision element into our goals, policies and action plans to be implemented on a daily and weekly basis. Attachments: Comprehensive Plan Outline List of Potential Redevelopment Areas Request for Qualifications Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Comprehensive Plan Introduction Vision St. Louis Park Who We Are A. Local History B. Population, Households and Employment 1. Data 2. Trends C. 2030 Projections Why We are a Livable Community A. Land Uses B. Redevelopment Opportunities C. Housing D. Plan By Neighborhood Connecting Our Community A. Highways and Streets B. Transit C. Sidewalks and Trails D. Aviation Where We Connect A. Parks and Open Space B. Schools and Other Gathering Places C. Arts and Culture Environmental Stewardship A. Environment 1. Natural Environment 2. Best Management Practices 3. Public Health B. Utilities 1. Water 2. Sanitary Sewer 3. Stormwater 4. Other Utilities How We Govern A. City Organization B. Public Safety C. Public Facilities D. Communications E. Budgeting and Capital Improvements Planning APPENDICES: A. Vision B. Sidewalk and Trails Plan C. Water Supply Plan D. I & I Study E. Surface Water Management Plan Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Page 4 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Page 5 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Page 6 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Page 7 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Page 8 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of St. Louis Park is requesting a statement of qualifications from your firm regarding providing consultant services for a project consisting of, a) Conducting a series of meetings to gain input from the community on the city’s draft Comprehensive Plan; and, b) Updating the “Plan by Neighborhood” section of the Comprehensive Plan. The goal is to complete the meetings on the comprehensive plan by May 2009 and the update of the Plan by Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan by December 2009. Outlined below is the proposed scope of work and consultant requirements. Community Input Meetings The proposed process to gain input on the draft Comprehensive Plan is a series of seven public meetings with clusters of St. Louis Park neighborhoods and an eighth meeting with the St. Louis Park Business in the Spring of 2009. The City of St. Louis Park has 35 neighborhoods (see enclosed map). Some of the neighborhoods are well organized and others are not. They range in size from 100 to 3,000 in population; and, 30 to 2,000 acres in area. Each cluster includes from three to ten neighborhoods. They are grouped by geographic proximity to key commercial nodes and based on other common characteristics, issues or connections. It is anticipated that as few a dozen or as many as 50+ may attend any one of the cluster meetings. The consultant will need to be prepared to handle however many people show up. If a large number of residents attend, break out sessions maybe needed to split the attendees into smaller groups better suited to discussion and collecting input from residents. The purpose of the proposed meetings is to share the policy questions addressed in the draft Comprehensive Plan as they apply to the neighborhoods invited to the cluster meeting. Some of these issues will be city wide topics and others will be of primary concern to the immediately affected neighborhoods. The goal is to both share information and gather input from the city’s residents. The expectation is that the cluster meetings will also serve as an opportunity to identify neighborhood issues and opportunities that will guide the work of updating neighborhood plans. Additional follow-up meetings maybe needed in the fall with some neighborhoods. The preliminary basic agenda for the cluster meetings is as follows. A similar agenda would be used for the meeting with the St. Louis Park Business Council meeting. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Page 9 Preliminary agenda for neighborhood meetings (March and April 2009) 1) Introductions 2) Overview of Comp Plan, what it is and the process 3) Key city wide policy issues 4) Area issues, information and plans underway 5) Resident comments, issues, and questions (break-out into small groups as needed) 6) Next steps and adjourn Meeting materials City staff will provide the Consultant with the Key city-wide policy issues that should be presented and discussed at the meetings; and, the current plan for the neighborhoods invited to the meeting. The consultant will be responsible for working with staff to create maps and materials for the meetings. Neighborhood Meetings Meetings will be held with the seven clusters of neighborhoods and representatives of the business community. The anticipated groupings of neighborhoods are listed below. The locations of the meetings will be at City Hall in the Council Chambers unless space availability requires a meeting to be held elsewhere. A) NW area – Shelard Park, Kilmer, Westdale, Crestview, Westwood Hills, Pennsylvania Park, Cedar Manor, Willow Park and Eliot View B) NE area – Blackstone, Cedarhurst C) West area – Cobblecrest, Amhurst, Minnehaha, Texa-Tonka, Aquila and Oak Hill D) East area – Lake Forest, Fern Hill, Triangle E) SW area – South Oak Hill, Meadowbrook, Brooklawns, Elmwood, Creekside and Brookside F) SE area – Wolfe Park, Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista and Browndale G) Central area – Bronx Park Birchwood, Lenox and Sorenson H) Present the draft Comprehensive Plan at a TwinWest Chamber of Commerce SLP Business Council meeting as a means of gathering business community input. Timing This process is to be conducted from March to mid-May, 2009. Reports The results of the meetings will be shared at separate meetings with Planning Commission and City Council at the conclusion of the 8 Community Input meetings and summarized in a brief Community Input report highlighting the issues and comments raised at each meeting regarding both the citywide and the neighborhood plans will be prepared by the consultant. Plans by Neighborhood The second component of the services being sought by St. Louis Park is the update of the city’s 35 neighborhood plans and the Plan by Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The intent is to update the base data, maps, development guidelines and desired improvements for each of the 35 neighborhoods. The information gathered through the Community Input Meetings will primary source of input for updating the neighborhood plans. Other sources should include information from studies and planning efforts recently completed or currently underway in St. Louis Park. Examples include the Southwest Transit Station Area plans, Minnetonka Blvd. Study and the Sidewalk & Trails plan. Other sources should be used including but not limited to census and GIS data. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Page 10 Each neighborhood currently has a four page section in the Comprehensive Plan that includes: 1. A reference map locating the neighborhood in the city. 2. A base map showing sidewalks, roads, public and quasi-public buildings, lakes, parks and wetlands. The map also includes basic statistics about the neighborhood. 