The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009/01/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA FEBRUARY 23, 2009 6:15 p.m. Board and Commission Interviews – Westwood Room 7:15 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Discussion Items 1. 7:15 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning --- March 9, 2009 2. 7:20 p.m. 2010 Budget Process and Workshop Follow-Up 3. 8:10 p.m. Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area 4. 9:00 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan 5. 9:10 p.m. Communications (Verbal) Written Reports 6. Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study Update 7. Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update 8. 2009 Environmental Objective --- MN Energy Challenge 9. Street Improvement Districts 10. January 2009 Financial Reports 9:20 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: February 23, 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 – March 9, 2009. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and the City Manager meet to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session for March 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 the regularly scheduled study session on March 9, 2009. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for March 9, 2009 Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Tentative Discussion Items Study Session, Monday, March 9, 2009 – 6:30 p.m. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Northside Fire Station Location – Inspections (60 minutes) Staff will lead the Council in a discussion about the Northside Fire Station location. 3. Draft Station Plans (SW Transit) – Community Development (45 minutes) Community Development staff to provide an update on the draft station study for the Southwest Transitway. What does the Council think about the draft study? 4. Refuse Collection Policy – Public Works (30 minutes) Council will discuss with staff the City’s refuse collection policies having to do with cart placement for pickup purposes and cart capacity. 5. Park & Recreation Commission 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan – Park & Recreation (15 minutes - tentative) Council will review and discuss the Park & Recreation Commission’s 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan on February 23. Does the Council wish to provide feedback to the Commissioners at the March 9th study session? 6. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session for the purposes of information sharing. Reports: Wind Turbines – Administrative Services Economic Recovery Act – Administrative Services Hoigaard Village Update – Community Development End of Meeting: 9:15 p.m. Meeting Date: February 23, 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: 2010 Budget Process and Workshop Follow-Up. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is needed. This item is a continued discussion regarding the 2010 budget process and a follow-up to questions from the January Council Workshop. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council comfortable with the recommended approach for undertaking a thoughtful and responsible process for considering the City’s 2010 budget? Are there more questions the City Council has regarding the residential survey? BACKGROUND: 2010 Budget Process Discussion: At the Council workshop in January, Council discussed the 2009 budget patch and concepts on a process to help set priorities and establish the 2010 budget. Council asked that staff provide a revised approach to be discussed at a future study session. At this study session, staff will provide an updated recommendation on a budget process and would like to continue this discussion with the Council. This recommendation will identify the proposed process the Council would undertake and the process staff would undertake, and where the two processes would converge during the next 10 months. Decision Resources Survey Follow-Up: At the workshop, Council requested staff provide additional information on two questions. Staff checked in with Bill Morris from Decision Resources and has outlined below his responses to the questions – Question 1: Are the answers statistically valid, particularly % of families with kids and that traffic congestion is not an issue? Answers: • Approximately 18% of our households have kids that are in the public schools. 5% is the margin of error in the survey. Also, we have approximately that many kids going to non-public schools and being home schooled. So, Bill thought the numbers were accurate or within the margin of error. • The traffic questions in the survey were about St. Louis Park and not the entire metro area. Neither Bill nor Peter thought this was a skewed response. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: 2010 Budget Process and Workshop Follow-Up Question 2: Is there a way we can learn the “why” of people’s glowing report on St. Louis Park? Answer: Bill said they would think about a response to this question and get back to us. We had a long conversation about this and they indicated they haven’t been asked this type of question before. Council Workshop Highlights and “Parking Lot”: Attached is a document created from the workshop containing both highlights and parked items from the two day discussion. Items under highlights are items discussed in detail at the workshop and will be reviewed and used by staff as we continue to move along in our work. Items listed as parking lot are thoughts for possible future discussion, review or study. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Council Workshop Highlights and Parking Lot Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: 2010 Budget Process and Workshop Follow-Up City Council Workshop January 30-31, 2009 Highlights and “Parking Lot” Highlights ¾ Recommitted to Vision and the four strategic directions ¾ Reviewed the Decision Resources Survey Results ¾ Requested more data on % of households with school age children and transportation ¾ Reviewed the norms and wanted to bring them up in a study session with all members present ¾ Reviewed the Long Range Financial l Management Plan presented by staff ¾ Discussed the challenges associated with the 2010 budget. ¾ Met with Department Heads to review city functions and services in their respective departments ¾ It was the consensus of the Council that as part of a budget setting process they did not need additional detailed meetings with Directors on functions, that the process they went through and information submitted was sufficient. ¾ Discussed various ideas regarding 2010 budget process. Staff will re-draft the process for the 2010 budget and bring it back at an upcoming Study Session. ¾ Discussed public process as a part of establishing the 2010 budget and determined that the focus should be on providing information and education to the public regarding the budget for 2010, that it will be a non-traditional process. Parking Lot • Consider using no pesticides in our parks • Consider the way we run our fire department: trucks on medical calls, consolidation with other cities, number of fire fighters, use of paid on call, etc. • Concept of moving to a Public Safety Director approach • Look at combining some licenses and services • Look at how we set up fees for services • Possibly consider reducing number of commissions e.g. BOZA • Not meeting with all Boards and Commissions every year, written reports can suffice • Stay environmentally conscious • Develop a process for looking at rinks • Consider the use of administrative fines vs. the extended court process • How will state and county cuts land on the city – e.g. trickle down impacts? • Need to examine the use of TIF from extended TIF districts like Elmwood and or Excelsior Blvd vs. other financing mechanisms like GO Bonds • What does the potential extension of the TIF districts mean to the School District? • Compare amount of tax capacity tied up in TIF Districts with other communities? • Build IMPLICATIONS OF DECISIONS into our future discussions • CATCH UP Paul and Paul with the results of the Workshop Meeting Date: February 23, 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: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. This report provides information for City Council discussion at the study session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The City is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements. The City adopted an HIA policy in 2001, and has established four HIA’s to date (see attachments). The Sunset Ridge Association anticipates requesting HIA designation early this spring. Their request is the largest request the City has ever received both in terms of the total dollar amount and the amount per unit. The request has raised a number of policy questions about how to handle HIA requests and when they should be approved. The issues are outlined below. BACKGROUND: A written report for the February 9, 2009 Council meeting provided background information related to the pending establishment of the Sunset Ridge Association HIA. The City Council asked to have the topic of HIA’s and the Sunset Ridge request placed on a study session agenda. In April 2008 Sunset Ridge submitted a preliminary application to us with the scope of improvements estimated at $4,700,000. This would result in an average cost per unit of almost $21,000. This is a significant loan amount compared to the value of the units. The average annual fee would be $2,111, with a monthly fee of $175. Basic information about Sunset Ridge is summarized below. Sunset Ridge is located between 2010 and 2260 Ridge Drive. • There are nine buildings with 240 total units. • Built in the early 80’s. • 75% of the units are owner occupied. • The 2008 median EMV of the units is $126,000. • Unit values range from $104,500 to $153,000. The Sunset Ridge application meets City HIA requirements. However some key issues raised by this proposed project are outlined below for discussion. They are issues that relate to HIAs in general not just Sunset Ridge; and, they exist within the context of the current housing and lending markets for both the Association and the City. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations Homeowner Risks and Issues Taking on additional homeowner debt during uncertain economic conditions is a challenge to many association members. The Sunset Ridge Association has and continues to balance the need for making improvements that address years of deferred maintenance, with the burden of taking on additional debt. Homeowners have the following considerations: 1. Basic building maintenance needs to be done in a timely fashion. Deferring the improvements will lead to further deterioration of the buildings. There comes a time when the buildings simply need to be repaired. Stop-gap emergency repairs deplete reserves and lead to unplanned assessments. 2. An HIA loan provides an affordable long term method of paying for improvements. In the case of Sunset Ridge it is really the only viable financing option. 3. The cost of improvements may push the debt on some units above the current value of the units. Owners that purchased units since 2003, when home values were high, could be in a situation where the additional debt load could result in a higher debt load than unit value. At Sunset Ridge the board is polling the 30 owners that purchased since 2003, to determine the impact of the additional debt. 4. There are some resources for owners financially burdened by the loan. The board is being directed to contact Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County to provide home finance counseling to all owners that could be significantly burdened by the loan. Low-income seniors, over 65 years, could be eligible for the city’s hardship deferment of special assessments as well. City Issues 1. How best to fund HIA loans. The City has alternative mechanisms to fund the HIA improvements. The HIA law anticipates City’s using its bonding authority to fund HIA loans to homeowner associations. However St. Louis Park has funded the four loans to date from city reserves. The previous loans have been much smaller than the Sunset Ridge proposed loan. The city has the internal funds available to fund the Sunset Ridge loan and it would be financially beneficial to both the City and Sunset Ridge to do so; however, there are consequences to funding from reserves that need to be considered. 2. Internal funding of HIA loans has both benefits and costs for the City and Associations. a. Benefits of internal financing i. Costs the associations less by providing a savings of approximately $100,000 over the cost of bond issuance and underwriting ii. The rate of return on the loan would be greater than what the city could derive from other investments right now, approximately 6% versus 2%. iii. Although future interest rates are unknown, it is unlikely the city could invest and earn interest greater than the HIA rates of 5.85-6.3%. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations b. The downside of internal financing is that city funds are tied up long term. The real question for the City regarding internal financing is whether the city has sufficient dollars available for other more immediate needs. c. The financial risk for the city is about the same whether the city funds the HIA loan from internal financing or issues bonds. In either case it is a general obligation of the city and we are counting on the Association to repay use. 3. Loan term a. The goal of determining the loan term is to encumber the city’s monies for the shortest term feasible, while making the fee payments affordable to owners of modest valued homes. Residents that can afford to pay the fee upfront, or find alternative financing to prepay the fee, can and do. b. Two of the existing HIA’s have 10 year loan terms and two have 15 years terms. The loan term for Sunset Ridge is proposed to be 20 years. c. The loan term should not outlive the life of the improvements. 4. The firewalls to reduce the city’s financial risk are significant and include: a. Repayment of the loan is made through owner’s real estate tax payments. b. In foreclosure events, tax liabilities including special assessments, must be paid by any party that purchases the unit. In this arena, HIA fees have been treated the same as special assessments. c. There is 105% debt coverage. d. The development agreements allow the city to obtain assignment of association’s assets. The agreements also can require associations to pay on behalf of delinquent members if payments are not made. e. The delinquency rate of existing HIA fees is low and consistent with the citywide property tax delinquency rate of less than 1%. f. Finally, prior to application, associations are required to conduct a reserve study of capital needs and long term financials before an application is submitted. The financial plan is reviewed by staff and the city’s financial advisor, Ehlers and Associates to determine long term feasibility of financing future improvements. g. The Development Agreements with Associations provide additional contractual conditions to ensure financial stability of associations. They require that associations i. Use professional property management. ii. Submit annual audits and update financial plans to demonstrate capability for ongoing maintenance & operations. iii. Demonstrate increases in monthly association dues to build reserves to a sustainable level. 5. On-going maintenance of townhomes and condos a critical community need. There are roughly 2700 townhomes and condos in St. Louis Park. The majority of them are over 20 years old. For the strength of our neighborhoods and the whole community, it is important that these homes be well maintained. In some cases private financing is not available or affordable for these homeowner associations. In those situations, participating in the city’s HIA program maybe the Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations only way to finance critical home improvements. Deteriorating housing would be a huge risk for the community if allowed to happen. