HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/03/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 23, 2009
6:15 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The
items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent
calendar.)
3. Boards and Commissions
3a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
Recommended Action:
Motion to appoint citizen representatives to fill vacancies on Boards and
Commissions
4. Adjournment
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning --- April 6 and April 13, 2009
2. 6:35 p.m. Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) Annual Report and Work
Plan (with Commission)
3. 7:35 p.m. Park Perspective Newsletter
4. 8:05 p.m. Excess Land Sale Proceeds
5. 8:50 p.m. Property Valuation Update
6. 9:20 p.m. Planning Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
7. 9:30 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Meeting of March 23, 2009 Page 2
Subject:: City Council Agenda
Written Reports
8. Wind Turbines
9. February 2009 Monthly Financial Report
10. Requested Extension of Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 7100 LLC (Anderson
Builders)
11. 2009 Community Open House
12. West End Public Art Update
9:40 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 of March 23, 2009 Page 3
Subject:: City Council Agenda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2a. Accept Donation from Erik and Alison Anderson, on behalf of the Raymond H. and
Florence L. Sponberg Foundation, in the amount of $1,500 to be deposited into the Park
Improvement Fund for use of improving the splash pad at Oak Hill Park
2b. Accept Donation from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in the amount of $1,800 to
provide supplies for the annual Minnehaha Creek clean-up project
2c. Execute a Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Regional All-Hazards Incident
Management Joint Powers Organization
2d. Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance to create Special Service District No. 5
and approve the summary ordinance for publication and Approve Resolution imposing a
service charge for Special Service District No. 5
2e. Adopt Resolution approving St. Louis Park Lions Club’s request for placement of 16
sandwich board type temporary signs, and 25 ‘‘stick in the ground’’ type signs in the public
right-of-ways.
2f. Authorize execution of Vehicle Towing and Impounding Agreement and Property Lease
Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Randy’s Bobby and Steve’s Auto World
2g. Approve for Filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes February 2, 2009
2h. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes February 11, 2009
2i. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
2j. Adopt Resolution electing to not waive the statutory tort limits for liability insurance
2k. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
2l. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2009
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2a
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:
Acceptance of Donation for Park Improvement Fund.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept Donation from Erik and Alison Anderson, on behalf of the Raymond H. and
Florence L. Sponberg Foundation, in the amount of $1,500 to be deposited into the Park
Improvement Fund for use of improving the splash pad at Oak Hill Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions its use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order
to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation
prior to it being expended.
A St. Louis Park resident is graciously donating to the Park and Recreation Department an amount
of $1,500. The donation is given with restrictions. Staff contacted the family about their preferences
on how to use the donation and Erik Anderson indicated that using it for improvements to the Oak
Hill Splash Pad would be appropriate. The 2009 CIP includes improvements to the Splash Pad at
Oak Hill Park. Staff will include this money for additional improvements to the splash pad this
upcoming summer.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation will assist in projects consistent with the Park Improvement Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Acceptance of Donation for Park Improvement Fund
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM ERIK & ALISON ANDERSON ON BEHALF OF THE RAYMOND H. AND
FLORENCE L. SPONBERG FOUNDATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500
FOR USE BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
FOR IMPROVING THE OAK HILL PARK SPLASH PAD
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any
donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor;
and
WHEREAS, Erik and Alison Anderson St. Louis Park residents, desire to assist the Parks and
Recreation Department in assisting in park area redevelopment and improvement on behalf of the
Raymond H. and Florence L. Sponberg Foundation with a donation of $1,500 to be used at Oak
Hill Park for improvements made to the splash pad;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that
the gift is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 23, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2b
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:
Acceptance of Donation from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Minnehaha Creek Clean-
Up Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept Donation from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in the amount of $1,800 to
provide supplies for the annual Minnehaha Creek clean-up project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order
to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation
prior to it being expended.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is graciously donating to the Park and
Recreation Department an amount of $1,800. The donation is given with restrictions relating to the
creek cleanup event. The Parks and Recreation Commission started an event in the Spring of 2008
to clean up Minnehaha creek. It was successful and the commission hopes to make it an annual
event. Commission member Tom Worthington volunteered to write and apply for a grant from the
MCWD to purchase supplies for this annual event.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation will be used to purchase supplies needed to assist in the annual clean-up of
Minnehaha Creek. The supplies will consist of waders and tools that can be used for several years to
assist the volunteers in pulling debris out of the creek.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Managing our urban forest is consistent with the city’s Strategic Direction of being a leader in
environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2b) Page 2
Subject Acceptance of Donation from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Minnehaha Creek Clean-Up Project
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,800
FOR USE BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
FOR THE MINNEHAHA CREEK CLEAN-UP PROJECT
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any
donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor;
and
WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District desires to assist the Parks and Recreation
Department with the purchase of supplies for the annual Minnehaha Creek clean-up project with a
donation of $1,800;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that
the gift is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 23, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to execute a Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Regional All-Hazards Incident
Management Joint Powers Organization.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the city wish to participate in the State All Hazards Incident Management Team?
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this Joint Powers Agreement is to establish the Regional All-Hazards Incident
Management Organization, which shall be governed by a Board of Directors, for the purpose of
establishing, training, equipping, maintaining and deploying All-Hazard Incident Management
Teams to incidents inside and outside the State of Minnesota as may be requested by a local agency
or other unit of government.
The Minnesota All Hazards Incident Management Team (AHIMT) is a FEMA Type 3 AHIMT
that was started in 2004. The team is sanctioned and qualified by the United State Fire
Administration (USFA) AHIMT Training Program. The team has been sent on an Emergency
Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) deployment to Iowa for the flooding this year and to
provide assistance in Hugo for the tornado. The team currently has 60 members from ten
jurisdictions. The City of St. Louis Park currently has 4 personnel that are members of the team.
The Fire Chief is currently the team point of contact working through the City Manager.
The establishment of the joint powers organization at this point is to minimize any one jurisdiction’s
liability, allow the team to enter into delegations of authority with jurisdictions that they respond to
assist, and to provide structure for ongoing management of the team.
Reasons for the City’s participation in this Team are as follows:
• Allows our trained staff to use their skills at an actual event. This will better prepare them
for an incident that may occur in St. Louis Park.
• If an event occurred in St. Louis Park we will be well situated to call in this team to assist us.