3. A brief description of the neighborhood in text and table form, as well as specific design guidelines and desired neighborhood improvements. 4. A proposed land use map which notes proposed changes or areas where further study is proposed. A sample neighborhood plan section is enclosed. It is anticipated that the City will provide GIS base data from which the consultant can prepare the update. The goal is not to create detail plans for each neighborhood, but rather to incorporate elements from plans and studies done since the previous Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood section was prepared; and, to identify areas that need further future study or planning action. It is expected the Plan by Neighborhood would be similar in format and level of detail as the existing plan. A second round of neighborhood meetings will occur in the fall of 2009 as follow-up to issues identified in first meetings. The precise number and nature of those meetings will be decided once the Community Input meetings have been completed and a better understanding of the key issues that need to be addressed have be indentified. Consultant Requirements The consultant will be expected to: • Help plan the overall public participation process. • Become conversant with the draft plan. • Work with city staff to plan public meeting agendas. • Facilitate public meetings. • Summaries of resident input, comments, and issues from meetings. • Follow up as needed. • Update “Plan by Neighborhood” text & graphics for Comp Plan. • “Partner” with city staff on all aspects of the process. Qualifications should show: • Ability to identify and elicit strong participation among citizens, businesses and other stakeholders in the community. • Experience in public process including examples and details. • Ability to facilitate public meetings. • A strong basis of understanding, knowledge and experience with Comprehensive Planning. • Other general city planning experience. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Page 11 Also include: • Staff proposed including a facilitator and pertinent resumes or other details of qualifications. • Hourly rates of personnel. • A general cost range for this project. Please add other information as you determine is important. Qualifications should be limited to 5- 10 pages, not including supporting Firm information and resumes. Qualifications may be transmitted by email. Request for Qualifications Process This RFQ is being sent to three firms initially. If you are interested in submitting your Qualifications for this project; please email or call Meg McMonigal by email or phone to schedule an interview. Qualifications are to be submitted by Tuesday January 27, 2009 and interviews are being scheduled for Friday, January 30, 2009. Meg J. McMonigal, AICP City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (952) 924-2573 mmcmonigal@stlouispark.org Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Page 12 Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 Agenda Item #: 10 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: 2009 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds - Proposed Allocation. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The City needs to decide how to use its annual allocation of HUD CDBG Funds at its February 17th meeting. As this is a report item, please let staff know if you have any questions or concerns regarding the recommended allocations. BACKGROUND: The City is estimated to receive $203,450 in federal CDBG funds in 2009 through Hennepin County. The City’s allocation is based on the HUD formula using the City’s share of three factors for Urban Hennepin County: 1) population; 2) number of persons with incomes at or below poverty; and 3) overcrowded housing units. The national objectives of the program are: • Benefit low and moderate-income persons (moderate is defined as up to 80% of median income or $61,500 for a family of four, and low is defined as up to 50% of median income or $40,450 for a family of four in 2008). • Prevention or elimination of slum or blight. • Meet a particular urgent community development need. The City Council has typically focused CDBG funds on “sticks and bricks” improvements to the housing stock for low-income families, both single-family owners and multifamily housing residents. In past years a small portion of funds have also been allocated to support services for St. Louis Park Housing Authority residents and City park programming. The proposed 2009 allocation is consistent with the past approach, with over 95% of funding proposed for “sticks and bricks” and about 4% proposed for park programs for low and moderate income children. The St. Louis Park Housing Authority (SLPHA) will review and discuss the proposed allocation at its February 11, 2009, meeting. The commissioners’ comments will be shared at the Public Hearing. Proposed 2009 CDBG Allocation The proposed activities for the allocation of CDBG funds reflect the priorities described in Vision St. Louis Park; the 1997 Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and Business, and the City’s approved housing goals (via the Housing Summit process). The proposed allocation continues the focus on sticks and bricks improvements to housing for low income residents. Also included is a small amount of public service funding for the City’s Park and Recreation Department to assist with summer park programming at Ainsworth and Meadowbrook Manor Parks. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Subject: 2009 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds - Proposed Allocation Table 1: Proposed 2009 CDBG Allocation Project Activity Proposed Budget Activity Status Single Family Housing Rehab Emergency Repair Grant $40,000 ongoing Low Income SF Deferred Loan $40,000 ongoing Subtotal $80,000 Multi Family Housing Rehab Community Involvement Program - renovate one building $25,000 ongoing - new site Wayside House Treatment Facility – parking lot repairs $21,950 ongoing Perspectives Transitional Housing – water main repairs $20,250 ongoing Project for Pride in Living – water main repairs $33,750 new for 2009 Subtotal $100,950 Public Service - $30,000 allowable for Public Service Park programming at Ainsworth & Meadowbrook Parks $7,500 ongoing Community Facility SLP Meadowbrook Park Playground Equipment $15,000 new for 2009 Total $203,450 * If the actual allocation is less than the estimated $203,450 the MF Housing Rehab projects will be decreased. Single Family Housing Rehab - $80,000 Emergency Repair Program – Single Family $40,000 This program is consistent with the Council’s focus on stick and bricks and has proven its responsiveness to low income seniors and vulnerable residents with annual incomes of 50% or less of the median area income, and assets less than $25,000. It provides grants of up to $4,000 for emergencies such as leaking roofs and water heaters. Community Action Partners for Suburban Hennepin County (CAPSH) currently administers this program for the City. This is an ongoing CDBG activity. Low Income Single Family Deferred Loan Program- $40,000 This is the primary ongoing CDBG rehab loan program targeted for homeowners with annual income of 50% or less of the median area income, or $40,450 for a household of 4, and assets less than $25,000. The rehab focuses on improvements to bring homes into code compliance and provide long-term maintenance free housing. The maximum loan amount is $25,000 and is forgiven after 15 years. Repayment is required if homeowners sell the property before the 15-year period expires. This activity is also funded as deferred loans are repaid. This program is administered by Hennepin County Housing staff. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Subject: 2009 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds - Proposed Allocation Multifamily Housing Rehab – $100,950 These projects are consistent with the focus of CDBG funds to assist with capital improvements of housing for low-income residents. Generally, the lowest income residents live in housing provided by private non-profit affordable and supportive housing providers and the St. Louis Park Housing Authority. Funding for housing for the lowest - income renters concurs with Hennepin County’s CDBG highest funding priority. In 2008, staff contacted all the affordable housing providers in St. Louis Park, with the intention of making them aware that CDBG funds can be allocated to assist with improvements to their buildings. Five providers responded with requests for funding: Community Involvement Programs, Wayside House, Perspectives Inc., Project for Pride in Living, and the SLP Housing Authority. The requests totaled $218,000, which exceeds the total allocation of $203,450. Staff recommendations for funding is noted below and followed by a table which shows the City’s historical allocations for affordable housing providers. 1. $25,000. Community Involvement Programs provides housing for individuals with mental health disabilities whose incomes are below 30% of the median income. They have nine buildings (29 units) scattered throughout the city, and have been systematically improving the buildings, CDBG funds have been used in 2006, 07 and 08. In 2009 they propose to make improvements to the final two properties, and have requested funds to renovate the bath, kitchen and detached garage at the 2800 Maryland Ave location, for a total cost of $30,000. Since HUD does not allow CDBG funds to be used for detached garages, staff recommends that CDBG fund the project, at 2800 Maryland Ave S at a cost $25,000 for the bath and kitchen renovations. 2. $21,950. Wayside House provides housing for recovering chemically dependent women and their children, whose incomes are at or below 50-80% of the median income. The treatment facility houses up to 40 families at a time and their two apartments provide permanent housing for 20 more families. In their grant request they noted “Last year we were able to refinance the mortgage, leverage private and CDBG funds to replace the roof, windows, HVAC and plumbing at Wayside’s treatment center. We are still looking at moving from this site in approximately 7-10 years and have one large project left before we shift gears towards planning a new site project.” The parking lot is much worn. The estimated cost for the parking lot repairs is $55,000. Wayside agreed that they would use any amount available to make the most cost effective repairs possible. Staff recommends funding the treatment facility parking lot repairs at $21,950. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 4 Subject: 2009 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds - Proposed Allocation 3. Louisiana Court – Replacement of water service lines that extend from the city main to the Louisiana Court buildings. A. $20,950. Perspectives Supportive Housing Program owns five buildings located at Louisiana Court. They serve 52 families that had been homeless and the clients have a history of chronic substance abuse. In addition they house 22 transitional families and 11 permanent housing families through the shelter plus care program, for a total of 88 units. All clients are at or below 30% of the median area income upon entry. Over the last 5 years, they have incurred at least 7 water service line leaks to their buildings. The water line repairs are costly, ranging from $5,000-$8,500 per repair and involve the disruption of the court street and sidewalks in order to access the water main. Perspectives has limited replacement reserves for this purpose and must use their operating budget for these costly emergency repairs. B. $33,750. Project for Pride in Living has 11 buildings located in Louisiana Court. They have 129 units that serve persons with low- incomes; the average tenant household income is $19,362. Included in the development are 18 single person households with mental illness and services provided by Vail Place, and 12 public housing units. PPL has experienced over 5 water service line breaks in recent years. Like Perspectives, they have limited replacement reserves and must use their operating budget for the repairs. PPL requested funds for 5 water line repairs and installation of state mandated CO detectors. (The state has mandated that all multifamily buildings install CO detectors by August 2009. Since the County CDBG contracts will not be executed in time to make this deadline, 2009 CDBG funds are not practical for the CO detectors). Since both Perspectives and PPL submitted requests for water service line repairs, staff contacted them and asked if they could more cost effectively execute the repairs if all the work was completed at one time. Both providers agreed that working together on the repairs would decrease costs by decreasing the number of times the street, sidewalk, and landscape repairs would be needed. Costs can be further reduced by having one contractor bid the project together, with an estimated average line repair cost, including landscaping, of $6,750. Finally, by having the work done proactively rather than waiting for emergency repairs, the cost can be further reduced. Aside from costs consideration the disruption to the Court would be lessened if all the work was done at one time. The City’s Utilities Supervisor concurs that the remaining original water service lines installed in the 60’s were undersized and are prone to corrosion. He also concurs that replacing the remaining lines at one time would be a cost effective approach. Staff is recommending that CDBG funds be used to repair 3 water service lines for the Perspective buildings, for $20,950 and 5 water service lines for the PPL buildings at $33,750. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 5 Subject: 2009 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds - Proposed Allocation 4. No 2009 CDBG Funds. The SLP Housing Authority provides housing to low income residents that are typically below 50% median income. The HA owns and manages 37 scattered site homes throughout the city. The HA requested $23,000 for window replacements at two sites. Since the HA has additional funds due to insurance coverage from hail damage, and the other grant applicants have such large needs, the HA believes they can get by this year without CDBG funds. Staff suggested that in the event the estimated 2009 allocation of $203,450 is reduced, the Wayside allocation be the first reduction considered. The following table provides an historical snapshot of CDBG funding to the city’s multi-family affordable housing providers Table 2. Historical CDBG funding for Multi housing providers Provider # Units Previous (before 2009) CDBG Allocation s CDB G (before 2009) per Unit 2009 Request 2009 Proposed Total CDBG Allocation using 2009 proposed CDB G $ per Unit with 2009 SLPHA 147 $45,000 $306 $23,000 $0 $45,000 $306 Wayside House 60 $192,200 $3,203 $55,000 $21,950 $214,150 $3,569 Perspectives 93 $137,100 $1,474 $30,000 $20,250 $157,350 $1,692 Vail Place 7 $25,000 $3,571 $0 $0 $25,000 $3,571 Community Involvement Program 29 $103,800 $3,579 $30,000 $25,000 $128,800 $4,441 Project for Pride in Living 129 $413,000 $3,202 $80,000 $33,750 $446,750 $3,463 Total 465 $916,100 $1,970 $218,00 0 $100,950 $1,017,050 $2,187 Public Service – SLP Park and Rec. Programming at Meadowbrook Manor and Ainsworth Park - $7,500 The Park & Rec. Department provides park programming to children at the Meadowbrook Manor Apartment Community. The $7,500 would provide an enhanced level of programming at both the Meadowbrook Manor and Ainsworth Park neighborhoods in 2009. Ainsworth Park abuts Perspective’s property at Louisiana Court and is used by residents from Perspectives’ and Project for Pride in Living’s apartments. This project was funded in 2007 and 2008, and staff recommends allocating programming funds of $7,500. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 6 Subject: 2009 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds - Proposed Allocation Community Facility – Playground Equipment at Meadowbrook Manor - $15,000 The Park and Rec. Department is planning on replacing the playground equipment at the Meadowbrook Manor Park, and CDBG funds can be used to assist with this neighborhood asset since more than 50% of the households at Meadowbrook Manor are low income households. CDBG funds have been used for City park purposes in the past; a park shelter at Meadowbrook Manor in 2000, and a park shelter at Ainsworth in 2007 were partially funded with CDBG funds. The total cost of playground equipment is $30,000. We are requesting that 50% of the cost be provided through CDBG funds. The other portion would be paid for out of the Park Improvement Fund. This park enhancement would promote themes that we heard from the residents during the VISION process. This park serves as a gathering place for neighborhood and the playground program. Staff is recommending that $15,000 CDBG funds be used to match the City Park Improvement funds. NEXT STEPS: The following actions are required to receive 2009 CDBG funds: February 17, 2009 Public Hearing and passage of Resolution outlining proposed activities. February 24, 2009 Deadline for submission of CDBG Application to Hennepin County. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City will receive an estimated $203,450 in federal CDBG funds in 2009 through Hennepin County. This is the same as received in 2008. The 2009 CDBG year runs from July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. St. Louis Park has consistently expended CDBG funds in a timely manner, and did so again with 2007 funds. The 2008 funds are currently being expended. In the event the final allocation is less than estimated, staff recommends reducing the allocations to the multifamily housing providers. Staff will keep Council apprised of actual funding amounts. VISION CONSIDERATION: The City Councils adopted Strategic Direction related to housing is, “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The use of CDBG funds for the proposed allocation is consistent with this direction. Attachments: Annual Housing Report Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 2008 City of St. Louis Park Housing Programs Report The purpose of this report is to apprise City policy makers of 2008 housing activity including the Move Up in the Park” activity. The Housing Matrix has also been updated with 2008 activity. 1. MOVE UP IN THE PARK ACTIVITY SUMMARY The comprehensive package of services and loans resulted from the Housing Summit and Vision’s focus of facilitating and promoting the expansion of existing homes as the most effective tool to achieve more family size homes in the city. The Move Up in the Park program successfully kicked off in 2005, with strong activity in 2006, and again in 2007. A synergy between the marketing of our “Move up in the Park” programs and services, with strong remodeling interest, resulted in resident use that outpaced earlier projections from 2005-2007. In 2008 the number of loans was consistent with 2007. The volatile housing and credit market did not seem to have much impact on the Move Up services. Generally, the last quarter of the year is not the busy remodeling season – so the effects of the economic downturn in late 2008 may not be felt until 2009. Move Up Services 2005-2008 68 102 62 48 221 157 179 130 0 50 100 150 200 250 2005 2006 2007 2008 YearNumber of VisitsArchitect Services Remodeling Advisor Move Up Loans 2005-2008 7 27 27 18 76 88 50 55 0 25 50 75 100 2005 2006 2007 2008 YearNumber of LoansMove up loans Discount loans 2008 Move Up Activity includes: • Eighteen homes have been significantly expanded using the transformation loan. • The architectural design service remains popular. There are a limited number of residents that can use this service, and staff expects the saturation point is being reached. This will continue to be popular with newer residents seeking to expand their starter homes. • The discount loan program kept pace with 2007. • The remodeling home tour was very successful and featured two green remodeled homes. • The green home remodeling fair attendance exceeded previous years. Move Up Activity Loan and Service Costs 2005-2008 Generally, for every dollar the city has invested in move-up and discount loans, services and administrative costs residents have been investing five dollars. The city investment in move up loans will be repaid from this revolving loan pool, when borrowers sell their homes and make repayment. The following table shows program costs from 2005-2008. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 7 Table: Move Up Services and Costs 2005-2008 2005 2006 2007 2008 Service # City Cost # City Cost # City Cost # City Cost Move Up Transformation Loan (Revolving Loan Pool) 7 $182,806 27 $591,264 27 $620,000 18 $330,937 Discount Loans 76 $45,636 88 $186,205 50 $74,000 55 $114,129 Architectural Design Service 68 $15,300 102 $22,950 62 $12,400 49 $11,025 Remodeling Advisor 221 $28,730 157 $20,410 179 $23,270 130 $16,900 Permitted Activity 2005-2008 Permitted activity is another measurement of remodeling activity that includes more than the city incented projects. The chart below shows permit valuations for residential remodeling (not including plumbing, electrical and heating) from 2005 – 2008. Each year has surpassed the previous in valuation, and the activity in 2008 was unprecedented due to the May hail storm. Over 7,000 residential remodeling permits were issued in 2008 with valuations exceeding $68,000,000. Chart. Permitted Residential Remodeling Improvements – valuations 2005-2008 Residential Remodeling Permit Valuation by Year $22,500,000 $68,495,908 $15,200,000 $13,900,000$0 $40,000,000 $80,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year$ AmountHousing staff have been tracking permits for additions, major remodels and general home maintenance as defined by alterations and re-roofs and re-siding projects. We track number of permit types to determine the effectiveness of the home improvement programs. The following table shows the dramatic increase in re-roof and re-siding permits issued in 2008; while only 202 re- roofs were permitted in 2005, almost 5,000 permits for roofing alone were issued in 2008. The valuations for re-roofs and re-siding exceeded $42,000,000 in 2008. While the roofing and siding permits were remarkable in 2008, it is also notable that the number of permits issued for additions, major remodels and general maintenance held steady during the tumultuous housing and credit market of 2008. As of late 2008, residents in St. Louis Park were still investing in their homes. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 8 Table. Remodeling Permit Types 2005-2008 The number of expansions (89) and remodeling (797) permits was pretty consistent with 2007 Remodeling Permit Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 Addition Residential 55 86 102 89 Major Remodels 45 50 50 46 Alteration Residential (general maintenance) 471 517 785 797 Reroof Only 202 216 355 4828 Reside Only 85 66 84 573 Location Map 2008 Major Remodels and Expansions The attached map illustrates that although the remodeling activity occurred throughout the City, the greatest activity levels occurred in the SE corner and lowest activity in the Aquila/Texa Tonka neighborhoods. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 9 3 394 394 100 7 100 7 100 7 169 169 3 25 5 20 5 Location 2008 Major Remodeling, Additions & New Homes Major Remodeling / Addition Activity Created: January 20th, 2009Prepared By: Information Resources Department Remodel Type Additions / Expansions (89) Major Remodel (46) NewHomes (13) 0 0.5 1 Miles Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 10 MOVE UP IN THE PARK PROGRAMS & LOANS DESCRIPTIONS • Move – Up Transformation Loan The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area income ($97,080 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost. Loan repayment at 0% interest is deferred until the home is sold - if the resident remains in the home for 30 years, the loan will be forgiven. This in effect establishes a revolving loan pool which will continue to fund future expansions. This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the project to selecting contractors. o Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must exceed $35,000. o The maximum loan amount is $25,000. o The City has established a revolving loan pool, administered by a third party. o The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower. • Architectural Design Service This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions. Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the American Institute of Architects and local architects. All homeowners considering renovations would be eligible for this service regardless of income, however to ensure committed participants, residents make a $25 co-pay. Resident surveys not only provided ideas to refine the program, but indicated a high level of satisfaction with the service. • Remodeling/Rehab Advisor The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service. • Discount Loan Program This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) home improvement loans. The MHFA’s Community Fix-up Fund is restricted to Minnesota residents residing in cities that elect to participate in the program. Residents with incomes of $63,000 or less qualify for a greater discount than those with incomes of $93,100 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools and spas. The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Fund is the funding source for the discount loan program, and CEE is the loan administrator. St. Louis Park implemented the discounting of MHFA loans in late 1999 as a pilot project. Successful marketing efforts have led the City to be third among all Minnesota cities to use the MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis and St. Paul. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 11 • Home Remodeling Tour The 4th annual Home Remodeling Tour of six recently remodeled homes proved very popular with an average 450 residents visiting each of the six tour homes. The Tour’s goal is to provide residents hands-on examples of remodeling and expansion projects of typical St. Louis Park housing, to motivate and encourage residents to enlarge and enhance their homes. • Annual Home Remodeling Fair The cities and community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Golden Valley co-sponsored the 2008 Fair. The 2008 Fair had a “green theme” and over 2,500 residents from the four cities attended the one day event, with over half of the attendees living in St. Louis Park. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is now a self-sustaining event where vendor registration fees more than cover the costs of the event. • Vacant Public Land Homes have been constructed on the parcels at 4515 and 4525 West 42nd Street and a certified green home on the 2600 Natchez Ave parcel is complete. Construction will begin at 2715 Monterey Ave in 2009. The softened housing and lending markets have had an impact on building homes on the Edgebrook Drive, Louisiana Ave and Wood Lane parcels where the bidders have withdrawn their bids. 1. OTHER HOUSING PROGRAM ACTIVITY Other city housing activity is below: • Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The Wolfe Lake Association HIA (130 units) is near completion of its $1,268,000 worth of common area improvements. The Westmoreland Hills Owner Association (72 units) established and HIA and construction on the $1,026,000 improvements began in late 2008. • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Activity completed as of December 2008 included activities that were funded with 2007 and 2008 Grant Year funds, and included improvements to the SLP Housing Authority homes, park programming at Ainsworth Park, improvements to Community Involvement Program’s properties, Wayside’s treatment facility, STEP soft costs, 18 residents have been served with emergency repair program, six residents received major rehab through the deferred loan program. • Housing Trust Affordable Homeownership. The Housing Trust purchased two homes in 2008. • Foreclosures. St. Louis Park has been experiencing a relatively low level of foreclosures with 76 in 2006, 87 in 2007 and 135 in 2008. The city has established an active Foreclosure Work Group that continues to monitor foreclosures, promote foreclosure prevention services and address issues related to vacant properties. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 12 ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY The St. Louis Park Housing Authority activity is outlined the tables below: Table 4. St. Louis Park Housing Authority Assisted Housing Programs Public Housing Public Housing Total Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy 2008 Hamilton House 108 108 99.5% Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 100% Louisiana Court, Metropolitan Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 100% Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3 Total 157 Rental Assistance Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HUD Approved) Units Utilization YTD 2008 Tenant-Based 212 100% Tenant-Based Portability Units* 68 Avg./month Project-Based: 45 96% Wayside House 20 95% Excelsior & Grand 18 97% Vail Place 7 99% Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 38 Perspectives Inc. 11 100% Community Involvement Program (CIP) – Scattered Site Homes 11 100% CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 100% Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 100% Total 363 Waiting Lists Assisted Housing Waiting List as of June 2008 Public Housing 1-BR 1-BR Handicap 2-BR 3-BR 3-BR Handicap 4-BR 5-BR Total 362 45 108 141 35 55 38 784 Section 8 1170 Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 13 Housing Matrix: Housing Types, Numbers & Percentages - 2008 In 2005 the Council approved housing goals that evolved from the 2003-05 Housing Summit. One of resulting strategies was to develop a matrix of existing housing types including detached/attached, owner/rental, family/senior, and affordable/market rate and goals. The matrix is to be a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. The attached matrix is updated semi-annually and presented to the City Council, Housing Authority and Planning Commission. It shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of: housing types, tenure (owner or rental), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family homes. While the matrix provides a snapshot of housing each year, it is helpful to take a further analysis by showing changes in housing units since we began tracking in such detail, specifically the large single family homes and affordable housing. Large Single Family Homes The chart below illustrates the number of large homes that have been added to the City’s housing stock since we began tracking data in 2005. In 2008, 13 new homes were added and 89 existing homes were significantly expanded. (See Location Map.) Not surprisingly the number of “teardowns” has increased from one in 2005, three in both 2006 & 2007 to eleven in 2008. Chart. Large homes added through expansions and new construction Large Single Family Homes Added 5 4 9 13 57 86 102 89 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2005 2006 2007 2008 YearNumber New Single Family Lg Homes Major Expansions The new homes and expansions noted above have resulted in an increase of large homes within the city. Since 2005, over 360 homes large homes have been added to the City’s housing stock, 40 of these through new construction and over 320 through significant expansions. The following chart illustrates this change. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 14 Chart. Large Homes 2005-2008 Number Large Single Family Homes 914 1004 1115 1217 500 1000 1500 2005 2006 2007 2008 YearNumber Affordable Housing Units Over time the number of affordable housing units is a moving target based on the following variables: • estimated market values of owner occupied homes increase, or decrease based on market; • the affordable market rate rental units are undercounted. They are based upon owners’ responses to the SLPHA’s Annual Rental Survey. Approximately 50% of the owners respond to the survey and disclose their rents, and every year different owners respond, so the data is incomplete. • The Met Council establishes annual affordable guidelines for rental and ownership based on percentages of the annual median area income and a households’ percentage of income devoted to housing. Chart. Total Affordable Housing Units by Year Total Affordable Housing Units by Year 1066 1,068 2459 2639 1621 1,231 3806 950 3306 5547 102010200 5000 10000 2003 2005 2006 2008 YearNumberSubsidized Units Rental Owner Occupied Despite the fact that the housing stock has not significantly changed over the past five years, the number of affordable units has fluctuated significantly as illustrated in chart, especially related to owner occupied units. The dramatic downturn in the housing market has resulted in a dramatic increase in the affordability of homes in St. Louis Park. The variation in the number of affordable Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 15 market rate rental units over time is due primarily to the reporting techniques previously noted, where the rental owners voluntarily respond to the SLPHA’s Rental Study. The most basic of affordable housing, subsidized housing, is not subject to the same fluctuations and the number of subsidized units has not changed significantly since 2003. The only additional units of subsidized housing added to the City since 2003 have been a percentage of the senior coop units at Aquila Commons and four owner occupied homes established through the Housing Land Trust. The SLPHA owns and manages 147 of the total 1,068 subsidized units, approximately 15% of the units. In addition to the SLPHA units, the HA oversees administration of 12 MHOP public housing units at Louisiana Court. The HA manages the Section 8 voucher programs that provides vouchers to between 265 and 363 renters. Since the vouchers are rental assistance they are not considered in the unit count, yet they do provide affordable housing for low income renters. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 16 St. Louis Park Housing Types, Numbers and PercentagesHOUSING MATRIXDecember 2008Housing TypeUnits added 1/1/08-12/31/08# Units % Units # UnitsSingle Family Detached11,568 50% 133,136Duplex424 2% 048Condos and townhomes 3313 14% 02,370Apartments 7746 33% 2201,231COOPs121 1% 0Total23,172 100% 233 14,346 62% 8826 38% 1,217 5% 6,785 29% 1068 5% 942 4%0Large Family Homes, Affordable and Senior Housing0Large Family Home - 1,500 sq ft., 3+Bedrooms, 2+ Bath & 2+ Car Garage#1,217Senior Designated00Housing UnitsAffordable Subsidized (includes 1010 rental & 120 owner occupied units)Owner Occupied Rental0##Affordable Market Rate (includes rental & 5,603 owner occupied units)4442683687746Housing Production by Typeowner occupied (homesteaded)#975#4911,1241562945Affordable Owner Occupied Housing is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% MAI ($64,720 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. For a family of four, the 2008 affordable ownership value is defines at $214,900 or less. Based on the 2008 data, the number of affordable single family units increased by 681 units. 441218361060Affordable Rental Housing is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% MAI ($40,450 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. Monthly rent of $910, or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is considered affordable. (2008 data). The number of reported affordable rental units increased by over 600 units in 2008, due to stagnant rents. 