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The pending Sunset Ridge HIA is the largest amount of money to be requested by an Association at approximately $5,000,000. Due to the large amount of money and current economic conditions, this topic warrants discussion. Four associations with over 500 housing units have received loans totaling over $2,500,000 to date. The city internally funded these loans and has experienced no significant issues in loan repayments. This investment in owner occupied affordable housing is notable. VISION CONSIDERATION: The preservation of modest valued owner occupied homes is consistent with the vision to ensure a diversity of well maintained housing. HIAs are a means of accomplishing the city’s vision by assisting associations with financing property maintenance of affordable owner occupied units. The increase value of improved properties benefits the city and its residents. NEXT STEPS: Staff will keep Council apprised of the Sunset Ridge Condominiums desire to request a public hearing to establish the Sunset Ridge HIA. Attachments: City Housing Improvement Area Policy, adopted July 2001 HIA Summary Sheets Sunset Ridge HIA Study Session Report February 9, 2009 Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA POLICY 1. PURPOSE 1.01 The purpose of this policy is to establish the City's position relating to the use of Housing Improvement Area (HIA) financing for private housing improvements. This policy shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting HIA financing. 1.02 The City shall have the option of amending or waiving sections of this policy when determined necessary or appropriate. 2. AUTHORITY 2.01 The City of St. Louis Park has the authority to establish HIAs under 1994 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 587, Article 9, Section 22 through 3 1, and extended in 2000, M.S. 428A.21 2.02 Within a HIA, the City has the authority to: A. Make housing improvements B. Levy fees and assessments C. Issue bonds to pay for improvements 2.03 The City Council has the authority to review each HIA petition, which includes scope of improvements, association’s finances, long term financial plan, and membership support. 3. ELIGIBLE USES OF HIA FINANCING 3.01 As a matter of adopted policy, the City of St. Louis Park will consider using HIA financing to assist private property owners only in those circumstances in which the proposed private projects address one or more of the following goals: A. To promote neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the removal of blight and/or the upgrading of the existing housing stock in a neighborhood. B. To correct housing or building code violations as identified by the City Building Official. C. To maintain or obtain FHA mortgage eligibility for a particular condominium or townhome association or single family home within the designated HIA. D. To increase or prevent the loss of the tax base of the City in order to ensure the long-term ability of the City to provide adequate services for its residents. E. To stabilize or increase the owner-occupancy level within a neighborhood or association. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations F. To meet other uses of public policy, as adopted by the City of St. Louis Park from time to time, including promotion of quality urban design, quality architectural design, energy conservation, decreasing the capital and operating costs of local government, etc. 4. HIA APPROVAL CRITERIA 4.01 All HIA financed through the City of St. Louis Park should meet the following minimum approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these criteria would automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual rights on the part of any association. A. The project must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, or required changes to the Plan and Ordinances must be under active consideration by the City at the time of approval. B. The HIA financing shall be provided within applicable state legislative restrictions, debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements and policies. C. The project should meet one or more of the above adopted HIA Goals of the City of St. Louis Park. D. The term of the HIA should be the shortest term possible while still making the annual fee affordable to the association members. The term of any bonds or other debt incurred for the area should mature in 20 years or less. E. The association in a HIA should provide adequate financial guarantees to ensure the repayment of the HIA financing and the performance of the administrative requirements of the development agreement. Financial guarantees may include, but are not limited to the pledge of the association's assets including reserves, operating funds and/or property. F. The proposed project, including the use of HIA financing, should be supported by a majority of the owners within the association. The association should include the results of a membership vote along with the petitions to create the area. G. The Association must have adopted a financial plan that provides for the Association to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements within the Association and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital improvements therein, which does not rely upon the subsequent use of the HIA tool. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations H. HIA financial assistance is last resort financing and should not be provided to projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of HIA financing. Evidence that the association has sought other financing for the project should be provided and should include an explanation and verification that an assessment by the association is not feasible along with letters from private lenders or other evidence indicating a lack of financing options. I. The homeowner's association must be willing to enter into a development agreement, which may include, but is not limited to, the following terms: establishment of a reserve fund staffing requirements annual reporting requirements conditions of disbursement required dues increases notification to new owners of levied fees J. The improvements financed through the HIA should primarily be exterior improvements and other improvements integral to the operation of the project, e.g. boilers. In the case of a homeowner's association, the improvements should be restricted to common areas. The improvements must be of a permanent nature. The association must have a third party conduct a facility needs assessment to determine and prioritize the scope of improvements. K. HIA financing should not be provided to those projects that fail to meet good public policy criteria as determined by the Council, including: poor project quality; projects that are not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, redevelopment plans, and the City policies; projects that provide no significant improvement to the neighborhood and/or the City; and projects that do not provide a significant increase in the tax base and/or prevent the loss of tax base. L. The financial structure of the project should receive a favorable review by the City's Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel. The review will include a review of performance and level of outstanding debt of previous HIAs. M. The average market value of units in the association should not exceed the maximum home purchase price for existing homes under the State’s first time homebuyer program. (In 2001, the metro amount is $175,591) N. The association is to submit an application along with application fee as set from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Adopted by the City of St. Louis Park on the 16th day of July 2001. Cedar Trails Condominium Association HIA established 2002 The Cedar Trails Condominium complex has 280 units in 35 buildings and was originally built in 1971 as rental property. The 35 buildings were converted to condos in 1979. The 2002 assessed values of the units range from $69,000 - $115,000, with a 2002 average assessed value of $92,000. Approximately 75% of the 280 units are owner occupied. The 2008 median estimated market values of units is $112,800 Improvements: roofs, windows, patio doors, parking lot and garages completed 2004 Total Loan amount$1,366,000. Loan Terms Term (years) 10 Interest Rate 6.30% Average Annual Debt Service $188,207 Required Coverage (105%) $197,617 Total Units 280 Cost/Unit – Annual (Average) $705.78 Cost/Unit – Monthly (Average) $58.81 Average Fee – Per/Unit (Principal only) $4,877.65 Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations Page 8 Sungate One HIA established in 2006 Sungate One consists of four single-story, five-unit buildings, constructed in 1968 as rental and converted to condominiums in 1978. All units are identical in size and features. The units are primarily owner occupied. 2005 estimated average market value $121,000. The 2008 median estimated market value of units is $131,700 Improvements: replacement of water line from curb to buildings, partial replacement of sidewalks, replacement of some water heaters, boilers, a garage roof, and improvements to the driveway, parking lot, lights, sidewalks and stoops plus miscellaneous landscaping. Completed in 2006 Total Loan amount $183,884 Loan Terms Term (years) 10 Average Interest Rate 5.90% Average Annual Debt Service $24,866 Required Coverage (105%) $26,109 Total Units 20 Cost/Unit - Annual $1,305.45 Cost/Unit - Monthly $108.79 Average Assessment - Per/Unit $9,194.20 Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations Page 9 Westmoreland Hills Owners Association HIA established in 2008 Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association is a three-story 72 unit building. The building was constructed in 1962 and converted to condominiums in 1980. The units vary in size and features and are 83% owner occupied. The 2008 estimated market values range from the $70,000 to $140,000; with a 2008 median estimated market value of units is $101,400 Improvements: replace windows and patio doors, paint exterior trim and seal joints. Interior, replace carpeting, wall coverings, furniture and artwork, interior paint; renovate exterior & interior lighting Total Loan amount $1,026,125 Loan Terms Term (years) 15 Interest Rate 5.85% Average Annual Debt Service $104,620 Required Coverage (105%) $109,851 Total Units 72 Cost/Unit - Annual $1,525 Cost/Unit - Monthly (Average) $127 Average Assessment - Per/Unit $14,250 Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations Page 10 Wolfe Lake Condominiums HIA established in 2007 Wolfe Lake Condominium Association is a complex of two buildings with a total of 131 unit. The buildings were constructed in 1972 as rental and converted to condominiums in 1980. The units vary in size and features and are 86% owner occupied. The 2007 estimated market value of the units ranges from $108,000 to the mid $140,000’s. The 2008 median estimated market value of units is $127,300 Improvements: building mechanical, replace one roof, add accessible entry vestibule. Sealcoat parking lot, minor interior improvements, finishing final interior improvements early 2009. Total Loan amount: $1,238,000 Loan Terms Term (years) 15 Interest Rate 5.85% Average Annual Debt Service $131,839 Required Coverage (105%) $138,431 Total Units 130 Cost/Unit - Annual $1,065 Cost/Unit - Monthly (Average) $89 Average Assessment - Per/Unit $9,754 Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations Page 11 Meeting Date: February 9, 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: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA). RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council on this large, pending project. The Sunset Ridge Association anticipates petitioning the City Council to conduct a Public Hearing to establish the HIA and impose fees this spring. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The City is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements. The City adopted an HIA policy in 2001, and has established four HIA’s to date (see attachments). BACKGROUND: Sunset Ridge is located between 2010 and 2260 Ridge Drive. • There are nine buildings with 240 total units. • Built in the early 80’s. • 75% of the units are owner occupied. • The 2008 median EMV of the units is $126,000. • Unit values range from $104,500 to $153,000. The City’s policy requires that only associations where the median unit value is less than or equal to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s 1st time Home Buyers limit of $298,000, can apply for the HIA. History Sunset Ridge Association has been working towards acquiring HIA designation since they contacted staff in early 2006 for possible assistance to address significant deterioration of siding and windows on the buildings. Based on this discussion the Board had a financial and physical needs plan developed to determine what improvements would be needed and developed a plan to finance them now and in the future. The Board then began the process of determining the scope of work; identifying contractors and communication with membership. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations Page 12 Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Subject: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 1. In April 2008 they submitted a preliminary application to us with the scope of improvements estimated at $4,700,000. This would result in an average fee per unit of almost $21,000. This is a significant loan amount compared to the value of the units. The average annual fee would be $2,111, with a monthly fee of $175. 2. Over the summer, the association put the HIA on hold while they negotiated with the insurance company to cover damages caused by the hail storm last May. In the end the roof costs were covered by the insurance, but siding and windows were not. So, the final scope of work for the HIA loan remained the same. In early November 2008 the final costs (see attached Ehlers allocation table) were made known to members and petitions were distributed to owners. The board has received petitions from a majority of owners, to pursue establishing an HIA and have fees imposed. 3. The economic conditions of the 3rd quarter of 2008 and the high project costs have caused the Board to reconsider the project’s scope. A new board was elected in January 2009 and a new property management company has been hired. The new board has been re-working the scope of work, garnering additional input from members, and looking at options to reduce the cost of the loan. The improvements are very basic: siding, soffits, gutters and windows, so there are “no unnecessary cosmetic” improvements. The board is considering cutting costs by using lower grade windows. The board is cognizant that in addition to the improvement costs, monthly association fees are being increased to ensure future reserves will cover future needs as outlined in the reserve study. 4. The Board has determined that the work needs to be done, and it costs a lot of money. Delaying the work will only result in further deterioration of the buildings some of which are experiencing mold and moisture problems due to poor siding and windows. They are prepared to request a public hearing while continuing to work to reduce the loan amount to make it more affordable. Issues Taking on additional debt during uncertain economic conditions is a challenge to the association, and the new board seems to be taking this very seriously, looking at all options to reduce the loan amount. They have had several meetings to garner additional membership input; one of the Board members is a project manager for a large metro construction firm and is bringing his expertise to the board. The new management company has a solid reputation for stressing long term property maintenance. • There are 30 owners that have purchased units since 2003, when prices were high. These owners could be in a situation where the additional debt load could result in a higher debt load than unit value. The board is polling owners that purchased since 2003, to determine the impact of the additional debt. • There may be other owners burdened by the loan. The board is being directed to contact Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County to provide home finance counseling to all owners that could be significantly burdened by the loan. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations Page 13 Meeting of February 9, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Subject: Update on Pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Housing Improvement Area (HIA) • Low-income seniors, (over 65 years), could be eligible for the City’s hardship deferment of special assessments. . City Financing of the Loan A 20 year loan is being considered to lower the monthly payments to the most affordable level feasible. The City Manager and Finance Director are considering the use of either internal financing or bond issuance and will make a recommendation to the Council. The benefit to residents of internal financing is that it lowers costs by approximately $100,000 by avoiding bond issuance and underwriting costs. If the City were to internally finance this, the Development Fund would be a likely source. From the City’s point of view, the level of risk is really no different in terms of internal vs. external financing. The real question for the City regarding internal financing relates to whether we will have sufficient dollars available for other needs. One upside to internally financing this is that the rate of return on the investment would be greater than what we are able to derive from the market right now (5 or 6% vs. 2%) Staff is recommending to the Association that the project proceed later in the year rather than earlier to reduce capitalized interest costs. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This is the largest amount of money to be requested by an Association, with an average loan that amounts to 17% of the median value of the units. The other HIA loans to unit value ranged from 4% to 14%. Our experience has been that the rate of HIA repayment delinquencies is the same as the citywide property tax delinquency rate which is quite low. The risk to the city of non-payment is low for three reasons, in the event of foreclosure, tax payments are first paid, the association assigns its assets (reserve funds) to the city; finally there is 105% debt coverage. As this project proceeds thru the City’s formal process staff will provide additional details on the merits of this proposal. VISION CONSIDERATION: The preservation of modest valued owner occupied homes is consistent with the vision to ensure a diversity of well maintained housing. NEXT STEPS: Upon completion of the final scope of work the association will be requesting the Council conduct a Public Hearing to establish the Sunset Ridge HIA and impose fees. The association anticipates this will occur in March. Attachments: Ehlers’s draft Housing Improvement Area Project Costs Photos of siding and windows Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Considerations Page 14 Meeting Date: February 23, 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: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report summarizes work performed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (“PRAC”) in 2008 and outlines the intentions of PRAC for work to be performed in 2009. PRAC requests feedback and guidance from Council regarding both reports. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council comfortable with PRAC’s work plan for 2009? Does the City Council wish to meet with PRAC to discuss the annual report and work plan? BACKGROUND: In accordance with Council policy, the 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan are submitted for Council review at the February 23, 2009 study session. If the City Council wants to talk further to PRAC the chair could meet with Council at the March 9, 2009 study session. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: The 2009 PRAC Work Plan contemplates participation in several focus areas of the Vision Process. Attachments: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2008 Year End Report Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2009 Work Plan Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (“PRAC”) 2008 Year End Report The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Purpose: The Commission shall study and consider all phases of public parks and recreation and recommend to the City of St. Louis Park and Independent School District #283 a park and public recreation program which best meets the needs of all residents of St. Louis Park. 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Steve Hallfin, Chair Kirk Hawkinson, Vice Chair R. Bruce Cornwall George Foulkes George Hagemann Tom Worthington Lauren Webb-Hazlett, Student Representative Vacant, School Board Representative Parks and Recreation Department Staff Cindy Walsh, Director Rick Beane, Park Superintendent Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager Craig Panning, Manager of Buildings and Structures Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary 2008 Highlights Members of the Commission actively participated in the community visioning process by contributing to the regular vision meetings and keeping the Commission apprised of its activity. Commission member George Hagemann was a member of the Sidewalks and Trails vision action team and Commission member George Foulkes participated on the Gathering Places vision action team. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, along with the Planning Commission, met, reviewed and discussed the Parks, Open Space, and Natural Resources chapter of the comprehensive plan. Throughout the year, staff presented Park Improvement project updates to the Commission such as playground replacement, field maintenance, easements, park dedication, building renovation, etc. The Commission assisted staff to make the annual Park & Run Fun Run held in May successful. Along with the 5k run event, members assisted in offering a new event at the Aquatic Park. This event, “Splash in Movie at the Pool” was offered on Friday, August 15 and was sponsored by M & I Bank. The Commission participated in the Minnehaha Creek clean up on Saturday, April 19. Two dump truck loads of debris were removed from the creek in this two-hour venture. On June 23, 2008 the Commission, along with the City Council, enjoyed a canoe ride on Minnehaha Creek. Youth Association representatives have attended monthly Commission meetings providing an update of their association and discussing ideas to foster a better relationship with participants, other associations and the city. In 2008, the Commission met with the Football Association, Girls Traveling Basketball Association, and the Traveling Baseball Association. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2008 Year End Report and 2009 Work Plan 2009 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Kirk Hawkinson, Chair George Hagemann, Vice Chair Jenny Coig, School Representative George Foulkes, School Representative Steve Hallfin, City Representative Tom Worthington, City Representative Vacant, City Representative Vacant, Student Representative 2009 Goals ¾ Athletic Association Relationship: Invite each association to their monthly meetings to continue a positive relationship. ¾ City Vision: Participate and keep updated on Vision to meet the goals. ¾ Commissions: Meet with other commissions as appropriate. ¾ Group facilitation: Assist in facilitating interested groups and other park and recreation users. ¾ Minnehaha Creek Clean-Up: Organize a clean up of the creek and creek shores. ¾ Planning Initiatives: Provide continual input on Comprehensive Plan and actively participate in the Active Community Planning Initiative for trails and sidewalks or other initiatives as appropriate. ¾ Recreation Resources: Invite Council to participate in exploring the city’s recreation resources. ¾ Staff Appreciation Luncheon: Serve an appreciation luncheon for staff. 2009 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Work Plan Meeting Date: February 23, 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: February 23, 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: Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: This is an update on the Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study. The Council is requested to contact staff with any questions or comments it might have. BACKGROUND: The Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study has been underway for several months. This study, funded through a grant by Transit for Livable Communities through the Federal Non-Motorized Pilot Program, follows closely on the heels of the City-wide Sidewalks and Trails Plan. By reviewing the study area in greater detail, it is hoped that connections between Golden Valley, Minneapolis, and St. Louis Park can be improved. More specifically, the study has three major goals: • Improving the environment for pedestrians and bicyclists in the Xenia / Park Place Corridor. • Increasing connectivity between area employees, citizens, and the Cedar Lake Trail. • Creating improved access to Theodore Wirth Park. To achieve these goals, the City hired Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., to work on the planning study. To date the consultant has completed an inventory of the area and created maps depicting opportunities for connections and enhancements within the corridor. To finalize the analysis of the area and of potential opportunities, Staff has worked with the consultant to indentify a public process. Both Golden Valley and St. Louis Park will undertake its own public process. Separate public processes will better address the unique individual needs of each City. To this end, Staff has set dates for meetings the week of March 2nd for two separate meetings. The first, to be held on Tuesday, March 3rd, will be for citizens of St. Louis Park. Citizens within the Study Area will be invited to the meeting to review the work-to-date of the consultant and to discuss their priorities for improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle environment within their neighborhoods. At the second meeting on March 5th, area employees will be invited to provide similar input. Because of the substantial number of employees in the Xenia / Park Place corridor – estimated in Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Subject: Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study Update excess of 20,000 – their input is critical to achieving success with the plan. Many of these employees work in St. Louis Park and live either here or in Minneapolis. Improved connections will address not only their commute to work, but also their daily environment through improvements to the areas they travel for lunch or to run errands. As noted above, the meetings will allow stakeholders from the study area to review the work completed by the consultant to-date, including their analysis of existing conditions and potential options. Maps depicting the analysis are attached for review. In addition to a review of work completed and a discussion of priorities, attendees will be given the opportunity to complete a survey to help quantify the level of support for various priorities in the area. To augment the two public meetings, outreach will also take place on the City’s website. The survey that will be provided at the public meetings has also been designed by the consultant to be web- ready, so it will accompany the website text. Online information for the corridor study will be available within the next week. Using the input obtained from the public meetings and online surveys, the consultant will finalize work on the study. The final study will include not only the maps completed to date, but also an analysis of potential methods by which the City can move forward to implement the ideas found in the study. Following the public meetings, Staff will bring the results of the Xenia / Park Place Corridor Study back to the Council as a discussion item at a future Study Session. It is expected that the study will wrap up near the end of March. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study is funded through the Federal Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program. VISION CONSIDERATION: The Xenia/Park Place Corridor Planning Study builds upon the vision goal for an improved City- wide network of sidewalks and trails, focusing in great detail on the northeast quadrant of the City. Attachments: Draft study area maps Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of February (Item No. 5a) Subject: Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study Update Page 3 Meeting of February (Item No. 5a) Subject: Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study Update Page 4 Meeting of February (Item No. 5a) Subject: Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study Update Page 5 Meeting of February (Item No. 5a) Subject: Xenia / Park Place Corridor Planning Study Update Page 6 Meeting Date: February 23, 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: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the study. Staff is interested in any feedback the City Council may have on the Minnetonka Boulevard Design Plan. BACKGROUND: In 2008 the City embarked upon a study of the western Minnetonka Boulevard Corridor in a partnership with Hennepin County and the City of Minnetonka. The study was funded primarily through a $40,000 grant from the Hennepin County Department of Community Works; St. Louis Park and Minnetonka each contributed $5,000. Minnetonka both initiated the grant application and served as the managing agency for the project consultant, Hart Howerton. In making the decision to participate in the grant application, issues such as whether the study would help achieve St. Louis Park’s vision for the corridor and the effectiveness of a joint study between municipalities were considered. Despite Minnetonka Boulevard’s varying character on either side of Highway 169, it was determined that the study could effectively address each city’s goals. One area where collaboration seems critical is at the transition between Minnetonka and St. Louis Park. The intersection at Highway 169 is a challenging area for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the study provides guidance for future modifications that could result in improvements to multi- modal travel. The consultant started on the project in July 2008. Following the project kick-off, the consultant conducted an analysis of the corridor. Very early in the process the consultant focused on the concept of a corridor theme: “Link to the Lakes,” symbolizing the link provided by Minnetonka Boulevard between the lakes in Minneapolis and Lake Minnetonka. At a public meeting on October 21st, the consultants presented the results of their analysis to approximately 25 St. Louis Park citizens in attendance. The citizens reviewed the analysis and provided feedback on their priorities for the corridor: 1. Pedestrian Safety Improvements 2. Continuous East / West Bike Lane 3. Multi-Modal Scenic Corridor 4. Additional Tree Planting / Landscaping Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Using the citizen feedback, the consultant completed a document that provides direction for future modifications to the corridor; no improvements are currently proposed. Such modifications, proceeding over time as public and private redevelopment within the corridor occurs, will result in major improvements to the built form and overall traffic flow within the corridor. Most specifically, the study calls for and explains some technical details about the future construction of a continuous east / west bike lane. Minnetonka Boulevard is currently signed as a bike route, but does not have bike lanes. As part of the study the consultant worked with the engineering firm WSB & Associates, City Engineer Scott Brink, and engineers from the County. By doing so the study remained grounded in reality. Roadway width and design were major aspects of the proposal; though the study looked at pedestrian and bicycling amenities, maintaining and even improving the flow of auto traffic was also a critical facet in the final design. In some locations, the study identifies where additional right-of- way may be needed in the future. This will be a guide when working with private redevelopers along Minnetonka Boulevard. The character of Minnetonka Boulevard in St. Louis Park differs greatly from the portion in the City of Minnetonka. For this reason the consultant relied heavily on “Complete Street” principles in its guidelines for St. Louis Park. Major aspects of “Complete Street” principles are found in the study. A “Complete Street”: • Offers a full range of travel choices • Connects to a network that offers choices • Is fully accessible to all: kids, seniors and people with disabilities • Supports & contributes to life in pleasant, convenient neighborhoods • Walking & bicycling contributes to community health by helping to prevent obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure & colon cancer • Reduces traffic volume • Reduces environmental impact The study includes methods to achieve the goals for a complete street, including a wide range of amenities that can be utilized in future development and construction projects. One example is curb bump-outs, depicted on the final study as a potential addition for Hampshire or Georgia Avenues where they meet Minnetonka Boulevard. Though not necessarily appropriate in locations with higher traffic volumes, bump-outs can provide traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements in areas of lower-volume traffic. Other streetscape improvements appropriate to a fully-built out first- ring suburb are also cited throughout the report. Next Steps: The study has been finalized by the consultant and has undergone a fairly extensive review by Community Development and Engineering Staff. Following Council review of the report, the study will be available on the City’s website and will be provided directly via email to neighborhood leaders along the study area and to all those who partook in the public meeting. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update As no construction or immediate redevelopment is planned along the corridor, there is no need for further action on this planning study. However, it is important that the goals and benefits found in the study are not simply shelved. For this reason Staff will incorporate aspects of the study into the Comprehensive Plan update, to be reviewed in detail by the City Council at a future study session. Where portions of this study are included in the Comprehensive Plan, they will be specifically denoted and can be called out for individual review. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: The Minnetonka Boulevard Design Plan incorporates the vision goal of being a connected and engaged community, focusing on an improved City-wide network of sidewalks and trails, based primarily on connections to and the route along Minnetonka Boulevard between Highway 169 and Highway 100. Attachments: Selected pages, Minnetonka Boulevard Design Plan Full plan available: http://www.stlouispark.org/development_projects.htm#3219 Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Submitted to: Hennepin County City of Minnetonka City of St. Louis Park City of Hopkins December 30, 2008 Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 4 Executive Summary: The Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan is a collaboration between Hennepin County and the cities of Minnetonka, Hopkins and St. Louis Park to conceive a travel corridor that addresses the needs of a variety of commuting, recreational and local travelers. The Design Plan seeks to capitalize on the opportunities offered by the natural setting, cultural resources and location between major lakes and adjacent regional trails. The extent of this study, from Interstate 494 on the west to a point just east of State Highway 100 on the east, includes a key segment of the road that links two city halls and establishes a core from which the design concepts that are developed could be further extended east and west. The Design Plan was initiated by researching background information and analysis about the current environment of Minnetonka Blvd., and by developing a number of opportunities for potential improvements that could be made along the corridor. Public comments were sought on the subjects of how the road functions, its appearance and how local citizens were using it. They were also asked to identify which potential improvements they would give the highest (or lowest) priority to. The top four priorities for improvements that were mentioned by the public were: 1. Pedestrian Safety Improvements 2. Continuous East-West Bike Route 3. Multi-Modal Scenic Corridor (“Link to the Lakes”) 4. Additional Tree Planting/Landscaping While there are currently no plans for road reconstruction on Minnetonka Blvd., there are numerous other projects that are moving forward on properties and roadways that lie adjacent to or intersect it. As a result, there may be opportunities to implement the plan over time as these related projects go forward, and as the various cities and County find additional fiscal resources. To this end, the design plan is intended to identify important functions of the Boulevard and how they could best be improved. This information will serve as a springboard for future planning by the County and Cities sponsoring the study. It is beyond the scope of this study to propose a detailed and engineered layout for the entire length of the study area, or to resolve all of the potential conflicts between stakeholders, property owners and agencies who have an interest in the roadway. Rather, the intent is to develop a set of general principles and a range of ideas that would address the goal of the County and Cities to describe a street that considers multiple modes of transportation and various reasons for traveling on it, from commuting, to recreation, to local shopping. Based on a positive response received at the two public meetings, an overall theme of “Link to the Lakes” should be considered, which ultimately could extend from Lake Minnetonka to the Minneapolis Grand Rounds. In addition, the overall idea of making Minnetonka Boulevard as a “Scenic Corridor” was strongly endorsed. The Design Plan recommendations are presented in diagrammatic form for the entire study area and on several prototype plans that describe the recommendations at some of the key intersections along the corridor. Some assumptions about the relative cost of various proposed improvements are also included. The first of two diagrammatic plans, entitled “Bike and Trail Improvement Opportunities”, describes these four general design principles: 1. Provide for a continuous on-street bike route 2. Enhance pedestrian crossings, especially at primary intersections 3. Create better connections to regional trails 4. Provide additional bike and transit support facilities The second diagrammatic plan, entitled “Landscape and Streetscape Opportunities”, describes these five general design principles: 1. Emphasize the natural landscape by framing views and by installing new plantings within the road ROW and on adjacent institutional properties 2. Use formal arrangements of trees and lighting in commercial areas only 3. Use landscape as the main unifier along the corridor; allow other features to change between districts to reflect their unique identities 4. Develop a hierarchy of gateways, at highway interchanges, commercial districts and at pedestrian crossings, to reinforce regional & City identity 5. Identify opportunities to improve views of Minnehaha Creek by thinning out vegetation and to improve access for recreational users of the Creek and open space areas. The prototype plans describe these recommendations in more detail at major intersections such as Plymouth Rd and Texas Ave.; at the Hwy 169 interchange and at neighborhood intersections such as at Hampshire Ave. Additionally, several important goals for a future Hwy 100 bridge crossing have been included. Due to the limited scope of this study, several “areas of further study” have been identified that will require additional master planning thought, engineering effort, public input or agency review before the final form of ideas suggested in this report can be verified. For example, a major goal of the Design Plan is to encourage a continuous on-street bike route, consistent with both city policy and county standards. There may be obstacles to achieving this in some areas due to grading constraints or ROW width limitations. Potential solutions are suggested in this study, including the purchasing of additional ROW or a reduction in traffic lane dimensions. Ultimately, the preferred solution will be determined at the time of implementation for a given segment of the corridor, based on local factors and interests. Ultimately, the preferred solution will be determined at the time of implementation for a given segment of the corridor, based on local factors and interests. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 5 Analysis Summary: • The corridor has a strong landscape character defined by the existing tree canopy and adjacent creek and wetlands. This distinguishes it from other east/west roadways such as Hwy 7 and I-394. • The road currently varies from 2 to 5 lanes and road capacity is generally adequate for the projected traffic, except at I-494, which may require left turn lanes in the future. • The road passes through a variety of land uses with a character that changes between rural, forested, suburban and urban. • There are several main roads intersecting the corridor, with important neighborhood commercial districts. The commercial districts have parking lots and facades facing the Boulevard that could be updated. • The corridor passes by numerous different neighborhoods and business districts that could be identified with unique signs, banners and gateways. • Highway interchanges at I-494, Hwy 169 and Hwy 100 interrupt the continuity of the corridor and create conditions which will need special attention. They also offer unique opportunities for landscaping and gateways. • Where Minnehaha Creek meets Minnetonka Blvd., it provides opportunities for recreational access such as overlooks, canoe landings, trailheads and impressive vistas from the road. • There are opportunities to improve and expand regional and local trail and bikeway connections within the corridor, which are presently inconsistent and often in conflict with autos. Pedestrian crossings at major intersections are not always safe. • There are several bus transit lines that run within the corridor, but facilities for parking and waiting are limited. • The corridor could be developed as a scenic drive, becoming a recreational destination linking parks, open spaces and civic facilities, as far away as Lake Minnetonka and the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. • The corridor has an interesting history that could be presented through various signs, fixtures and artworks. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 6 27 Minnetonka Boulevard (Co. Road 5) Design Pl an October, 2008 Complete Streets A “Complete Street” accommodates all users of the roadway corridor and promotes safe and convenient transportation options and access for all people. • Offers a full range of travel choices • Connects to a network that offers choices • Is fully accessible to all: kids, seniors and people with disabilities • Supports & contributes to life in pleasant, convenient neighborhoods • Walking & bicycling help prevent obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure & colon cancer. • Reduces traffic volume • Reduces environmental impact • 52% of people want to bike more than they do now. -America Bikes Poll • 55% of people would rather drive less and walk more -STPP Poll • About 1/3 of all Americans do not drive -21% of Americans over 65 -All children under 16 -Many low income Americans cannot afford automobiles *2000 FHWA Guidance: “Bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist.” Poorly Designed Street Improved Street Design - (employing Complete Street concepts) Photo: www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden Complete streets are roadways designed and operated to enable safe, attractive, and comfortable access and travel for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transport users of all ages and abilities are able to safely and comfortably move along and across a complete street. Complete Streets also create a sense of place and improve social interaction, while generally improving property adjacent land values. For more information see: www.completestreets.org Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 7 28 Minnetonka Boulevard (Co. Road 5) Design Pl an October, 2008 P e d e s t r i A n s A f e t y Potential Tools for Minnetonka Boulevard: Pedestrian Refuge Island • Provides safer crossings for children, seniors & people with disabilities • Helps to reduce speed of vehicles Reduced Curb Radii • Reduces speed at which cars turn corners • Decreases distance for pedestrians to cross intersections Alternative Paving Treatments at Crosswalks • Provides visual cue to drivers Signalized Crosswalk • Provides added visibility and promotes pedestrian safety Crosswalk Flags • Provides greater visibility of crossing pedestrians Countdown Clocks • Greatly reduces auto & pedestrian collisions Speed Detection Sign • Advisory warning for motorists to control speed Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) • Audible indicator for pedestrian crossing • Provides increased accessibility for the blind There are a number of strategies that can be used to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists as well as promote a more pleasant environment for adjacent land owners. Some of these include: Potential Tools for Neighborhood Cross-Streets: Reduced Curb Radii • Reduces speed at which cars turn corners • Decreases distance for pedestrians to cross intersections Curb Bumpout • Decreases intersection crossing distance for pedestrians • Potential for landscaping • Protects parked cars Curb Extensions • Decreases intersections crossing distance for pedestrians • Potential for landscaping Alternate Paving Treatments at Crosswalks • Provides visual cue to drivers Signalized Crosswalk • Provides added visibility and promotes pedestrian safety Crosswalk Flags • Provides greater visibility of crossing pedestrians Countdown Clocks • Greatly reduces auto & pedestrian collisions Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 8 30 Minnetonka Boulevard (Co. Road 5) Design Pl an October, 2008 B i k e s u P P o r t F A c i l i t i e s Some specific examples of bike support facilities include: Bicycle Repair / Retail Shop • Repair & Maintenance Services • Bicycle sales • Parts & gear Vertical Storage Racks • Provides increased storage capacity in small areas Bike Shelter • Provides protection from the elements • May be accompanied by kiosks, maps, signage, advertising, etc. Custom Bike Racks • Add to street interest & complement streetscape Bike Lockers • Provided on a rental basis • Available at many Park & Ride and downtown locations Bike-Share • Partnerships with health care companies to provide bicycles & kiosks • Bicycle use is free, with credit card deposit • Bicycles can be checked out and returned to any kiosk throughout the area, but are required to be returned within 24 hours of checkout • Kiosks are electronic (some solar-powered) and require no attendant Bike-Transit Center • Provide secure parking with on-duty attendant. • Bicycle related retail, rental, repair, and share/loan programs • Bicycling and transit information center • Potential for changing room and/or shower facilities • Incorporates public art and state-of-the-art technology Providing adequate bicycle facilities promotes bicycle commuting as well as increased recreational use. When effectively partnered with public transit, the bicycle offers a greater diversity of transportation options. “The installation of secure bicycle parking at transit stops, combined with targeted bicycle facility investments...can be expected to increase suburban transit use significantly in many communities.” National Walking & Biking Study FHWA (1992) Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 9 42 Open House Survey Results M i n n e t o n k a B o u l e v a r d ( C o u n t y R o a d 5 ) OPPORTUNITY RATING FORM WHAT PRIORITY WOULD YOU GIVE THE FOLLOWING POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS? (1=HIGHEST, 12=LOWEST) PRIORITY RATING (1-12) 1. MULTI-MODAL SCENIC CORRIDOR 2. CONTINUOUS EAST/WEST BIKE LANE (ON-ROAD) 3. COMMUTER BIKE SUPPORT FACILITIES 4. RECREATIONAL (OFF-ROAD) MULTI-USE TRAILS 5. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 6. TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS 7. IMPROVED TRANSIT FACILITIES 8. CITY AND COMMUNITY GATEWAY IDENTIFICATION 9. COMMERCIAL PROPERTY UPGRADES 10. ADDITIONAL TREE PLANTING/LANDSCAPING 11. IMPROVED CREEK ACCESS & VIEWING OPPORTUNITIES 12. CORRIDOR HISTORY INTERPRETIVE FEATURES/ARTWORKS PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: I LIVE IN (CIRCLE): St. Louis Park Hopkins Minnetonka Other I CURRENTLY USE MINNETONKA BLVD FOR (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY): Commuting-Auto Commuting-Transit Commuting-Biking Local Auto Trips Sidewalks Access To Recreation Access to Creek Other (Please Specify) DO YOU OWN OR RENT PROPERTY ON MINNETONKA BLVD? Own Home Own Commercial Property Rent Home/Apt Lease Commercial WHAT OTHER IDEAS OR COMMENTS DO YOU HAVE ABOUT THE MINNETONKA BLVD. CORRIDOR? (FOR ADDITIONAL ROOM, PLEASE USE THE BACK OF THE SHEET) 1. M-M Scenic Corridor 2. Cont. E/W Bike Lane 3. Communter Bike Support Fac. 4. Rec. (Off-Road) Trails 5. Ped Safety Imp.6. Traffic Flow Imp.7. Imp. Transit Fac.8. Gateways 9. Commercial Upgrades 10. Add. Trees/Planting 11. Imp. Creek Acc.12. Art/Int. Feat.Uses:Own or Rent: 4.4 4.23 8.0 6.2 4.17 5.6 7.3 8.8 7.6 4.8 6.8 9.2 1. Pedestrian Safety Improvements 1. Local Auto Trips (24)18 - Own Home 2. Continuous East/West Bike Lane 2. Commuting-Auto (23)2 - Own Commercial Property 3. Multi-Modal Scenic Corridor 3. Sidewalks (20)1 - Rents 4. Additional Tree Planting/Landscaping 4. Access to Recreation (14)0 - Lease Commercial *Mean, Lowest Number = Highest Priority 5. Commuting-Biking (12)14 - No Response 6. Access to Creek (9) 7. Commuting - Transit (4) Recreational Biking (4) Minnetonka Blvd. Opportunity Rating Form - Cummulative Top 4 Priorities Uses Property Ownership Two separate meetings were held in tandem. The first meeting was targeted at St. Louis Park residents, the second accommodated Minnetonka and Hopkins residents. Open house notices were mailed out to residents within each community and special interest groups such as bicycle clubs were also informed. Turnout was good, with roughly 30 people attending each session. All attendees were asked to fill out a survey, ranking their priorities for the corridor. The survey and project exhibits were also posted on the internet in an effort to reach citizens who could not attend the presentation. The top priorities were similar for residents of each community with slight differences in the ordering. A complete listing of priorities for each community can be found in the appendix. The cumulative ranking of the top priorities are as follows: 1. Pedestrian Safety Improvements 2. A Continuous East/West Bike Lane 3. A Multi-Modal Scenic Corridor 4. Additional Tree Planting & Landscaping Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 10 47 Lake Mi n n e t o n k a L R T R e gi o n al T r ail North Ce d a r L a k e R e g i o n a l T r a i l Cedar L a k e L R T R e gi o n al Tr ail Bike & Trail Improvement Opportunities - Minnetonka Boulevard (Co. Road 5) Design Plan NTS November 2008 ** Potential pedestrian tunnel Potential pedestrian bridge Improvements needed to establish a better connection between on-street bike routes and North Cedar Lake Regional Trail Improvements needed to establish better connections between on-street bike routes, recreational trails, the Minnetonka Mills District and Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail Major Highway Interchange -ese interchanges act as gateways for automobile trac entering the corridor. Signiﬁcant improvements are needed to ensure bicycle & pedestrian safety. Primary Road Intersection -Minnetonka Blvd. is intersected by other high-moderate volume roads at these locations. Improvements are needed to ensure bicycle & pedestrian crossing safety. Other Intersection\Crossing -ese points indicate other signiﬁcant intersections and crossings with lower trac volumes. e need for improvements will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Bike Support Facility Improvements -ese areas could beneﬁt from upgrades or installation of additional support facilities. Regional Trail Connection Point -ese points indicate opportunities for improved regional trail access. Emphasis should be placed on safe and convenient access. Proposed on-street bike route extension (Minnetonka City Hall to Hopkins Crossroad) Potential future trail extension (Connection to bus stops at Cedar Lake Road) Proposed on-street bike route extension (Close the gap at Hwy. 169 Interchange) Major Highway Interchanges: Due to existing bridges and increased trac volume, there are signiﬁcant challenges to ensure bike safety. To ensure bike safety, special attention needs to be paid to potential bike lane and right-turn lane conﬂicts. Alternative paving treatments should be used at these locations to enhance pedestrian crossing safety as well as provide gateways to the corridor. In addition to ensuring a well-signed and siganlized intersection, these locations should also incorporate the use of countdown timers. Continuous On-Street Bike Route: Much of the eastern portion of the Minnetonka Blvd. includes an on-street bike route. Closing the gaps in the on-street bike route and extending them west to Minnetonka City Hall is a high priority. is will create a continuous west-east bike thoroughfare, create connections to regional trails, link the city halls of Minnetonka & St. Louis Park and promote the overall concept of “Link to the Lakes.” Signage and striping improvements will be made throughout the entire length of the corridor to promote a consistent theme. Primary Road Intersections: Due to high-moderate volume at these intersections, a number of safety provisions might be employed. Countdown clocks and alternative pavings should also be considered for pedestrian crossings. Reduced curb radii, curb bumpouts & curb extensions could be used to reduce the speed at which cars turn corners and reduce the crossing distance for peds. Crosswalk ﬂags may also be considered at intersections with high pedestrian activity. Other Intersections: e improvements to these intersections may be very similar to that of the “Primary Road Intersections.” Because of their lower volume, certain trac calming techniques may be better suited here. ese will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Other Crossings: Crossings may be needed for locations other than intersections, such as at certain bus stops and areas that have pedestrian activity on both sides of the road. Solutions that could address this situation include grade-separated crossings (bridges & tunnels), pedestrian refuge islands, signalized and/or raised crosswalks and a mid-block narrowing of the road. ese options will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Bike Support Facility Improvemets: ese locations recieve high bicycle trac due to intersecting trails, adjacent commercial areas, and transit stops. Investments should be made to further support the use of bicycles for transportation and recreation. Improvements may include bike racks, bike lockers & shelters. A bike transit center could also be considered, which has the potential to include a bike-share program. * * Intersection improvements needed * Improvements needed to o-street trail connection on south side of Hwy. 5 Intersection improvements needed Intersection and bicycle facilityimprovements needed Intersection improvements needed (Establish better connections to o-street trail and Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail) * Intersection and Crossing ImprovementsCorridor Improvements494 169 100 Lake Minnetonka Minneapolis Chain of Lakes Proposed On-Street Bike Route Existing O-Street Trail Designated On-Street Bike Route Regional Trail Regional Trail and Bikeway System Replacment bridge over Creek needed to allow for on-street bike route and sidewalks Future trail connection to Cedar Lake Regional Trail Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 11 49 * Landscape & Streetscape Opportunities - Minnetonka Boulevard (Co. Road 5) Design Plan NTS October 2008 Complementary Adjacent Land Uses / Community Resources Commercial Property Minn e h aha Cre e kImproved Canoe Access & Storage * * Minnetonka City Hall St. Louis Park City Hall *Minnetonka Christian Academy *Civic Center Park * Sunrise Ridge Park*Minnetonka Community Church *Burwell House *Minnetonka Mills Park *St. David’s School *Minnetonka Mills Commercial District * *Big Willow Park * City of Minnetonka Public Works *Guilliam Fields Lake M inn e t onka R e g i ona l T ra i l North Cedar Lake Regional Trail*Aquila Park *Texa-Tonka Park *Aquila Primary Center *Trinity Lutheran Church *Victoria Lake*Hannan Lake *Cobble Crest Lake *Westling Pond *Rainbow Park *Louisiana Oaks Park*Oak Hill Park *Bronx Park *Roxbury Park*Keystone Park *St. Louis Park Evangelical Free Church *Lennox Center *Good News For Isreal *St. Louis Park Senior High School *First Lutheran Church *Carpenter Park *Sunshine Park *Groves Academy **Park / Natural Feature Civic / Institutional Resource *Creek Access * * * Tree Planting Strategy Landscape Frame Planting:Street Tree Planting: Informal Formal Improved Canoe Access & Storage Mills Commercial District RedevelopmentImproved Canoe Access & Storage Minnehaha Creek Crossing View to Minnehaha Creek and wetlands Interpretive Feature(s) Gateway Improved Street Lighting Signiﬁcant Viewshed View to Minnehaha Creek and wetlands View to Minnehaha Creek and Minnetonka Mills Park Interpretive Features (Burwell House) Interpretive Feature (Minnetonka Town Hall) Interpretive Features (Minnetonka Mills Site) Interpretive Features (Creek Ecology) View to Big Willow Natural Area View to Big Willow Natural Area View to wetlands View to wetlands Interpretive Features (Minnehaha Creek) Commercial Redevelopment Commercial Redevelopment & Expansion Gateways: e improvement of gateways reinforces the notion of the corridor and can be accomplished in many ways, including landscaping, signage, sculptural pieces, and overhead markers. e size and scale of gateways will respond to their location. Gateways at the major highways will provide much grander statements than those at smaller intersecting streets. Gateways into Minnetonka may take on a more rural character while those to St. Louis Park will have a more urban feel. Interpretive Features: Public art and interpretive features lend a unique character to communities. ese features can draw from historical events and places or simply be celebrations of art and landscape. General locations are identiﬁed for locating such features. However, careful consideration should be made to determine the size, scale and “ﬁt” of these features to their location. Street Lighting: Street lights contribute to the overall character of the corridor during the day as well as at night. ematic lamposts can be selected, incorporating signage and landscape planters. ere is opportunity for these lamposts to retain a commonality that supports the corridor as a whole in addition to providing speciﬁc identiﬁcation to certain communities, neighborhoods or districts. Street lighting should be considered from the pedestrian scale and light levels should be chosen to provide safe usage of the corridor, but not disrupt the rural character of many locations. Viewsheds: e abundance of natural and scenic resources along the corridor provide many locations where outstanding views can be found. In some areas this naturally exists. In other areas, the landscape needs to addressed to achieve this. is may include selective cutting and clearing of shrub layers and understory and additional planting to frame views. ese decisions will need to be speciﬁc to each location. Commercial Redevelopment: Most commercial properties along the corridor are located at the identiﬁed intersections and vary in size and condition. Many could beneﬁt from updates to their facades and improvements to their overall appearance. In some cases, redevelopment of entire commercial intersections may be desirable. In these cases, there is a lot of opportunity to cooperate with developers to help contribute to the quality of the overall corridor. Redevelopment opportunities will need to be further examined. Texa-Tonka Commercial District Redevelopment Interpretive Features (Recreational emed) View to Cobble Crest Lake Interpretive Features (Lilac Way) Commercial Redevelopment Interpretive Feature (City of Minnetonka) Mills Landing Park Many areas along the corridor retain a very rural and natural feel. Minimal planting is required in these areas, and in some cases no planting may be required at all. e trees in these areas are intended frame the corridor and frame views to adjacent natural features, including Minnehaha Creek and wetlands. Buckthorn removal may be needed in some areas as well as selective cutting of understory vegetation. e more “urban” areas of the corridor require a more manicured and formal planting scheme. is predominately occurs in the eastern portion of St. Louis Park, but may also be appropriate at certain commercial districts. Tree planting in these areas should reﬂect a typical 40ft. on-center street tree planting scheme along both sides of the road. Tree selection for these areas should also reﬂect a more formal character. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 12 52 Design Prototype:City Gaterway Hwy. 169 at Minnetonka Boulevard Existing Woodland Existing Woodland New Tree Planting - Re-establish Woodland Across Interchange Maintain Views into Wetlands New Crosswalks w/ Countdown Clocks New Tree Planting 8’ O-Road Meandering Trail Connection New Wetland Edge Shrub MassingsMeadow w/ Scattered New Trees New Crosswalks w/ Countdown Clocks City of Minnetonka Gateway Feature Existing Woodland City of St. Louis Park Gateway Feature Land Use Buer Planting Land Use Buer Planting US Highway 169Housing Complex M in n eton kaBoulevard(C ountyR oad5)6’C ontinuousBikeRoute(BothSides)Landscape Concept: Minnetonka Blvd. & Hwy. 169 Interchange Minnetonka Blvd and US Highway 169 – Minnetonka / St. Louis Park, MN Improvement Recommendations - City Gateway: General: This prototype and illustrated concept represents recommendations for enhancement of one of several major city arrival “Gateways” that occur where a major regional road system, including Interstate Freeways and State Highways, intersects with Minnetonka Blvd. These are special opportunity areas to not only create a high quality arrival experience for residents and visitors, but also allows the ability for an enhanced woodland and open space environment that can support the idea of a “Scenic Corridor” for Minnetonka Blvd. Recommended Goals and Design Principals:  • Develop a comprehensive, large scale landscape master plan for the entire intersection of the Interstate or State road corridor system with Minnetonka Blvd. This plan should include all of the entrance and exit ramps, as well as all land contained within the Right of Way beginning with the point where the ramps intersect with the actual Freeway.  • Develop the plan to include a major restoration of woodland and a more natural, informal landscape image. This should included dense tree areas as well as meadow clearings. Allow all roadways to have an experience of moving through this great landscape setting.  • Use the plant material to visually mitigate the pragmatic, engineered slopes and other slope and storm water conditions that have been created in support of the major freeway.  • Develop the landscape concept to allow Minnetonka Blvd to be the visually strongest landscape corridor, allowing the freeway to have the appearance of moving through the Minnetonka Blvd landscape. At present, the freeway corridor interrupts the visual flow and character of Minnetonka Blvd.  • Allow new trails and sidewalks to meander through the new woodland landscape  • Provide clearly delineated road crossings with large painted stripping on the road surface where cars, pedestrians and bicycles intersect.  • Take special design consideration to mitigate the areas under the existing bridges including the slope embankments and the negative image that currently exists.  • Provide special lighting fixtures and indirect lighting concepts on trees to enhance the scenic corridor and support the experience of driving on Minnetonka Blvd.  • Allow entry monuments or signs to be placed at exit ramps to announce the arrival of people in the respective city where the intersection occurs.  • Basically, the intent is to create an overall landscape context that reinforces the “Scenic Corridor” image and integrates the adjacent residential and community land uses. Use landscape to also provide color, seasonal change and spatial definition. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 13 54 Design Prototype: Neighborhood Cross Streets Minnetonka Boulevard at Hampshire & Georgia M i n n e t o n k a B o u l e v a r d (County Road 5) 6’ Continuous Bike Route (Both Sides) New Bus Shelter Potential Rain Gardens or Colorful Plantings by Neighborhood at Intersections New Lighting at all Neighborhood Intersections -Remove Wood Poles & Cobra-Head Lights -Bury Overhead Electrical Lines Informal Boulevard Tree Planting at Mid-Block to Reinforce Woodland Character Formal Boulevard Tree Planting at Intersections Enhanced Cross Walks at Cross Streets -Street Print or -Painted Zebra Type Flowering Trees at Bus ShelterNew Canopy Tree Planting at Institutional Land Uses -Emphasizes Woodland Character New Bump-Outs and Street Trees Create Gateways to Neighborhood Single Family Residences Design Prototype: Neighborhood Cross Streets Minnetonka Boulevard at Hampshire & Georgia M i n n e t o n k a B o u l e v a r d (County Road 5) 6’ Continuous Bike Route (Both Sides) New Bus Shelter Potential Rain Gardens or Colorful Plantings by Neighborhood at Intersections New Lighting at all Neighborhood Intersections -Remove Wood Poles & Cobra-Head Lights -Bury Overhead Electrical Lines Informal Boulevard Tree Planting at Mid-Block to Reinforce Woodland Character Formal Boulevard Tree Planting at Intersections Enhanced Cross Walks at Cross Streets -Street Print or -Painted Zebra Type Flowering Trees at Bus ShelterNew Canopy Tree Planting at Institutional Land Uses -Emphasizes Woodland Character New Bump-Outs and Street Trees Create Gateways to Neighborhood Single Family Residences Prototype: Minnetonka Blvd. & Hampshire / Georgia Avenue Minnetonka Blvd and Hampshire Av. / Georgia Av. – St. Louis Park, MN Neighborhood Cross-Street Improvement Recommendations: General: This prototype and illustrated concept represents recommendations for enhancement of typical neighborhood residential cross – street connections along the Minnetonka Blvd. Corridor. Vehicular Road Concepts:  • Improve Minnetonka Blvd to incorporate normal vehicular travel lanes as well as bicycle routes on both sides of the street.  • Where neighborhood roads intersect with Minnetonka Blvd., install bump outs at the entry of each neighborhood roads to create an entry “gateway” expression to the various neighborhoods. Incorporate street trees into the bumpouts to enhance sense of an entry portal. Narrowing of the entrance to the neighborhood road is also a traffic calming solution.  • Create clear delineation of crosswalks using painted stripping connecting the neighborhood road sidewalks. Pedestrian Corridor Concepts:  • Create drop curbs where the sidewalks meet the neighborhood roads for easy movement of people, bicycles and prams.  • Incorporate lighting at all neighborhood intersections for safety and designation of the entry.  • Incorporate other pedestrian scale components to embellish the road experience where appropriate including upgraded bus stops, associated trash receptacles, landscape, directional signage, and high quality materials. Surrounding Framework:  • Develop a comprehensive street tree program for Minnetonka Blvd. that introduces new trees where necessary to reinforce the concept of the scenic corridor and provides street tree maintenance throughout.  • Bury the existing power lines to allow an enhanced corridor image.  • Remove wood poles and Cobra overhead lights  • Create an overall landscape concept that reinforces the “Scenic Corridor” image and integrates the adjacent residential and community land uses. Street trees should be arranged in informal patterns in contrast to the landscape treatment at the major intersections.  • Where special community elements front onto Mtka Blvd such as schools, churches, parks or open space elements, develop the landscape design to visually incorporate these places as extensions of the Minnetonka Blvd Scenic Corridor.  • Use landscape to provide color, seasonal change and spatial definition.  • Provide special lighting fixtures and indirect lighting concepts on trees to enhance the scenic corridor and support a more pedestrian oriented environment  • Work with the adjacent private residential neighborhood homeowners to develop their yards to reinforce the goals of the scenic corridor. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 14 55 Design Prototype:Major Intersection Minnetonka Boulevard at Texas Avenue N e w B u s S h e l t e r S ingl e F am i l y R e s i d e n c e s C om m e r c i a l C om m e r c i a l S ingl e F am i l y R e s i d e n c e s C om m e r c i a l C o m m e r c i a l Ne w B u s S h e l t e r Fo r m a l S t r e e t Tr e e P l a n t i n g B e hi n d S i d e w a l k a t Com m e r c i a l D i s t r i c t s M inn e tonk a B ou l e v a r d(County Road 5)TexasAvenueF l o w e r i n g Tre e s ,F l o w e r Po t s &R a i s e d P l a n t e r s a t A l l C o r n e r s 6 ’Co n t inu o u s B i k e R o u t e (B o t h Si d e s ) P l a n t e d M e d i a nPlantedMedianProposedCityofSt.LouisParkBikeRoute(BothSides)E x i s t i n g B u s S h e l t e r D i s t r i c t o r N ei g h b orh o o d G a t e w a y Monum e n t D i s t r i c t o r Ne ig h b o r h o o d G a t e w a y Mon u m e n t N e w D e c o r a ti v e S t r e et Lighti n g a t Comme r c ia l In t e r s e c tio n s Con st ru c t Ne w R et ainin g Wa l l Decorative Paving at Intersection Cent er (Optio n) Enhanced Cross Wa lks -Interlocking Pavers - Zebra Stripe Painted -Countdown Clocks -R e m o v e Wood Po les &C ob r a-H ea d Lig h t s -B u r y O v e r he ad E l ect r ical L in e s Design Prototype:Major Intersection Minnetonka Boulevard at Texas Avenue N e w B u s S h e l t e r S ingl e F am i l y R e s i d e n c e s C om m e r c i a l C om m e r c i a l S ingl e F am i l y R e s i d e n c e s C om m e r c i a l C o m m e r c i a l Ne w B u s S h e l t e r Fo r m a l S t r e e t Tr e e P l a n t i n g B e hi n d S i d e w a l k a t Com m e r c i a l D i s t r i c t s M inn e tonk a B ou l e v a r d(County Road 5)TexasAvenueF l o w e r i n g Tre e s ,F l o w e r Po t s &R a i s e d P l a n t e r s a t A l l C o r n e r s 6 ’Co n t inu o u s B i k e R o u t e (B o t h Si d e s ) P l a n t e d M e d i a nPlantedMedianProposedCityofSt.LouisParkBikeRoute(BothSides)E x i s t i n g B u s S h e l t e r D i s t r i c t o r N ei g h b orh o o d G a t e w a y Monum e n t D i s t r i c t o r Ne ig h b o r h o o d G a t e w a y Mon u m e n t N e w D e c o r a ti v e S t r e et Lighti n g a t Comme r c ia l In t e r s e c tio n s Con st ru c t Ne w R et ainin g Wa l l Decorative Paving at Intersection Cent er (Optio n) Enhanced Cross Wa lks -Interlocking Pavers - Zebra Stripe Painted -Countdown Clocks -R e m o v e Wood Po les &C ob r a-H ea d Lig h t s -B u r y O v e r he ad E l ect r ical L in e s Prototype: Minnetonka Blvd. & Texas Avenue Minnetonka Blvd and Texas Avenue – St. Louis Park, MN Major Intersection Improvement Recommendations: General: This prototype and illustrated concept represents recommendations for a typical major intersection within St. Louis Park or other cities along the Minnetonka Blvd corridor where community retail establishments abut the street and form a more urban statement. Vehicular Road Concepts:  • Enhance the visual quality of the intersection to give distinction and character through the use of special pavement detailing  • Create strong visual recognition to vehicle drivers that the intersection is a crossing point for pedestrians and bicyclists by clear delineation of crosswalks using special pavement patterns and colors  • Create center planted islands to support reservoir turn lanes while also providing space for planting and other amenities.  • Develop the corner “mini plaza” to not only support pedestrian safety, but to also enhance the visual framework of the intersection Pedestrian Corridor Concepts:  • Create pedestrian scale corner plazas at road intersection with special paving, pedestrian scale lighting, landscape framework, signage, benches, etc.  • Use special crosswalk signalization systems  • Develop the cross walks, corner mini plazas and the central paving area as a whole visual composition  • Incorporate other pedestrian scale components to embellish the intersections including upgraded bus stops, trash receptacles, landscape, directional signage, and high quality materials. Surrounding Framework:  • Create an overall landscape concept that frames the intersection, reinforces the “Scenic Corridor” image and integrates the adjacent urban land uses. Street trees on Minnetonka Blvd are part of this treatment arranged in a more formal pattern.  • Include planting in the center of the road to slow traffic and create a sense of a “gateway” to this community retail area  • Develop the intersection and the adjacent retail uses to form more of a “village” expression than of a strip mall  • Use landscape to provide color, seasonal change and spatial definition  • Provide special lighting fixtures and indirect lighting concepts on trees to enhance the scenic corridor and support a more pedestrian oriented environment  • Ultimately, work with retail tenants to create more pedestrian oriented environments with more landscape and coordinated lighting and signage supportive of the whole intersection Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 15 Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 7) Subject: Minnetonka Boulevard (County Road 5) Design Plan Update Page 16 Meeting Date: February 23, 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: 2009 Environmental Objective – MN Energy Challenge. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of a recommended 2009 goal to increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of the city by participating in the Center for Energy and Environment’s (CEE) MN Energy Challenge. Work on this environmental objective would be led by the E-Group and Administrative Services and it would be in addition to the daily environmental work that we do. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council agree with the E-Groups 2009 environmental objective? Does the Council support staff working with CEE and promoting participation in the MN Energy Challenge to St. Louis Park residents? BACKGROUND: Since December 2007, staff members from our departments have joined together to build a stronger foundation for environmental work. This committee is called the E-group and they are using the directions from Vision and our daily work to increase education and participation in environmental activities in our community. To continue to grow in educating our citizens in environmental activities in their own homes, the E-Group has created a draft 2009 Environmental Objective for Council’s consideration as follows: St. Louis Park residents will have the highest participation rate in the Minnesota Energy Challenge in the state as a first step in reducing the city’s overall energy consumption. To achieve this, the E- Group has recommended that the city participate in the MN Energy Challenge. The MN Energy Challenge is a web-based program that teaches ways to reduce energy consumption and help the environment while saving money. The program is consistent with one of the Council’s Vision Strategic Directions and it complements the city’s own environmental and energy education and incentive programs. The E-Group has proposed working with CEE to promote residents’ participation in the Challenge through all of our outreach tools (webpage, newsletters, neighborhood group meetings, remodeling fairs, etc) and use of our incentive programs like our loan programs for high efficiency furnaces as well as tapping the MN Challenge programs resources. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Subject: 2009 Environmental Objective – MN Energy Challenge The MN Energy Challenge website at www.mnenergychallenge.org is an easy site to use and it has a secure user login. Participants are able to easily enter information into the website about current energy use and the site provides immediate feedback to participants about ways to reduce consumption and help the environment. CEE has offered to work with the city to group all St. Louis Park results together so that the city can track overall results. In addition, the E-Group learned that the City of Edina is encouraging their residents to participate in the Challenge and suggested that St. Louis Park initiate a friendly challenge between the cities to see how much energy can be saved in 2009. This is a fun and affordable way to increase environmental awareness and provide educational opportunities for our residents. Attached to this report is an attachment that shows an example of what an individual would see when they access the MN Energy Challenge website and the program provides a good start for residents to use as they build on areas in the future. We would like to get the word out on this program shortly after Council receives this report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. The MN Challenge is a free program. VISION CONSIDERATION: This activity is consistent with one of the City Council’s Strategic Directions – “St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business”. Attachments: Guide to the Minnesota Energy Challenge: As Easy as 1, 2, 3 Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager www.mnenergychallenge.org Guide to the Minnesota Energy Challenge: As Easy as 1,2,3 There are two ways to sign up for the Minnesota Energy Challenge: (1) The EZ Challenge on the Main Page, or (2) The Complete Challenge Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: 2009 Environmental Objective – MN Energy Challenge Page 3 www.mnenergychallenge.org Quick Challenge Instructions: On the front page of the website there is a link to the Quick Challenge. This is a short version of the Minnesota Energy Challenge that helps people get onto the Challenge quickly with the option of taking the longer version later. Click on “Get Started” to begin the Flash application. People should select at least one action that they are not already taking. The second and final step is to enter in their email address, their city or town and search for your team. Done! Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: 2009 Environmental Objective – MN Energy Challenge Page 4 www.mnenergychallenge.org Complete Challenge Instructions: Although walking through the complete Challenge will take longer, it allows you to calculate your carbon footprint, gives you more ideas on effective energy saving actions and allows you to assign your savings to up to three teams. Step 1. Enter registration information. You will be asked to provide a minimal amount of information about yourself, including the City you live in, your email address, username and password. The information you provide will be kept confidential. Step 2. Determining your current household energy usage. You can either use the statistics for the average Minnesota household or provide information about your household that will give you a more accurate estimate of your household’s energy usage and emissions. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: 2009 Environmental Objective – MN Energy Challenge Page 5 www.mnenergychallenge.org Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: 2009 Environmental Objective – MN Energy Challenge Page 6 www.mnenergychallenge.org Step 3. Select actions that reduce emissions and save money. There are several actions listed that you can do to reduce your energy use, select only those actions that you choose to take. Some actions have orange question marks next to them; if you hover the mouse over the question marks, you can see more information about the selected action. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: 2009 Environmental Objective – MN Energy Challenge Page 7 www.mnenergychallenge.org Step 4. Select a team. Your City is automatically a team. You may assign your savings to up to three teams. Each team standing displays the total carbon dioxide and money savings pledged by team members. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: 2009 Environmental Objective – MN Energy Challenge Page 8 www.mnenergychallenge.org Once you have completed the Challenge you will receive an email with your email and password. Log into your Member Dashboard to see how your teams are doing, review the actions you have pledged to take and see how much carbon dioxide and money you will save by taking action. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: 2009 Environmental Objective – MN Energy Challenge Page 9 Meeting Date: February 23, 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: Street Improvement Districts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the opportunity for the City to seek legislative authority to create a municipal street improvement district in the future. No action is required at this time. However, if this is something the Council would support staff pursuing, staff will prepare a resolution of support at the March 2, 2009 meeting for your consideration. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support asking the Legislature to provide St. Louis Park with the authority to create a municipal street improvement district understanding this would not be a tool we would have to use? BACKGROUND: The League of Minnesota Cities is asking the state legislature to support special legislation from cities who wish to create a municipal street improvement district. It would operate similar to a storm water utility in that it would allow the city to collect fees for the reconstruction, maintenance and operation of streets, including facility upgrades. It would eliminate the need to use special assessments and property tax dollars for street projects because the fees collected through the district could be used to pay for the improvements. In the past, the Legislature has been reluctant to provide broad authority to cities to create these districts. However, given the financial conditions of the state, the League believes that the Legislature may consider granting this authority to individual cities through special legislation. If the city is interested in seeking this authority, the city would work with the League and our state legislators to introduce the bill which would authorize us to use this financing mechanism in the future should the city so desire. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. However, proposing such legislation would require assistance from our lobbyist. Having such legislative authority would provide the City with another tool for maintaining and upgrading its infrastructure. VISION CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Attachments: LMC Fact Sheet – Street Improvement Districts Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 2009 Legislative Issues — Municipal Street Improvement District Authority What is it? The League of Minnesota Cities supports legislation that would give cities the authority to collect fees from property owners to fund municipal street maintenance, construction, reconstruction, and facility upgrades. Municipal street improvement district authority would give cities a tool that would allow maintenance and reconstruction to be performed on schedule. Timely maintenance is essential to preserving city streets, thereby protecting taxpayer investments. Why is it needed? Cities rely on general revenues (including state aids) and special assessments to fund street maintenance. Consequently, many cities are currently deferring maintenance because of tight budgets and volatile economic conditions. Moreover, Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds are limited to cities with populations exceeding 5,000, making nearly 80 percent of Minnesota cities ineligible for that option. Without ongoing maintenance, the average life expectancy of local streets is approximately 25-30 years. With appropriate maintenance the life expectancy can be extended to 50-60 years; but this maintenance requires a dedicated funding source that does not exist under the current volatile property tax system. Reasons to support Municipal Street Improvement District Authority ¾ It is a good alternative to special assessments, which can be burdensome to property owners and are difficult to implement for some cities. ¾ It is also a good alternative to using property taxes to fund municipal street improvements. Property tax dollars are generally not dedicated and are sometimes diverted to other needs, such as public safety, water quality, and cost participation in state and county highway projects. ¾ This authority would provide a funding mechanism that is transparent and fair. It establishes a clear relationship between who pays fees and where projects occur. ¾ The authority allows cities to collect fees from tax exempt properties within a district. ¾ The authority would allow property owners to fund expensive projects by paying small fees over time. The tool could be used to mitigate or eliminate the need for special assessments altogether. ¾ The authority is enabling legislation—cities would not be required to create municipal street improvement district, but would be authorized to consider it as an option. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Street Improvement Districts Page 2 Meeting Date: February 23, 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: January, 2009 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 designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use of tax levy dollars. For the month of January in the fiscal year, actual revenues and expenditures should generally run about 8.3% of the annual budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 7.6% and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 8.8%. Significant variances exceeding budget are highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion for the variance. General Fund Expenditures: • Finance and Community Development expenditures appear to slightly exceed budget because both departments have significant portions of staff time that must be allocated to different departments through a journal entry, which has not been done for 2009. • Human Resources have paid the first half of the Volunteer Coordinator position to the school district so that has inflated their contractual services budget expenditures by $34,400. • Communications and Marketing has paid the January/February Park Perspective costs and the GovDelivery annual fee for our email alert system. • Public Works Operations replenished its salt pile in January which was about $40,000 of the supplies purchased. Parks and Recreation Organized Recreation has paid the annual contribution to Community Education in the amount of $187,400 which is why their contractual services expenditures are at 39% for the year. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None required at this time. Meeting of February 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:25:19R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 14,970,275.00-14,970,275.00-|14,107,179.00- 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,515,000.00- 340,903.86- 340,903.86- 2,174,096.14- 13.55 |2,712,715.00-591,573.56- 21.81 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 312,000.00-312,000.00-|311,000.00-145.00- .05 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,647,214.00- 55,797.66- 55,797.66- 1,591,416.34-3.39 |1,709,365.00-262,562.35- 15.36 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,201,900.00-2,375.38- 2,375.38- 1,199,524.62-.20 |1,084,975.00-3,724.00- .34 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-2,595.86- 2,595.86- 97,404.14-2.60 |100,000.00-9,583.33- 9.58 4001 REVENUES 20,746,389.00-401,672.76-401,672.76-20,344,716.24-1.94 |20,025,234.00-867,588.24-4.33 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,646,154.00 1,525,255.66 1,525,255.66 17,120,898.34 8.18 |17,638,555.00 1,602,594.27 9.09 6210 SUPPLIES 781,135.00 69,907.07 69,907.07 711,227.93 8.95 |758,098.00 62,586.60 8.26 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 70,775.00 2,752.38 2,752.38 68,022.62 3.89 |71,350.00 909.07 1.27 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,195,215.00 207,938.60 207,938.60 3,987,276.40 4.96 |4,258,872.00 107,559.10 2.53 6001 EXPENDITURES 23,693,279.00 1,805,853.71 1,805,853.71 21,887,425.29 7.62 |22,726,875.00 1,773,649.04 7.80 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,628,910.00-2,628,910.00-|2,555,694.00-212,974.51- 8.33 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-398.15-398.15-1,601.85- 19.91 |2,000.00-50.00- 2.50 8100 INTEREST 350,000.00-350,000.00-|325,000.00-86,604.42 26.65- 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 50.00-50.00-50.00 |25.00- 8200 MISC REVENUE 93.75-93.75-93.75 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,980,910.00-541.90-541.90-2,980,368.10-.02 |2,882,694.00-126,445.09-4.39 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,000.00 181,000.00 |180,650.00 1.08 0.00 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 19,000.00 |400.00 961.17 240.29 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,000.00 200,000.00 |181,050.00 962.25 .53 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 165,980.00 1,403,639.05 1,403,639.05 1,237,659.05-845.67 |3.00-780,577.96 ********** 01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 1,403,639.05 1,403,639.05 1,237,659.05-845.67 |3.00-780,577.96 ********** Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 3 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:25:19R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,073,118.00-4,073,118.00-|3,750,197.00- 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 850.00-850.00-850.00 |825.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 55,702.00-55,702.00-|56,402.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,141,598.00- 12,952.52- 12,952.52- 1,128,645.48-1.13 |1,058,170.00-36,354.80- 3.44 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 883,000.00- 54,031.44- 54,031.44- 828,968.56-6.12 |823,061.00-57,069.84 6.93- 4001 REVENUES 6,153,418.00-67,833.96-67,833.96-6,085,584.04-1.10 |5,687,830.00-19,890.04 .35- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,520,813.00 263,907.31 263,907.31 3,256,905.69 7.50 |3,403,854.00 292,562.62 8.60 6210 SUPPLIES 922,131.00 39,900.86 39,900.86 882,230.14 4.33 |795,292.00 24,204.94 3.04 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,500.00 508.80 11.31 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,703,002.00 238,524.75 238,524.75 1,464,477.25 14.01 |1,543,904.00 40,890.24 2.65 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 15,352.00 15,352.00 |19,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 6,165,418.00 542,332.92 542,332.92 5,623,085.08 8.80 |5,766,550.00 358,166.60 6.21 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00- 8100 INTEREST |1,600.00- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 12,000.00-12,000.00-|11,100.00-100.00- .90 8200 MISC REVENUE 29,060.08- 29,060.08- 29,060.08 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 12,000.00-29,060.08-29,060.08-17,060.08 242.17 |87,700.00-100.00-.11 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 748.42 8.33 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |370.87 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |8,981.00 1,119.29 12.46 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 445,438.88 445,438.88 445,438.88-|1.00 379,075.93 ********* 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 445,438.88 445,438.88 445,438.88-|1.00 379,075.93 ********* Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 4 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 14,970,275.00-14,970,275.00-|14,107,179.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-45,205.00-|45,205.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 18.50-18.50-18.50 |23.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-85,000.00-|85,000.00-7,083.33- 8.33 4001 REVENUES 15,100,480.00-18.50-18.50-15,100,461.50-0.00 |14,237,384.00-7,106.33-.05 6001 EXPENDITURES 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,542,855.00-2,542,855.00-|2,471,711.00-212,974.51- 8.62 8100 INTEREST 350,000.00-350,000.00-|325,000.00-86,604.42 26.65- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,892,855.00-2,892,855.00-|2,796,711.00-126,370.09-4.52 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,000.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,000.00 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 17,813,335.00-18.50-18.50-17,813,316.50-0.00 |16,854,095.00-133,476.42-.79 100 GENERAL 17,813,335.00-18.50-18.50-17,813,316.50-0.00 |16,854,095.00-133,476.42-.79 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 5 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 215,500.00- 147,755.00- 147,755.00- 67,745.00- 68.56 |178,000.00-168,500.00- 94.66 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 97.00-97.00-97.00 | 4001 REVENUES 223,500.00-147,852.00-147,852.00-75,648.00-66.15 |186,000.00-168,500.00-90.59 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 531,500.00 50,397.39 50,397.39 481,102.61 9.48 |511,250.00 52,062.20 10.18 6210 SUPPLIES 3,700.00 266.03 266.03 3,433.97 7.19 |4,350.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,635.00 40,473.75 40,473.75 415,161.25 8.88 |518,727.00 19,668.77 3.79 6001 EXPENDITURES 990,835.00 91,137.17 91,137.17 899,697.83 9.20 |1,034,327.00 71,730.97 6.94 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE 93.75-93.75-93.75 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 93.75-93.75-93.75 | 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 767,335.00 56,808.58-56,808.58-824,143.58 7.40-|848,327.00 96,769.03-11.41- 110 ADMINISTRATION 767,335.00 56,808.58-56,808.58-824,143.58 7.40-|848,327.00 96,769.03-11.41- Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 6 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 50,000.00-50,000.00-|50,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 50,000.00-50,000.00-|50,000.00- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 999,200.00 94,205.66 94,205.66 904,994.34 9.43 |951,407.00 97,846.48 10.28 6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 383.15 383.15 3,841.85 9.07 |4,000.00 284.38 7.11 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 162,555.00 1,572.00 1,572.00 160,983.00 .97 |167,356.00 9,538.87 5.70 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,165,980.00 96,160.81 96,160.81 1,069,819.19 8.25 |1,122,763.00 107,669.73 9.59 8001 OTHER INCOME 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 50.00-50.00-50.00 |25.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 50.00-50.00-50.00 |25.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |150.00 1.08 .72 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 500.00 |300.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 1,000.00 |450.00 1.08 .24 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,116,980.00 96,110.81 96,110.81 1,020,869.19 8.60 |1,073,213.00 107,645.81 10.03 120 FINANCE 1,116,980.00 96,110.81 96,110.81 1,020,869.19 8.60 |1,073,213.00 107,645.81 10.03 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 7 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 9,000.00-2,500.00 2,500.00 11,500.00- 27.78- |9,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-2,500.00 2,500.00 11,500.00-27.78-|9,000.00- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 481,000.00 38,550.03 38,550.03 442,449.97 8.01 |459,624.00 41,398.84 9.01 6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 259.85 259.85 1,740.15 12.99 |2,000.00 64.81 3.24 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 39,260.07 39,260.07 121,289.93 24.45 |168,050.00 2,546.51 1.52 6001 EXPENDITURES 643,550.00 78,069.95 78,069.95 565,480.05 12.13 |629,674.00 44,010.16 6.99 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 634,550.00 80,569.95 80,569.95 553,980.05 12.70 |620,674.00 44,010.16 7.09 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 634,550.00 80,569.95 80,569.95 553,980.05 12.70 |620,674.00 44,010.16 7.09 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 8 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 12,000.00-530.00-530.00- 11,470.00-4.42 |12,000.00-610.00- 5.08 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 585,000.00-197.13-197.13- 584,802.87-.03 |572,675.00-1,620.00- .28 4001 REVENUES 597,000.00-727.13-727.13-596,272.87-.12 |584,675.00-2,230.00-.38 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,047,000.00 110,574.76 110,574.76 936,425.24 10.56 |1,019,147.00 117,747.19 11.55 6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 49.65 49.65 2,950.35 1.66 |3,000.00 53.62 1.79 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,750.00 1,024.00 1,024.00 55,726.00 1.80 |57,750.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,107,750.00 111,648.41 111,648.41 996,101.59 10.08 |1,080,897.00 117,800.81 10.90 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 510,750.00 110,921.28 110,921.28 399,828.72 21.72 |496,222.00 115,570.81 23.29 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 510,750.00 110,921.28 110,921.28 399,828.72 21.72 |496,222.00 115,570.81 23.29 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 9 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-2,500.00- 2,500.00- 12,500.00- 16.67 |15,000.00-2,500.00- 16.67 4001 REVENUES 23,200.00-2,500.00-2,500.00-20,700.00-10.78 |23,200.00-2,500.00-10.78 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 534,000.00 41,090.15 41,090.15 492,909.85 7.69 |510,784.00 42,453.37 8.31 6210 SUPPLIES 105,500.00 748.41 748.41 104,751.59 .71 |109,500.00 3,335.57 3.05 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 26,000.00 |31,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 537,942.00 24,564.34 24,564.34 513,377.66 4.57 |536,642.00 3,421.52 .64 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,203,442.00 66,402.90 66,402.90 1,137,039.10 5.52 |1,187,926.00 49,210.46 4.14 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,180,242.00 63,902.90 63,902.90 1,116,339.10 5.41 |1,164,726.00 46,710.46 4.01 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,180,242.00 63,902.90 63,902.90 1,116,339.10 5.41 |1,164,726.00 46,710.46 4.01 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 10 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 575,000.00 53,286.84 53,286.84 521,713.16 9.27 |566,679.00 59,630.59 10.52 6210 SUPPLIES 30,800.00 167.91 167.91 30,632.09 .55 |31,200.00 68.26 .22 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,672.50 2,672.50 2,672.50-|2,300.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 877,970.00 6,937.43 6,937.43 871,032.57 .79 |860,660.00 7,953.01 .92 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,483,770.00 63,064.68 63,064.68 1,420,705.32 4.25 |1,460,839.00 67,651.86 4.63 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,483,770.00 63,064.68 63,064.68 1,420,705.32 4.25 |1,460,839.00 67,651.86 4.63 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,483,770.00 63,064.68 63,064.68 1,420,705.32 4.25 |1,460,839.00 67,651.86 4.63 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 11 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,000.00-3,000.00-| 4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-3,000.00-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 184,980.00 8,364.82 8,364.82 176,615.18 4.52 |173,932.00 7,204.06 4.14 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 104,245.00 19,363.47 19,363.47 84,881.53 18.57 |113,850.00 3,900.00 3.43 6001 EXPENDITURES 289,225.00 27,728.29 27,728.29 261,496.71 9.59 |287,782.00 11,104.06 3.86 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 286,225.00 27,728.29 27,728.29 258,496.71 9.69 |287,782.00 11,104.06 3.86 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 286,225.00 27,728.29 27,728.29 258,496.71 9.69 |287,782.00 11,104.06 3.86 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 12 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00-303,500.00-|302,600.