• We are not required to participate in every event that might occur in other communities
This agreement has been reviewed and approved by Tom Scott.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c) Page 2
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
When deployed through state mutual aid to incidents inside Minnesota, expenses may or may not be
reimbursed depending on disaster declarations. Typically when deployed through EMAC, the
expenses are reimbursed by the requesting agency. Department budgets would be able to absorb
costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Joint Powers Agreement
Article Minnesota Fire Chief Jan/Feb 2009
Minnesota Type 3 All Hazards Incident Management Team
Information
Prepared and Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 3
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 4
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 5
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 6
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 7
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 8
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 9
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 10
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 11
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 12
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 13
Type 3 Incident Management Team (IMT) Program
Overview
IMT Descriptions
In August 2003, USFA convened a Focus Group of stakeholders and experts from across
the country to best determine the means to develop Type 3 incident management teams
(IMTs) across the country. The Focus Group agreed to stay with the basic National
Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) Incident Command System (ICS) training and
typing models for the all-hazards emergency response community. The IMT typing
descriptions are as follows:
Local IMT
A single and/or multi-agency team for expanded incidents, typically formed and
managed at the city or county level or by a pre-determined regional entity. It is a
designated team of fire, EMS, Department of Public Works, Public Health, and/or
law enforcement personnel from a larger and generally more populated area,
typically within a single jurisdiction (city, county, or region), activated when
necessary to manage a major or complex incident requiring a significant number
of local and mutual aid resources, such as a major structure fire, a multi-vehicle
crash with multiple patients, an armed robbery, or a hazardous materials spill. It
may also be activated for public events. A Local IMT usually is comprised of 7-
10 trained personnel who respond to incidents that are typically contained within
one operational period in the control phase, usually within a few hours after
resources arrive on scene, but may initially manage larger, more complex
incidents prior to arrival of a Type 3, Type 2, or Type 1 IMT.
Type 3: State or Regional multi-agency / multi-jurisdiction team for extended incidents
A multi-agency/multi-jurisdiction team for extended incidents, formed and
managed at the State, regional or metropolitan level. It is a designated team of
trained personnel from different departments, organizations, agencies, and
jurisdictions within a state or DHS Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) region,
activated to support incident management at incidents that extend beyond one
operational period. Type 3 IMTs are deployed as a team of 10-20 trained
personnel to manage major and/or complex incidents requiring a significant
number of local, regional, and state resources, and incidents that extend into
multiple operational periods and require a written Incident Action Plan (IAP),
such as a tornado touchdown, earthquake, flood, or multi-day hostage/standoff
situation, or at planned mass-gathering events. A Type 3 IMT may also initially
manage larger, more complex incidents that are later transitioned to a Type 2 or
Type 1 IMT.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 14
Type 2: National or State team for incidents of regional significance
A self-contained, all-hazard or wildland team recognized at the National and State
level, coordinated through the State, Geographic Area Coordination Center, or
National Interagency Fire Center. All personnel meet the NWCG training regimen
at the Type 2 level for their specific position. A Type 2 IMT is deployed as a team
of 20-35 to manage incidents of regional significance and other incidents
requiring a large number of local, regional, state, and national resources. This
includes incidents where Operations Section personnel approach 200 per
operational period and total incident personnel approach 500. Several dozen Type
2 IMTs are currently in existence, and operate through the U.S. Forest Service.
Type 1: National or State team for incidents of national significance
A self-contained, all-hazard team recognized at the National and State level,
coordinated through the State, Geographic Area Coordination Center, or National
Interagency Fire Center. All personnel meet the NWCG training regimen at the
Type 1 level for their specific position. A Type 1 IMT is deployed as a team of
35-50 to manage incidents of national significance and other incidents requiring a
large number of local, regional, state, national, and Federal resources over
multiple operational periods. This includes incidents where Operations Section
personnel may exceed 500 per operational period and total incident personnel
may exceed 1000. Eighteen Type 1 IMTs are now in existence, and operate
through the U.S. Forest Service.
The Focus Group recommended that a Type 3 IMT course for team development be
developed. The goal of this technical assistance program (TAP) is to provide the
necessary tools for individuals to perform as members of a Regional or State Type 3 IMT
at major and/or complex incidents requiring local, regional, state, and possibly Federal
resources. The Focus Group also recommended a framework upon which local agencies
or groups of local disciplines can build Local IMTs. The goal of this TAP is to provide
the necessary tools for individuals to perform in appropriate ICS Command and General
Staff positions during local incidents, and to transition to a higher level, more robust team
if necessary for incidents expected to extend beyond the first operational period.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 15
Incident Management Team Structure
IMT Development Concept
1. Recommended for assigned members of Type 3 IMTs:
-Appointed by Metropolitan, Regional, or State Authority Having Jurisdiction.
-ICS 100, ICS 200 (Web-based or classroom) or equivalent
-ICS 300, ICS 400 or equivalent (National Fire Academy's Command and
General Staff Functions for Local IMTs (O337) is equivalent)
-All-Hazard IMT (O305) offering, customized simulation (50-hour on-site); or S-
420
-ICS position-specific professional development
-Field mentoring
-Audience: Approximately 106 Type 3 IMTs across the country (50 UASI
regional areas and 56 states/territories)
For additional information, see the NIMS/Incident Management System Integration
Division (IMSID) 5 Year Training Plan.
A flowchart showing the inter-relationship of IMT training is provided below.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 16
Incident Command System/Incident Management Team Training
Flowchart
Type 3: State or Regional multi-agency / multi-jurisdiction team for extended
incidents
A multi-agency/multi-jurisdiction team for extended incidents, formed and managed at
the State, regional or metropolitan level. It is a designated team of trained personnel
from different departments, organizations, agencies, and jurisdictions within a state or
DHS Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) region, activated to support incident
management at incidents that extend beyond one operational period. Type 3 IMTs are
deployed as a team of 10-20 trained personnel to manage major and/or complex
incidents requiring a significant number of local, regional, and state resources, and
incidents that extend into multiple operational periods and require a written Incident
Action Plan (IAP), such as a tornado touchdown, earthquake, flood, or multi-day
hostage/standoff situation, or at planned mass-gathering events. A Type 3 IMT may also
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 17
initially manage larger, more complex incidents that are later transitioned to a Type 2 or
Type 1 IMT.
An Incident Management Team (IMT) is a comprehensive resource (a team) to either
augment ongoing operations through provision of infrastructure support, or when
requested, transition to an incident management function to include all
components/functions of a Command and General Staff. An IMT:
Includes command and general staff members and support personnel
Has pre-designated roles and responsibilities for members (Rostered and on-call:
Identified and able to be contacted for deployment)
Is available 24/7/365
Deployed as a team of 10-20 trained personnel to manage major and/or complex
incidents requiring a significant number of local, regional, and state resources,
and incidents that extend into multiple operational periods and require a written
IAP.
May be utilized at incidents such as a tornado touchdown, earthquake, flood, or
multi-day hostage/standoff situation, or at planned mass-gathering events.
May initially manage larger, more complex incidents prior to arrival of and
transition to a Type 2 or Type 1 IMT.