01/22/2009Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 17 Housing Goals - City of St. Louis Park Housing Summit 2003-2005 As a means to educate, revisit and consider any necessary changes to St. Louis Park’s current housing policies, strategies and goals, a series of meetings were held between the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board, County Commissioner and a business representative regarding the status of housing in St. Louis Park. The discussions that were held at these meetings and subsequent changes made to the City’s goals, policies and strategies reflect what is best for the collective good of the entire St. Louis Park community. The meetings provided an opportunity to: • Review the status of housing in St. Louis Park (rental and owner occupied), • Examine historical, current and future housing trends in the city, and metro, state • Evaluate current and future community needs using 2000 Census data/other available info. • Examine the effectiveness of current policy/strategies in meeting the community’s needs, • Allow the Planning Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board and Business Community to provide input to the City Council. Process All members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Authority, School Board, the Hennepin County Commissioner, and a business representative attended an initial meeting to review general statistical and housing data. A Steering Committee met 6 times to examine specific housing topics and report back to the entire group at “check-in/progress” meetings. The 4 check- in/progress review meetings provided an opportunity to review findings and discuss possible policy changes/initiatives with the entire group. The public input process included conducting a Housing Survey, a Moving Survey and ten focus groups with resident groups to garner input regarding housing issues and response to drafted goals. The public input was presented at a final meeting of the entire group along with a review of the recommended changes to the City’s current housing policies and goals. The City Council considered and approved housing goals at the March 7, 2005 Council Meeting. City of St. Louis Park Housing Goals The Housing Summit resulted in a set of Housing Goals that were approved by the City Council in April 2005. The goals reflect the city’s housing policy and will serve as guides to direct officials, staff, and advisory boards now and into the future. Housing Production • Promote & facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today and in the future • The City should establish target numbers of units by housing types needed to ensure life cycle housing options, with housing types disbursed throughout the city. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 18 • The City acknowledges that there is demand for different types and sizes of housing units, but due to limitations of available space and other resources, all demands cannot be fully satisfied. At the present time, the greatest deficit and need is for the creation and maintenance of detached, owner-occupied single family housing which are large enough to accommodate families. City housing efforts and resources should primarily address this need. Housing Condition and Preservation • Ensure housing is safe and well maintained. • Preserve and enhance housing quality through proactive promotional and educational activities and housing programs related to home rehab, code, and design and safety issues. Owner / Rental Ratio • The ratio of owner/rental housing should be approximately 60% owner occupied and 40% rental. • Explore traditional and non-traditional owner occupied housing options such as, but not limited to: row houses, courtyard housing, alternative housing, cluster housing, hi-rises, 3- story homes, multi-generational housing, etc. Affordable, Workforce and Supportive Housing • Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Future affordability goals with the Met Council should be negotiated to reflect the average percentages for other first ring suburbs in Hennepin County. Note: In 2004, the City’s negotiated goal for housing affordability with the Met Council was that 60-77% of the city’s owner occupied homes should be affordable for households with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income and that 37-41% of the city’s rental homes should be affordable for households with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income. • Mixed income units should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one area of the City or any one development. Large Homes for Families • Promote and facilitate expansion of existing homes through remodeling which adds more bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities. • Promote and facilitate construction of large family-size homes with more bedrooms and more bathrooms, (e.g. minimum 3+ bedrooms and 2+ bathrooms, 2+ car garage and additional amenities such as den/fourth bedroom or porch or superior architecture) suitable for families with children. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 19 Senior Housing • Promote and facilitate more housing options for seniors. Land Use • Planning Goals: o Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals. o Promote higher density housing near transit corridors & employment centers. o Encourage housing density in commercial mixed use districts. • Explore and, if appropriate promote ordinances to allow development of non-traditional housing types and increased density in single family neighborhood that is compatible with surrounding neighborhood. • Explore and promote reclassification of non-residential properties and designate for housing and other purposes. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: 2009 Grant Year CDGB Page 20 Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 Agenda Item #: 11 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Termination of Wireless Internet Circuit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. This report is being provided to allow Council to think about alternatives for maintaining the existing Internet circuit for City benefit and paid use by other municipal and school entities. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council interested in maintaining an asset acquired during the ParkWiFi project that could now serve to benefit the City of St. Louis Park, schools in St. Louis Park, LOGIS / its member cities, as well as other entities in the future? BACKGROUND: When the pilot project for ParkWiFi was initiated in April 2006, the City of St. Louis Park entered into an initial 3-year agreement with XO Communications for Internet service. This service was acquired to provide a connection to the Internet for pilot wi-fi customers, with the intent of providing a similar Internet connection to citywide ParkWiFi customers. In addition, the same Internet connection provided by XO Communications has provided public wireless Internet service to portions of City Hall (e.g., Chambers) and the Recreation Center (e.g., lobby outside ice rinks). The 3-year agreement provided advantageous pricing and installation cost savings to the City at that time. The 3-year agreement is about to expire. Its current annual cost is approximately $46,000 per year, and it was sized to serve up to 6,000 wi-fi customers. With the termination of ParkWiFi and newly introduced ability to obtain City building public wireless Internet service from LOGIS (at no additional fee), the City now faces two options: • Let the current agreement between XO Communications and the City of St. Louis Park expire, and do not renew it as a result of the termination of ParkWiFi. • Renew the agreement with XO Communications for public purposes other than ParkWiFi. The first option is straightforward. The second option needs explanation and justification for any possible consideration. The City already has an Internet connection provided through LOGIS. That connection has served City needs for many years, and can now be expanded to provide wireless Internet service within City buildings. By capacity and policy, LOGIS cannot extend such coverage beyond City buildings. So why consider retaining the XO Communications circuit? Some reasons Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 11) Page 2 Subject: Termination of Wireless Internet Circuit were contemplated during the ParkWiFi project, and some have emerged since the demise of ParkWiFi: City Backup Internet Connection: First and foremost is the City’s connection to the Internet. We currently have one connection without redundancy. While the Internet connection is generally quite reliable, service is inevitably interrupted on occasion. This can result from scheduled maintenance, unscheduled hardware or software failure or, more often, from construction that inadvertently cuts a fiber optic cable. While we rely on the Internet connection for public safety and many other core services, the cost to install and maintain a redundant line is expensive. Because of the ParkWiFi project, the City has the opportunity to make use of a redundant line that is already installed. St. Louis Park Public Schools: The City has been approached by St. Louis Park Public Schools, which is in need of additional Internet bandwidth. The School District is exploring options and is interested to see whether there are economies of scale and redundancy opportunities made possible by collaborating with the City, and paying the City for its use of the Internet connection versus paying another entity. Benilde-St. Margaret’s School: The City has been approached by Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, which is in need of both Internet redundancy and additional Internet bandwidth. BSM is also exploring options and is interested to see whether there are economies of scale and redundancy opportunities made possible by collaborating with the City, and paying the City for its use of the Internet connection versus paying another entity. This arrangement would be very similar to one with St. Louis Park Public Schools. LOGIS Backup Internet Connection: The City has been approached by LOGIS, which is interested in a redundant Internet connection for itself and 30+ member cities. It is possible for LOGIS to piggyback on the ParkWiFi connection. For this, LOGIS is willing to pay part of the costs of maintaining the connection. Public Wireless Access Beyond City Buildings: There may be non-City building locations in the future where the City would like to provide public wireless hot spots. These locations could be outdoors or indoors and may not be serviced for wireless by other entities. Future Internet Service to Other Entities: Finally, the City of St. Louis Park is currently part of a fiber network of about 27 miles. That network exists in many locations that can bring high speed Internet service to other entities, including and in addition to other schools. That service could be provided by the City, by private companies to which the City could lease selected fiber lines, or some combination. In fact, overtures have been made by private sector companies to City staff expressing interest in City leasing of lines and direct provision of high speed Internet access. Because City Council has not considered this policy question in detail in the past and the City has not been in a position to offer such service, City staff has been unable to respond positively to such requests. The City Attorney has reviewed these concepts and indicated no legal obstacles if the City were interested in pursuing provision of Internet service to any of these entities. Meeting of January 26, 2009 (Item No. 11) Page 3 Subject: Termination of Wireless Internet Circuit FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As mentioned earlier, the cost to support this Internet connection has been approximately $46,000 per year for the broader ParkWiFi customer base. That need has evaporated. The question becomes whether it makes sense to maintain this connection past the contract expiration in March 2009. If so, what might be the need? For the City, the need focuses on redundancy for an ever-growing reliance on the Internet for public safety and many other core City services. However, such redundancy is expensive to install and maintain. The strategy being suggested by staff is to attempt to negotiate with XO Communications Internet services needed to provide redundancy for the City services, while covering the costs of providing such redundancy through providing Internet services to St. Louis Park Schools, Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, and LOGIS. That would require purchasing sufficient Internet capacity to serve these other entities and recouping those costs with fees from these entities. The real strategic question is: Can the City form agreements with XO Communications and the entities being served that meet the needs of all involved, cover all costs of maintaining the Internet connection and, most importantly, provide Internet redundancy for City public safety and other core services in the package. In effect, can the City acquire such redundancy with minimal if any net costs while also serving broader community needs that bring enhanced value to local schools and LOGIS. In order to finally and fully answer that question, staff is asking City Council if it has any policy reservations about exploring these possibilities and returning to Council with final findings and recommendations. If this service cannot be provided cost-effectively for the City’s redundancy needs first, and interested parties as a whole second, staff will recommend that the current contract with XO Communications be allowed to expire and not renewed. The same non-renewal would occur if Council feels such exploration does not fit from a Council policy or Vision perspective. VISION CONSIDERATION: This project supports the strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community and the focus area of creating community gathering places. Such gathering places are increasingly virtual and supported by technology infrastructure enhancements. Attachments: None Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director