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 809,009.00- 55,797.66- 55,797.66- 753,211.34-6.90 |882,160.00-42,446.85- 4.81 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-4,159.75- 4,159.75- 105,540.25-3.79 |110,300.00-1,834.00- 1.66 4001 REVENUES 1,222,209.00-59,957.41-59,957.41-1,162,251.59-4.91 |1,295,060.00-44,280.85-3.42 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,572,294.00 521,807.90 521,807.90 6,050,486.10 7.94 |6,185,321.00 557,063.37 9.01 6210 SUPPLIES 150,900.00 4,945.78 4,945.78 145,954.22 3.28 |155,300.00 1,335.53 .86 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 35,775.00 79.88 79.88 35,695.12 .22 |33,550.00 909.07 2.71 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 547,053.00 24,795.47 24,795.47 522,257.53 4.53 |552,343.00 25,662.31 4.65 6001 EXPENDITURES 7,306,022.00 551,629.03 551,629.03 6,754,392.97 7.55 |6,926,514.00 584,970.28 8.45 8001 OTHER INCOME 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-398.15-398.15-1,601.85- 19.91 |2,000.00-50.00- 2.50 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00-398.15-398.15-1,601.85-19.91 |2,000.00-50.00-2.50 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 500.00 |100.00 17.81 17.81 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 1,000.00 |600.00 17.81 2.97 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,082,813.00 491,273.47 491,273.47 5,591,539.53 8.08 |5,630,054.00 540,657.24 9.60 160 POLICE 6,082,813.00 491,273.47 491,273.47 5,591,539.53 8.08 |5,630,054.00 540,657.24 9.60 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 13 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,500.00 6,095.35 6,095.35 70,404.65 7.97 |73,127.00 6,628.32 9.06 6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |1,100.00 21.38 1.94 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 8,705.00 |9,756.00 461.00 4.73 6001 EXPENDITURES 86,055.00 6,095.35 6,095.35 79,959.65 7.08 |83,983.00 7,110.70 8.47 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 86,055.00-86,055.00-|83,983.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 86,055.00-86,055.00-|83,983.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,095.35 6,095.35 6,095.35-|7,110.70 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 6,095.35 6,095.35 6,095.35-|7,110.70 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 14 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 50,000.00-1,116.58- 1,116.58- 48,883.42-2.23 |55,000.00-1,652.19- 3.00 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-300,000.00-|332,000.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-375.00-375.00-3,625.00-9.38 |4,000.00-135.00- 3.38 4001 REVENUES 354,000.00-1,491.58-1,491.58-352,508.42-.42 |391,000.00-1,787.19-.46 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,815,680.00 217,441.86 217,441.86 2,598,238.14 7.72 |2,712,378.00 231,261.48 8.53 6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 2,144.18 2,144.18 69,665.82 2.99 |93,648.00 205.73 .22 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 5,000.00 | 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 224,183.00 4,910.87 4,910.87 219,272.13 2.19 |223,092.00 9,403.82 4.22 6001 EXPENDITURES 3,116,673.00 224,496.91 224,496.91 2,892,176.09 7.20 |3,029,118.00 240,871.03 7.95 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,762,673.00 223,005.33 223,005.33 2,539,667.67 8.07 |2,638,118.00 239,083.84 9.06 165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,762,673.00 223,005.33 223,005.33 2,539,667.67 8.07 |2,638,118.00 239,083.84 9.06 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 15 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 2,162,500.00- 181,202.28- 181,202.28- 1,981,297.72-8.38 |2,392,615.00-419,611.37- 17.54 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 28.00-28.00-28.00 |800.00-112.00- 14.00 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 95.86-95.86-95.86 | 4001 REVENUES 2,162,500.00-181,326.14-181,326.14-1,981,173.86-8.39 |2,393,415.00-419,723.37-17.54 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,941,500.00 147,756.40 147,756.40 1,793,743.60 7.61 |1,771,747.00 156,510.06 8.83 6210 SUPPLIES 22,300.00 1,090.10 1,090.10 21,209.90 4.89 |11,500.00 256.81 2.23 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 71,627.00 2,262.91 2,262.91 69,364.09 3.16 |69,627.00 4,789.13 6.88 6001 EXPENDITURES 2,035,427.00 151,109.41 151,109.41 1,884,317.59 7.42 |1,852,874.00 161,556.00 8.72 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 18,000.00 |943.36 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 18,000.00 |943.36 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 109,073.00-30,216.73-30,216.73-78,856.27-27.70 |540,541.00-257,224.01-47.59 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 109,073.00-30,216.73-30,216.73-78,856.27-27.70 |540,541.00-257,224.01-47.59 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 16 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 826,500.00 65,581.94 65,581.94 760,918.06 7.93 |793,133.00 65,476.29 8.26 6210 SUPPLIES 4,500.00 42.37 42.37 4,457.63 .94 |4,500.00 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,500.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 22,950.00 985.00 985.00 21,965.00 4.29 |33,450.00 1,200.00 3.59 6001 EXPENDITURES 854,950.00 66,609.31 66,609.31 788,340.69 7.79 |832,583.00 66,676.29 8.01 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,950.00 66,609.31 66,609.31 788,340.69 7.79 |832,583.00 66,676.29 8.01 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,950.00 66,609.31 66,609.31 788,340.69 7.79 |832,583.00 66,676.29 8.01 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 17 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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- 10,300.00- 10,300.00- 64,700.00- 13.73 |75,000.00-1,200.00- 1.60 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 436,000.00-436,000.00-|330,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 511,000.00-10,300.00-10,300.00-500,700.00-2.02 |405,000.00-1,200.00-.30 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 844,000.00 55,775.46 55,775.46 788,224.54 6.61 |690,511.00 58,893.11 8.53 6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 53.37 53.37 6,996.63 .76 |7,000.00 441.38 6.31 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 914.52 914.52 69,835.48 1.29 |85,671.00 1,573.54 1.84 6001 EXPENDITURES 923,800.00 56,743.35 56,743.35 867,056.65 6.14 |785,182.00 60,908.03 7.76 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 412,800.00 46,443.35 46,443.35 366,356.65 11.25 |380,182.00 59,708.03 15.71 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 412,800.00 46,443.35 46,443.35 366,356.65 11.25 |380,182.00 59,708.03 15.71 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 18 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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- 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 500.00-500.00-|400.00-145.00- 36.25 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 490,000.00-490,000.00-|450,000.00-220,115.50- 48.91 4001 REVENUES 490,500.00-490,500.00-|450,500.00-220,260.50-48.89 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,217,000.00 114,327.10 114,327.10 1,102,672.90 9.39 |1,219,515.00 108,418.91 8.89 6210 SUPPLIES 374,500.00 59,756.27 59,756.27 314,743.73 15.96 |331,000.00 56,519.13 17.08 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 894,300.00 40,874.77 40,874.77 853,425.23 4.57 |861,898.00 17,440.62 2.02 6001 EXPENDITURES 2,485,800.00 214,958.14 214,958.14 2,270,841.86 8.65 |2,412,413.00 182,378.66 7.56 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,995,300.00 214,958.14 214,958.14 1,780,341.86 10.77 |1,961,913.00 37,881.84-1.93- 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 1,995,300.00 214,958.14 214,958.14 1,780,341.86 10.77 |1,961,913.00 37,881.84-1.93- 01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 1,403,639.05 1,403,639.05 1,237,659.05-845.67 |3.00-780,577.96 ********** Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 19 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,073,118.00-4,073,118.00-|3,750,197.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-44,702.00-|44,702.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 259,298.00-1,702.04- 1,702.04- 257,595.96-.66 |242,070.00-10,665.10- 4.41 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-337.50 337.50 34,337.50-.99- |19,600.00-350.00- 1.79 4001 REVENUES 4,411,118.00-1,364.54-1,364.54-4,409,753.46-.03 |4,056,569.00-11,015.10-.27 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 729,162.00 56,310.55 56,310.55 672,851.45 7.72 |711,222.00 66,662.44 9.37 6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 537.91 537.91 58,913.09 .90 |66,892.00 2,641.38 3.95 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 502,597.00 198,011.68 198,011.68 304,585.32 39.40 |472,585.00 5,879.73 1.24 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,291,210.00 254,860.14 254,860.14 1,036,349.86 19.74 |1,250,699.00 75,183.55 6.01 8001 OTHER INCOME 8100 INTEREST |1,600.00- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 14,000.00-14,000.00-|13,100.00- 8200 MISC REVENUE 29,060.08- 29,060.08- 29,060.08 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 14,000.00-29,060.08-29,060.08-15,060.08 207.57 |14,700.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |336.60 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |336.60 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,133,908.00-224,435.52 224,435.52 3,358,343.52-7.16-|2,820,570.00-64,505.05 2.29- 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,133,908.00-224,435.52 224,435.52 3,358,343.52-7.16-|2,820,570.00-64,505.05 2.29- Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 20 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 22Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 679,000.00-9,081.23- 9,081.23- 669,918.77-1.34 |645,500.00-16,941.70- 2.62 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 722,000.00- 51,684.95- 51,684.95- 670,315.05-7.16 |691,200.00-67,143.26 9.71- 4001 REVENUES 1,401,000.00-60,766.18-60,766.18-1,340,233.82-4.34 |1,336,700.00-50,201.56 3.76- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 792,467.00 45,449.07 45,449.07 747,017.93 5.74 |765,999.00 50,861.84 6.64 6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 9,768.76 9,768.76 160,581.24 5.73 |167,100.00 5,368.80 3.21 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 491,950.00 18,044.01 18,044.01 473,905.99 3.67 |413,284.00 3,910.89 .95 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |12,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,454,767.00 73,261.84 73,261.84 1,381,505.16 5.04 |1,358,383.00 60,141.53 4.43 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 53,767.00 12,495.66 12,495.66 41,271.34 23.24 |21,683.00 110,343.09 508.89 201 RECREATION CENTER 53,767.00 12,495.66 12,495.66 41,271.34 23.24 |21,683.00 110,343.09 508.89 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 21 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 23Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 850.00-850.00-850.00 |825.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,700.00-10,700.00-|8,700.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 26,000.00-1,565.99- 1,565.99- 24,434.01-6.02 |11,600.00-1,335.00- 11.51 4001 REVENUES 36,700.00-2,415.99-2,415.99-34,284.01-6.58 |20,300.00-2,160.00-10.64 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 986,400.00 80,682.38 80,682.38 905,717.62 8.18 |961,356.00 83,087.46 8.64 6210 SUPPLIES 93,555.00 3,025.58 3,025.58 90,529.42 3.23 |88,700.00 2,653.28 2.99 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,000.00 508.80 12.72 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 369,510.00 13,516.55 13,516.55 355,993.45 3.66 |316,462.00 14,333.07 4.53 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,460,585.00 97,224.51 97,224.51 1,363,360.49 6.66 |1,377,518.00 100,582.61 7.30 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,423,885.00 94,808.52 94,808.52 1,329,076.48 6.66 |1,357,218.00 98,422.61 7.25 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,423,885.00 94,808.52 94,808.52 1,329,076.48 6.66 |1,357,218.00 98,422.61 7.25 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 22 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 24Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 82,600.00-2,234.25- 2,234.25- 80,365.75-2.70 |80,150.00-4,309.85- 5.38 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00-68.00-68.00 | 4001 REVENUES 82,600.00-2,302.25-2,302.25-80,297.75-2.79 |80,150.00-4,309.85-5.38 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 420,586.00 29,412.79 29,412.79 391,173.21 6.99 |404,679.00 34,987.50 8.65 6210 SUPPLIES 26,700.00 373.46 373.46 26,326.54 1.40 |22,650.00 302.71 1.34 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 44,500.00 2,033.61 2,033.61 42,466.39 4.57 |39,349.00 1,422.11 3.61 6001 EXPENDITURES 491,786.00 31,819.86 31,819.86 459,966.14 6.47 |466,678.00 36,712.32 7.87 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |100.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME |100.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |34.27 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |34.27 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 409,186.00 29,517.61 29,517.61 379,668.39 7.21 |386,528.00 32,336.74 8.37 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 409,186.00 29,517.61 29,517.61 379,668.39 7.21 |386,528.00 32,336.74 8.37 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 23 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 25Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 110,000.00-65.00 65.00 110,065.00-.06- |81,750.00-4,438.15- 5.43 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,050.00- 1,050.00-1,050.00 | 4001 REVENUES 110,000.00-985.00-985.00-109,015.00-.90 |81,750.00-4,438.15-5.43 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,898.00 8,762.70 8,762.70 100,135.30 8.05 |99,297.00 9,396.81 9.46 6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 819.00 819.00 18,606.00 4.22 |17,900.00 1,820.65 10.17 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |500.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 158,470.00 1,856.79 1,856.79 156,613.21 1.17 |171,285.00 4,546.46 2.65 6001 EXPENDITURES 286,793.00 11,438.49 11,438.49 275,354.51 3.99 |288,982.00 15,763.92 5.45 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 178,793.00 10,453.49 10,453.49 168,339.51 5.85 |209,232.00 11,325.77 5.41 204 ENVIRONMENT 178,793.00 10,453.49 10,453.49 168,339.51 5.85 |209,232.00 11,325.77 5.41 Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 24 2/18/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:28:55R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 26Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20091/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009 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 11,000.00-11,000.00-|11,700.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-101,000.00-|100,661.00-8,388.42- 8.33 4001 REVENUES 112,000.00-112,000.00-|112,361.00-8,388.42-7.47 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,300.00 43,289.82 43,289.82 440,010.18 8.96 |461,301.00 47,566.57 10.31 6210 SUPPLIES 552,650.00 25,376.15 25,376.15 527,273.85 4.59 |432,050.00 11,418.12 2.64 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 135,975.00 5,062.11 5,062.11 130,912.89 3.72 |130,939.00 10,797.98 8.25 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 8,352.00 8,352.00 | 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,180,277.00 73,728.08 73,728.08 1,106,548.92 6.25 |1,024,290.00 69,782.67 6.81 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME |75,000.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 748.42 8.33 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |8,981.00 748.42 8.33 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,068,277.00 73,728.08 73,728.08 994,548.92 6.90 |845,910.00 62,142.67 7.35 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,068,277.00 73,728.08 73,728.08 994,548.92 6.90 |845,910.00 62,142.67 7.35 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 445,438.88 445,438.88 445,438.88-|1.00 379,075.93 ********* Meeting of Febraury 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: January, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 25