Examples of Incident Management Team Use
Type of Incidents
Natural disasters
Terrorist incidents
Train derailments, aircraft incidents, and other large/complex accidents
Public or civil unrest (spontaneous or at planned events)
Public event requiring the cooperation and joint participation of two or
more agencies or jurisdictions
Coordination of on scene operations
o Management and coordination of efforts
o Procedures for assigned functional areas
o Development and modification of an IAP (Incident Action Plan)
o Planning process
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 18
Frequently Asked Questions about USFA's Type 3
Incident Management Team (IMT) Technical Assistance
Program
Where and how do we get ICS-100, 200, 300, 400, and other foundation training?
Contact your State fire training agency, state emergency management agency,
and/or your state forestry agency.
The All-Hazards IMT course is going to be given to members of a Type 3 IMT that is
comprised of multiple agencies. Who will have control?
The local administering agency(s), as determined in mutual aid agreements, or the
State(s) will be the coordinating agency(s).
Who determines equivalent training for foundation-level training?
The Local or State certifying authority will determine equivalency as it relates to
Local IMTs utilizing the NIMS/IMSID 5 year training plan.
Is USFA going to certify or credential Type 3 IMTs?
No. Type 3 IMTs will be certified at the State or Regional level. Type 2 and Type
1 IMTs are established and certified within the National Wildfire Coordinating
Group (NWCG).
What national standards address IMTs?
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) publishes standard NFPA 1561,
Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management System, which addresses
the components of an incident management system. NFPA 1026, Standard on
Incident Management System Personnel Professional Qualifications, addresses
job performance requirements for Command and General Staff functions and
other incident management personnel. The Department of Homeland Security's
NIMS/IMSID is facilitating the development of qualification, certification,
credentialing of incident management personnel.
What NFA courses would be equivalent to ICS 100 and 200? ICS 300 and 400?
Please refer to NIMS Training Page.
What additional development should members of existing Type 3 IMTs obtain for
refresher or sustainment purposes?
Most important will be exercises and drills to ensure that the knowledge, skills,
and abilities gained during the initial IMT development is not lost. These can
consist of tabletop exercises, functional simulations, or full-scale drills, including
utilizations during the exercising of the local Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plans (CEMP). In addition, training such as NFA's Command and
Control of Fire Department Operations at Natural and Manmade Disasters and
Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency Management will
serve as excellent refresher or sustainment training.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 19
Is there a place for EMTs or Paramedics on an IMT?
IMTs are typically multi-discipline entities comprised of the Command and
General Staff members of an incident organization. On certain types of incidents,
EMS officers may serve as part of an IMT, either as part of the Unified Command
Team, a Deputy Operations Section Chief, or a Deputy Planning Section Chief.
Individuals who may serve in these roles as a designated member of an IMT
should receive IMT training.
How do we know when and where the AHIMT classes will be held?
State and metropolitan regional team representatives (Urban Area Security
Regions) may contact FEMA-AHIMT@dhs.gov.
How do we contact our State fire training agency?
A listing of State points-of-contact can be found at www.usfa.dhs.gov/pocs/
Can law enforcement personnel be part of an IMT?
IMTs are typically multi-discipline entities comprised of the Command and
General Staff members of an incident organization. On certain types of incidents,
law enforcement officers will be a critical part of an IMT, either as part of the
Unified Command Team, an Operations Section Chief or Deputy, or a Planning
Section Chief or Deputy. Individuals who may serve in these roles as a designated
member of an IMT should receive IMT training.
What does field mentoring entail?
Even the best classroom training and simulation cannot be as realistic or valuable
as on-the-job training. Field mentoring consists of a Type 3 IMT member being
assigned to a major, significant incident somewhere in the nation, where they will
follow/observe/work with an experienced member of a Type 1 or Type 2 IMT.
This will allow the new member to monitor the functions, tasks, and
responsibilities of that position, and to gain an understanding of the "big picture"
of IMT operations first-hand.
Field mentoring will provide new IMT members with hands-on experience
through meaningful tasks and assignments that will enhance knowledge of their
position. Field mentoring assignments are intended to be personal/professional
development opportunities and are coordinated in a preplanned manner, with
agreements and understandings arranged ahead of time. Field mentoring
opportunities for the Type 3 IMT program are coordinated by USFA through the
National Interagency Fire Center.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2c)
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Regional All-Hazards Incident Management Organization Page 20
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2d
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:
Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District -
Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Motion to waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance to create Special Service District No. 5
and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
2. Motion to Approve Resolution imposing a service charge for Special Service District No. 5.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to take steps to create the City’s fifth special service district?
BACKGROUND:
The City is repeating the process required to establish Special Service District No. 5 and impose a
service charge in order to correct a procedural error with the publication of the public hearing
notices and to respond to objections raised by Costco Wholesale Corporation.
The City is installing infrastructure improvements along Park Place Boulevard between I-394 and
Cedar Lake Road in conjunction with the roadway improvements required for the West End
redevelopment project.
These special “streetscape” improvements include pedestrian lighting, banner poles, banners, raised
planters, decorative tree lighting, benches, waste receptacles, bollards, landscaping, irrigation systems
and other improvements.
To date, four special service districts have been established in St. Louis Park along the Excelsior
Boulevard corridor. Such special service districts provide funding for the proper maintenance of
streetscape improvements. In order to maintain the proposed streetscape improvements along Park
Place Boulevard a fifth special service district must be established. As with the previous
improvement projects, the city has worked with adjacent commercial property owners along the Park
Place Boulevard to arrive at a proposed special service district that would be designed specifically to
accommodate their particular preferences. The design also complements the proposed streetscape
improvements for The Shops at West End redevelopment.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 2
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
To what extent has the City communicated with the affected property owners?
City staff communicated with affected commercial property owners through group informational
meetings, individual meetings and phone conversations, letters and newsletters in 2008. At each of
the three informational meetings (February 21, June 19, and December 10) city staff communicated
how a special service district would operate and how the fees would be calculated and collected.
Property owners received specific information regarding the proposed annual budget for the district
and proposed service charge allocation for each property. City staff met individually with each
property owner or representative within the proposed area of Special Service District #5 to discuss
the potential improvements, the special service district concept, and responded to questions relevant
each property. In addition, detailed information describing the proposed district and how costs
would be allocated was distributed to all property owners in May and December.
Public hearing notices were mailed to each property owner and twice published in the official
newspaper. Included in the mailings were full copies of the draft ordinance and resolutions.
Has the city received the sufficient level of petitions required to hold a public hearing?
There are a total of 14 separate, commercial parcels in the proposed district. Owners of ten of the
14 properties or 71% of commercial property owners submitted petitions requesting that the City
Council conduct a public hearing to discuss the establishment of a special service district. These
property owners represent approximately 72% of the affected land area and 65% of the tax capacity
of property that would be subject to the proposed service charge. According to state statute, 25% of
the land area and 25% of the net tax capacity of property subject to the service charge are required to
petition in order for the Council to convene a public hearing.
What services will the district provide?
The district will provide for the maintenance of landscape materials, decorative fencing, decorative
lighting, banners, banner poles, raised planters, the irrigation system and electric service (see attached
Proposed List of Services). The majority of property owners expressed little interest in a higher level
of snow and ice removal beyond what the city is currently providing, thus snow removal is not part
of the proposed district’s budget.
How were the costs allocated to the property owners?
The service charge is based on the amount of front footage each commercial property has along Park
Place Boulevard, plus any front footage adjacent to new improvements along 16th Street, Wayzata
Boulevard and Gamble Drive near the intersections with Park Place Boulevard. While there are
other methods, front footage was determined to be the most easily understood and obtained.
How would the service charges be collected?
With the exception of 2009, the service charges will be collected through annual property tax
payments. Due to the lag time between levy and collection, the service charge would first appear on
property tax statements in Fall 2009. The service charges would then be collected in May and
October of 2010. In order for district expenses to be incurred and paid for in Summer 2009, the
City will mail invoices to affected property owners in May and October 2009 for expenses that will
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 3
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
be incurred in 2009. The total amount collected in this manner in 2009 will be 50% (a pro-rated
amount) of the proposed annual budget.
Is there a cap on the amount of the annual service charges?
Yes, the maximum service charges to be imposed in 2009 and 2010 are outlined in the attached
Proposed Annual Budget and Service Charges. Pursuant to the proposed resolution, the annual
service charges may increase or decrease from the maximum authorized budgeted amount in the
preceding year based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St.
Paul area. Such increases or decreases may not fluctuate more than 5% per year (which is the same
for the other four districts in St. Louis Park).
Who determines and controls the annual operating budget?
As with the other four districts, an advisory board consisting of district property owners appointed
by the City Council will be formed to oversee the district’s operation. The advisory board will advise
the City Council in connection with the maintenance and operation of the improvements and the
furnishing of special services in the district. The advisory board will recommend the annual budget to
the City Council. It will also make recommendations to the City Council on requests and complaints
of owners, occupants, and users of property within the district and members of the public.
How will the activities approved by the advisory board be implemented?
The city’s Facilities Maintenance Superintendent will coordinate the advisory board and ensure that
the district’s services are properly implemented.
What is the term of the district? Are there limitations?
The proposed district has a term of 10 years (same as the other four districts) at which time property
owners must formally reapprove the district.
Is there any formal opposition?
As City Council is already aware, the City received an opposition letter from Costco Wholesale
Corporation on February 2, 2009. The City formally responded to the objections raised in the
letter. Also the City re-advertised and re-held the public hearings to correct a procedural error for
notices published in January.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City does not have the resources to maintenance the proposed streetscape improvements to Park
Place Boulevard over the next ten years without the contribution of neighboring property owners.
The special service district is a valuable instrument to properly maintain the public’s capital
investment for Park Place Boulevard streetscape improvements. There is a strong level of support
from affected property owners for this proposal (71% of the parcels, 72% of the tax capacity, and
84% of the land area).
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 4
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed special service district advances the Vision St. Louis Park goals of promoting and
integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation
where appropriate; as well as, being a connected and engaged community by increasing use of new
and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility throughout the community.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon City Council approval, a 45-day veto period then begins. Staff will mail notices regarding
City Council’s decision to affected property owners, within 10 days. The new special service district
will go into effect unless owners of 35% of the properties submit a petition to veto the formation of
the district. Assuming this does not happen, the district will be in full force and effect on May 7,
2009.
Attachments: Ordinance No. 2371-09 Authorizing Creation of Special Service District No. 5
o Proposed List of Parcels in Special Service District No. 5 (Exhibit A)
o Proposed Map of Special Service District No. 5 (Exhibit B)
Resolution Imposing a Service Charge
o Proposed List of Parcels in Special Service District No. 5 (Exhibit A)
o Proposed Map of Special Service District No. 5 (Exhibit B)
o Proposed Annual Budget and Service Charges (Exhibit C)
o Proposed List of Services (Exhibit D)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 5
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
ORDINANCE NO. 2371-09
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CREATION OF
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition to establish a special service district pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.02 (the "Petition") from the owners of certain property located
adjacent to Park Place Boulevard Wayzata Boulevard and 16th Street within an area approximately
bounded by Interstate 394 southerly to Cedar Lake Road. The specific properties included within this
area are identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and generally depicted on Exhibit "B" attached
hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council (the "City Council") has determined each of the
following:
(A) The owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area of property
that would be subject to the service charge have signed the Petition;
(B) The owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the net tax capacity of
property that would be subject to the service charge have signed the Petition;
(C) It is appropriate to establish a special service district; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing concerning the petition to establish a special service
district was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on January 1, 2009 and January 8, 2009.
Additionally, the City mailed notice of the hearing to the owner of record of each parcel within the
area proposed to be included within the special service district. For the purposes of giving such mailed
notice, the notice was sent to those shown on the records of the County Auditor. The City Council
has determined that said notices were published and sent in accordance with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.02. The public hearing was held on January 20, 2009, before the
St. Louis Park City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Establishment of District. The City hereby establishes a special service
district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.01 through 428A.101 (the “Act”) consisting of
the properties identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto
and the right-of-way adjacent thereto (the "District").
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 6
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
SECTION 2. Services to be Performed.
2.01 Provision of Services. The City may provide or contract for services in the District;
except, however, that the special services provided shall not include a service that is ordinarily provided
throughout the City from the general fund revenue of the City unless an increased level of service is
provided in the District.
2.02 Description of Services. The City may provide or contract for the following services:
(a) Cleaning and scrubbing of sidewalks; cleaning of curbs, gutters, alleys, and
streets.
(b) Purchase, installation, maintenance, removal, and replacement of banners and
other decorative items for promotion of the District.
(c) Poster and handbill removal.
(d) Repair and maintenance of sidewalks.
(e) Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of area-wide security systems.
(f) Coordination of security personnel to supplement regular City personnel.
(g) Purchase, installation, maintenance, repair, cleaning, and removal of area
directories, kiosks, benches, bus shelters, newspaper stands, trash receptacles,
information booths, bicycle racks and bicycle storage containers, sculptures,
murals, and other public area art pieces.
(h) Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of decorative lighting on area
trees.
(i) Cost of electrical service for pedestrian and decorative tree lighting.
(j) Repair of low-level pedestrian lights and poles.
(k) Comprehensive liability insurance for public space improvements.
(l) Trash removal and recycling costs.
(m) Purchase, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal of special
signage relating to vehicle and bicycle parking, vehicle and pedestrian
movement, and special events.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 7
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
(n) Watering, fertilizing, maintenance, and replacement of trees, shrubbery, and
annual flowers and perennials on the public right-of-way.
(o) Repair, maintenance and replacement of irrigation system.
(p) Maintenance and operation of a public transit system.
(q) Promotion and administration.
(r) Maintenance of a reserve fund or capital reserve fund.
(s) Installation, maintenance, and removal of capital improvements.
(t) Snow plowing and snow removal from sidewalks, trails, on-street parking bays
and roads
SECTION 3. Service Charge.
3.01 Petition Requirements. Before taking any action to impose a service charge based on
net tax capacity to pay the cost of services described in Section 2, owners of twenty-five percent (25%)
or more of the land area and twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the net tax capacity subject to the
proposed service charge must file a petition requesting a public hearing on the proposed action with
the City Clerk. Before taking any action to impose any other type of service charge to pay the cost of
services described in Section 2, twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the individual or business
organizations subject to the proposed service charge must file a petition requesting a public hearing on
the proposed action with the City Clerk.
3.02 Relationship to Service. The City may impose service charges against properties
located within the District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The City may impose service charges that
are reasonably related to the special services provided. Charges for services shall be as nearly as possible
proportionate to the cost of furnishing the service, and may be fixed on the basis of the service directly
rendered, or by reference to a reasonable classification of the types of premises to which service is
furnished, or on any other equitable terms. Taxes and service charges may be levied pursuant to this
ordinance to finance special services ordinarily provided by the City only if the services are provided in
the District at an increased level and, then, only in an amount sufficient to pay for the increase.
3.03 Limitation of Service Charges. Service charges may only be imposed on property as
authorized by the Act.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 8
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
SECTION 4. Imposition of Service Charge.
4.01 Public Hearing. Before imposing a service charge in the District, for each calendar
year, the City shall hold a public hearing. At the hearing, a person affected by the District or the
proposed service charge may testify on any issues relevant to the proposed service charge. The hearing
may be adjourned from time to time.
4.02 Notice of Hearing. The City shall give prior notice of the public hearing to impose
service charges required by Section 4.01. Notice of the public hearing must be mailed to any property
owner subject to the proposed service charge. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in two (2)
separate publications of the City's official newspaper two weeks apart and the public hearing shall not
be held less than three (3) days after the later publication. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the
hearing, notice shall be mailed to the owner of record of each parcel of real estate within the District.
For the purpose of giving such mailed notice, owners shall be those shown on the records of the
County Auditor. For properties which are tax exempt or subject to taxation on a gross earnings basis
in lieu of property tax and are not listed on the records of the County Auditor, the owners shall be
ascertained by any practical means, and mailed notice given them.
4.03 Content of Notice. The notice shall include:
(a) a statement that all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard
at the hearing regarding the proposed service charge;
(b) the estimated cost of improvements to be paid for in whole or in part by service
charges imposed, the estimated cost of operating and maintaining the
improvements during the first year and upon completion of the improvements,
the proposed method and source of financing the improvements, and the
annual cost of operating and maintaining the improvements;
(c) the proposed rate or amount of the proposed service charge to be imposed in
the District during the calendar year and the nature and character of the special
services rendered in the District during the calendar year in which the service
charge is to be collected;
(d) a statement that the petition requirements of Minnesota Statutes have either
been met or do not apply to the proposed service charge; and
(e) if the City is adopting a resolution imposing a service charge for more than one
year, the information required by Section 4.05 below.
4.04 Adoption of Resolution. Within six (6) months of the public hearing, the City may
adopt a resolution (the “Resolution”) imposing a service charge within the District not exceeding the
amount or rate expressed in the notice issued under this Section.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 9
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
4.05 Multi-year Service Charge. The City may adopt a resolution imposing a service charge
for more than one year. The City must give notice of such a resolution by including with the notice of
public hearing required by Section 4.02, and including with the notice mailed with the adopted
resolution the following information:
(a) In the case of improvements constructed within the District, the maximum
service charge to be imposed in any year and the maximum number of years
charges imposed to pay for the improvements; and
(b) In the case of operating and maintaining services, the maximum service charges
to be imposed in any year and the maximum number of years charges imposed
to pay for the service, or a statement that the service charges will be imposed
for an indefinite number of years.
The resolution imposing a service charge for more than one year may provide that the maximum
service charge to be imposed in a year will increase or decrease from the maximum amount authorized
in the preceding year based on an indicator of increased cost or a percentage amount established by the
resolution. Each calendar year, a public hearing must be held regarding the imposed service charge.
Notice of the hearing must be given and must be mailed to any individual or business organization
subject to the service charge. The notice must be sent in the manner specified in Section 4.02. The
notice shall include the information specified in Section 4.03(a) through (d). The purpose of the
hearing shall be to allow persons or companies affected by the service charge to testify on any issue
related to the service charge.
SECTION 5. Imposition of Service Charges. Service charges may be imposed on property
within the District at a rate or amount sufficient to produce the revenues required to provide special
services in the District. Except as otherwise provided herein, the service charges imposed shall be
imposed against parcels of real estate within the District in the manner and subject to the procedures in
the Resolution. The service charges shall be imposed annually. Service charges may be collected in
advance of, contemporaneously with, or subsequent to the rendering of services to which the service
charges relate.
SECTION 6. Collection of Service Charges.
6.01 Collection. All service charges may be payable and collected at the same time and in
the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. The Resolution may
provide for other means of collecting service charges.
6.02 Penalty and Interest. When service charges are made payable in the same manner as
provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, service charges not paid on or before the
applicable due date shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax
amounts not paid by the respective date.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 10
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
6.03 Due Date. The due date for a service charge payable in the same manner as ad
valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on
which the service charge is imposed. Service charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to become
payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment
installments. Other service charges imposed may be collected as provided by the Resolution.
SECTION 7. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of service charges collected
exceed the cost of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, all or a portion of
such excess amount shall either be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under
this ordinance or applied to reduce the next year’s service charge levy.
SECTION 8. Advisory Board.
8.01 Composition and Appointment. An advisory board to be known as the Special Service
District Advisory Board consisting of a number of members determined by the City Council, at its
discretion, who are residents of the District or owners (or their representatives) of property within the
District, may be created by the City Council by Resolution. At the time of adopting a resolution, the
City Council may approve a set of By-laws which will govern the advisory board's activities. The City
Council at its discretion may pass a resolution terminating or suspending the advisory board.
8.02 Role of Board. The advisory board shall advise the City Council in connection with
the construction, maintenance, and operation of improvements and the furnishing of special services in
the District. The advisory board shall recommend an annual budget to the City Council. It shall
make recommendations to the City Council on requests and complaints of owners, occupants, and
users of property within the District and members of the public. Before the adoption of any proposal
by the City Council to provide services or impose taxes of service charges within the District, the
advisory board of the District shall have an opportunity to review and comment upon the proposal.
8.03 Removal and Termination. The City Council reserves for itself the right, at its sole
discretion, to remove members of the advisory board, with or without cause, or to disband and
terminate the advisory board before the expiration of the District.
SECTION 9. Veto Powers.
9.01 Notice of Veto Right. Within five (5) days after adoption of the ordinance
establishing the District or a resolution imposing a service charge, the City shall mail a summary of the
ordinance or resolution to the owner of each parcel included within the District and any individual or
business organization subject to the service charge. For the purpose of giving such mailed notice,
owners shall be those shown on the records of the County Auditor. For properties which are tax
exempt or subject to taxation on a gross earnings basis in lieu of property tax and are not listed on the
records of the County Auditor, the owners shall be ascertained by any practical means, and mailed
notice given them.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 11
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
9.02 Content of Notice. The notice must state that the owner, business, or person subject
to the service charge has the right to veto the ordinance or resolution by filing the required number of
objections with the City Clerk before the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The notice
must also state that a copy of the ordinance or resolution is on file with the City Clerk.
9.03 Requirements for Veto.
(a) Veto of Ordinance. If the owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the
land area in the District subject to a service charge based upon net tax capacity
or owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the net tax capacity in the
District subject to a service charge based on net tax capacity file an objection to
this ordinance with the City Clerk before the effective date of the ordinance,
the ordinance does not become effective.
(b) Veto of Resolution - Net Tax Capacity. If the owners of thirty-five percent
(35%) or more of the land area in the District subject to a service charge based
upon net tax capacity or owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the net
tax capacity in the District subject to a service charge based on net tax capacity
file an objection to the resolution imposing a service charge based upon net tax
capacity with the City Clerk before the effective date of the resolution, the
resolution does not become effective.
(c) Veto of Resolution - Other Basis. If thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the
individuals and business organizations subject to a service charge file an
objection to the resolution imposing a service charge on a basis other than net
tax capacity with the City Clerk before the effective date of the resolution, the
resolution does not become effective.
9.04 Effect of Veto. In the event of a veto, no district shall be established during the current
calendar year and until a petition meeting the requirements set forth in this Section for a veto has been
filed.
9.05 Exclusion. The veto powers of this Section do not apply to second or subsequent
years' applications of a service charge that is authorized to be in effect for more than one year under a
resolution meting the petition requirements of Section 3.01 and which has not been vetoed under this
Section 9 for the first years' application.
SECTION 10. Enlargement of District. Boundaries of the District may be enlarged only
after petition, hearing and notices as provided in Minnesota Statutes. Notice must be served in the
original District and in the area proposed to be added to the District. The petition to enlarge the
District must include a request for the imposition of service charges sufficient to provide services to the
property. Petition requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.08 and the veto power of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.09 shall only apply to owners in the area proposed to be added to
the District.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 12
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
SECTION 11. Definitions and Construction. The terms used herein shall be defined as
provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A and this ordinance shall be construed consistently
therewith.
SECTION 12. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th)
day following adoption, which effective date shall be May 7, 2009.
First Reading March 2, 2009
Second Reading March 23, 2009
Date of Publication April 2, 2009
Date Ordinance takes effect May 7, 2009
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 23, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 13
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
EXHIBIT A
PARCELS IN SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
PID ADDRESS
0411721310018 5657 WAYZATA BLVD
0411721310019 1500 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340043 5600 CEDAR LAKE RD
0411721340044 1690 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340045 1650 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340046 1620 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340047 5699 16TH ST W
0411721340049 1700 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340050 5601 16TH ST W
3002924320026 5353 WAYZATA BLVD
3002924320022 5370 16TH ST W
3002924330011 5401 GAMBLE DR
3002924330015 5402 PARKDALE DR
3002924330031 1600 WEST END BLVD
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 14
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 15
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2371-09
AN ORDINANCE CREATING SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
Park Place Boulevard between I-394 and Cedar Lake Road
This ordinance states that a Special Service District will be created for Park Place Boulevard between
Interstate 394 and Cedar Lake Road. The ordinance establishes the Special Service District
boundary, lists the properties that will be included in the district, and describes the services that may
be provided in the District.
This ordinance shall take effect 45 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 23, 2009
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: April 2, 2009
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 16
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SERVICE CHARGE
FOR SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals: Findings.
1.01 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2371-09, (the “Ordinance”) the City created Special
Service District No. 6 for certain property located adjacent to Park Place Boulevard 16th Street and
Wayzata Boulevard with an area approximately bounded by Interstate 394 and Cedar Lake Road. The
specific properties included within this area are identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and generally
depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto (the "District").
1.02 The City has received a petition requesting a public hearing to impose a service charge
from the owners of property within the District (the "Petition").
1.03 The City Council has determined each of the following:
(a) at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the individuals or business organizations
subject to the proposed service charge have signed the Petition;
(b) only owners of property located within the District have signed the Petition;
(c) only owners of property classified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.13 as
commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, or that is vacant land zoned
or designated on a land use plan for commercial, industrial, or public utility
purposes, have signed the Petition; and
(d) notice of a public hearing has been given and a public hearing has been held.
Section 2. Imposition of Service Charge.
2.01 Amount of Service Charge. There is hereby imposed a service charge in the amounts
and against the properties specified on Exhibit "C" attached hereto (the "Service Charge").
The City imposes a service charge, payable in 2010, for special services provided during the period of
January 2010 - December 2010 in a maximum amount of $26,400. A partial service charge in the
amount of $13,205 will be collected in 2009. The maximum service charge in all subsequent years will
be calculated pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.04.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 17
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
2.02 Multi-year Service Charge. The Service Charge imposed by this resolution is for more
than one year. The Service Charge will remain in effect through and including the year 2019 for taxes
payable in said year.
2.03 Calculation of Service Charge. The Service Charge for all costs related to the District
shall be distributed based upon the front feet adjacent to Streetscape improvements to Park Place
Boulevard and the intersections of Wayzata Boulevard, 16th Street West and Gamble Drive for each
parcel within the District and subject to the Service Charge.
2.04 Inflation Adjuster. Commencing with the service charge payable in 2011, the
maximum service charge to be imposed in any year (the "Current Year") will increase from the
maximum authorized budgeted amount for the year immediately preceding the Current Year (the
"Prior Year") based upon the following:
The Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan
Area, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
("Index"), which is published for the date nearest the commencement of the Current
Year (the "Current Year Index"), shall be compared with the Index published for the
date nearest the commencement of the Prior Year (the "Prior Year Index"). If the
Current Year Index has increased over the Prior Year Index, the Maximum Service
Charge shall be increased by multiplying the Maximum Service Charge by a fraction,
the numerator of which is the Current Year Index and the denominator of which is the
Prior Year Index. If the Index is discontinued or revised, such other government index
or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially
the same result as would be obtained if the Index had not been discontinued or revised.
Notwithstanding increases in the Index of greater than five percent (5%), the
Maximum Service Charge shall not increase from any Prior Year to any Current Year
by an amount greater than five percent (5%) of the Prior Year's Service Charge.
2.05 Distribution of Total Service Charge. The distribution of the total Service Charge
among properties within the District and subject to the Service Charge may vary and shall be
recalculated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 2.03 if and to the extent that a parcel
increases or decreases in size by acquisition or sale.
2.06 Use of Revenues. Revenues collected through the imposition of service charges may be
used by the City for any purposes authorized in the Ordinance. Exhibit D contains the services
proposed for funding in 2009 and 2010. The services and the revenues allocated to each service are
subject to change at the discretion of the City.
Section 3. Collection of Service Charges.
3.01 Collection. The Services Charges shall be payable and collected at the same time and
in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes; except that the City
may directly bill owners of parcels located within the District and subject to the Service Charge for the
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 18
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
Service Charge due and payable in calendar year 2009. For purposes of determining the appropriate
tax rate, taxable property or net tax capacity shall be determined without regard to captured or original
net tax capacity under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177 or to the distribution or contribution
value under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473F.08. Any service charge due and payable in calendar year
2009 that remains unpaid as of October 31, 2009, shall be payable and collected at the same time and
in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes in the year 2010.
3.02 Penalty and Interest. Service Charges made payable in the same manner as provided
for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, if not paid on or before the applicable due date, shall
be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax amounts not paid by the
respective date.
3.03 Due Date. The due date for the Service Charge payable in the same manner as ad
valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on
which the service charge is imposed. Service Charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to become
payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment
installments.
Section 4. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of Service Charges collected exceed the cost
of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, all or a portion of such excess
amount shall either be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this resolution
or applied to reduce the next year’s service charge levy.
Section 5. Recording. The City may record this Resolution against parcels located within the
District and subject to the Service Charge for the purpose of providing notice of the Service Charge to
prospective purchasers of such parcels.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th) day following
adoption, which effective date shall be May 7, 2009.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 23, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 19
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
EXHIBIT A
PARCELS IN SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
Parcel Number Address
0411721310018 5657 Wayzata Boulevard
0411721310019 1500 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340043 5600 Cedar Lake Road
0411721340044 1690 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340045 1650 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340046 1620 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340047 5699 16th Street West
0411721340049 1700 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340050 5601 16th Street West
3002924320026 5353 Wayzata Boulevard
3002924320022 5370 16th Street West
3002924330011 5401 Gamble Drive
3002924330015 5402 Parkdale Drive
3002924330031 1600 West End Boulevard
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 20
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 21
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
EXHIBIT C
Annual Budget and Service Charges
Special Service District No. 5
City of St. Louis Park
BUDGET ITEM ESTIMATED ANNUAL BUDGET
Landscape maintenance services (including planting replacement) $11,000
Irrigation system maintenance and repair $5,000
Management $3,250
Decorative lighting (Install) $3,000
Site Maintenance (including infrastructure repair) $1,300
Other Maintenance Services (or non-fixed items) $1,300
Banner installation and removal $1,000
Public Liability Insurance $300
Legal Notices $200
Professional Services $50
General Supplies $0
Electrical service for decorative lighting $0
Total $26,400
PID # ADDRESS FRONT
FEET
2009 SERVICE
CHARGE
2010 SERVICE
CHARGE
0411721310018 5657 Wayzata Blvd 227 $509 $1,018
0411721310019 1500 Park Place Blvd 1,333 $2,990 $5,979
0411721340043 5600 Cedar Lake Rd 477 $1,071 $2,141
0411721340044 1690 Park Place Blvd 210 $471 $941
0411721340045 1650 Park Place Blvd 258 $579 $1,157
0411721340046 1620 Park Place Blvd 234 $526 $1,051
0411721340047 5699 16th St W 235 $527 $1,053
0411721340049 1700 Park Place Blvd 184 $412 $823
0411721340050 5601 16th St W 180 $403 $805
3002924320026 5353 Wayzata Blvd 465 $1,043 $2,086
3002924320022 5370 16th St W 743 $1,667 $3,333
3002924330011 5401 Gamble Dr 210 $471 $942
3002924330015 5402 Parkdale Dr 411 $922 $1,844
3002924330031 1600 West End Blvd 720 $1614 $3,227
Total 5,886 $13,205 $26,400
Notes:
1. The cost allocation formula is based upon linear street front footage.
2. The” 2009 Service Charge” is a partial service charge (half of the estimated annual Service District Budget), because
services will be provided for approximately six months in 2009. The City will mail invoices to property owners to
collect the 2009 Service Charge. Half the 2009 Service Charge will be invoiced in May and the other half in
November 2009.
3. The “2010 Service Charge” shown above is the estimated charge based on the 2009 Service District Budget. The
actual 2010 Service Charge and charges for future years are subject to change based on the annual Service District
Budget and Service Charge Resolution approval. The cost allocation formula is based upon street front footage.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2d) Page 22
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 and Imposition of a Service Charge within the District - Park Place
Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
EXHIBIT D
Proposed List of Services
The City may provide or contract for the following services in the district:
• Cleaning and scrubbing of sidewalks; cleaning of curbs, gutters, alleys, and streets
• Installation, maintenance, removal, and replacement of banners and other decorative items for
promotion of the District
• Poster and handbill removal
• Repair and maintenance of sidewalks
• Maintenance, repair, cleaning, and removal of area directories, kiosks, benches, bus shelters,
newspaper stands, trash receptacles, information booths, bicycle racks
• Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of decorative lighting on area trees
• Cost of electrical service for pedestrian and decorative tree lighting
• Repair of low-level pedestrian lights and poles
• Comprehensive liability insurance for public space improvements
• Watering, fertilizing, maintenance, and replacement of trees, shrubbery, and annual flowers
and perennials on the public right-of-way
• Repair, maintenance and replacement of irrigation system
• Administration
• Maintenance of a reserve fund for operations
• Maintenance of capital improvements
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2e
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:
St. Louis Park Lions Club Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving St. Louis Park Lions Club’s request for placement of 16
sandwich board type temporary signs, and 25 “stick in the ground” type signs in the public right-of-
ways.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to allow signs to be placed in the right of way on a temporary basis?
BACKGROUND:
On February 23, 2009, the City received an application from the St. Louis Park Lions Club for 16
signs to be temporarily placed within the public right-of-way for one week, and 25 small temporary
signs to be placed in the public right-of-way on the day of the event. The council has been granting
a similar request for the Lion’s Pancake Breakfast every year since 2005.
Section 36-362(e)(2) of the Zoning Code states that prohibited signs include, “Signs on or over the
public right-of-way unless the City Council grants permission for a temporary sign on or over the
public right-of-way for a period not to exceed ten days.”
Proposal:
The Lions Club is a non-profit community based organization that provides services and resources to
the people of St. Louis Park. The requested signs advertise the Lions Club’s 52nd Annual Pancake
and Sausage Breakfast to be held on Sunday, April 5, 2009. This activity is a fund raiser intended to
raise revenue to fund those services and resources provided to the residents of St. Louis Park. The
16 larger signs will be displayed as early as March 27, 2009 and will be removed on April 5, 2009.
The 25 smaller signs will be displayed on April 5th only.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2e) Page 2
Subject: St. Louis Park Lions Club Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
The following signs are proposed to be placed within the right-of-way:
# Sign Style Size Location
16 Two-sided sawhorse/sandwich board type 2’ wide x 3’ high A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I
25 Two-sided “stick in the ground” type 2 square feet scattered
If approved, all signs will be placed within the public right-of-way at the locations shown on the
attached sign map. Staff will verify placement to avoid visibility-related issues.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Letter from Lions Club dated February 23, 2009
Sign Plan
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2e) Page 3
Subject: St. Louis Park Lions Club Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
RESOLUTION NO. 09-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ST. LOUIS PARK LIONS CLUB'S
APPLICATION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY SIGNS
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, The St. Louis Park Lions Club made application for the placement of 16
temporary sandwich board type signs and 25 “stick in the ground” type signs within the public right-of-
way; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 36-362(e)(2) of the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, the
City Council may approve the placement of temporary signs within the public right-of-way for a period
not to exceed 10 days;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that the City Council approves the St. Louis Park Lions Club's application for the placement
of 16 sandwich board type temporary signs within the public right-of-way beginning March 27, 2009,
and to be removed immediately following the conclusion of the event on April 5, 2009 and 25 smaller
signs to be displayed on April 5, 2009 only. All signs are to be removed by the end of the day on April 5,
2009.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the size and placement of the 16 sandwich board type
temporary signs are approved as follows:
A. Two 2-foot wide by 3-foot high signs at the intersection of Louisiana Ave. & W14th St.
B. One 2-foot wide by 3-foot high sign on the south side of Cedar Lake Rd just west of Flag Ave.
C. One 2-foot wide by 3-foot high sign on the east side of Texas Ave at the Westwood Junior High
School.
D. Two 2-foot wide by 3-foot high signs at the intersection of Cedar Lake Rd and Zarthan Ave.
E. Two 2-foot wide by 3-foot high signs at the intersection of Minnetonka Blvd and Louisiana Ave.
F. Two 2-foot wide by 3-foot high signs at the intersection of Aquila Ave and Hwy #7.
G. Two 2-foot wide by 3-foot high signs at the intersection of Beltline Blvd and County Rd #25.
H. Two 2-foot wide by 3-foot high signs at the intersection of Excelsior Blvd and Louisiana Ave.
I. Two 2-foot wide by 3-foot high signs at the intersection of Wooddale Ave and Hwy #7.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 23, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2e) Page 4
Subject: St. Louis Park Lions Club Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2e) Page 5
Subject: St. Louis Park Lions Club Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2e) Page 6
Subject: St. Louis Park Lions Club Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2e) Page 7
Subject: St. Louis Park Lions Club Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2f
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:
Vehicle Towing, Impound and Lease Agreements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize execution of Vehicle Towing and Impounding Agreement and Property Lease
Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Randy’s Bobby and Steve’s Auto World.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City retain the services of the recommended contractor to provide towing and impound
services for the City?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park entered into a new Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement effective
January 1, 2005, with All Hours Towing. On October 3, 2006, the City entered into a Lease
Agreement with All Hours Towing related to the City owned property at 5100 Park Glen Road.
This relocation of the impound site was done in conjunction with redevelopment of the former
Golden Auto site where the impound lot had been located.
During 2007 and the first half of 2008, our staff began to experience increasing difficulties with the
performance of All Hours Towing and its employees. In addition, a pattern of delinquency was
developing related to payments owed to the City for rent, real estate taxes and towing contract fees.
During the same time period, numerous meetings were held involving Deputy Chief Kirk
DiLorenzo of the Police Department, Greg Hunt of Community Development, and Chris Hughes
of All Hours Towing in an attempt to remedy the growing list of issues.
When it became clear that All Hours Towing was unable to remedy the service and financial
performance issues, the City Attorney provided direction and drafted documents notifying All
Hours Towing of the termination of both the Lease and Towing/Impound Agreements between the
City of St. Louis Park and All Hours Towing. These notices were served to All Hours Towing on
October 7, 2008.
Staff identified an interim towing contractor, and an interim agreement drafted by the City Attorney
was executed. Randy’s Bobby and Steve’s Auto World has been providing towing and impound
services on an interim basis, and All Hours Towing has vacated the site at 5100 Park Glen Road.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 2
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
In order to put into place a longer term towing and impound arrangement, Staff identified six
towing contractors interested in the tow and impound contract and sent Requests for Information
(RFI’s) to each. Each interested contractor was evaluated based upon the following criteria:
• Suitability – use/lease of City site
• References – current City and private contract customers
• Verification of financial performance and stability
• Ability to meet bond and insurance requirements
• Ability to perform in extraordinary circumstances (i.e., snow events)
• Competitive costs/rate structure.
Based upon the analysis of qualifications and our experiences during the past 5 months, staff is
recommending that this contract be awarded to Randy’s Bobby and Steve’s Auto World. Officers
have been very impressed with the timeliness and professionalism of the employees, and supervisors
have received a number of compliments on the service and reasonableness of the billing practices.
During this last snow season one complaint has been received regarding limited office hours on
weekends for vehicle releases. These hours are the same as they have been for many years, were set
by contract, and are comparable to other suburban impound facilities. Although this complaint
appears to be fairly rare, releases outside of office hours for an additional fee will be offered to
address this concern.
Outlined below are the major business points of the contract arrangements. These business points
are very comparable to what was agreed upon with All Hours Towing and commensurate with what
other comparable cities are doing.
General Summary:
• Towing charge of $115.00
• Additional charge of $25.00 if snow shoveling is required.
• Additional charge of 100.00/hour pro-rated for vehicles above one ton.
• Storage rate of $30.00/day from midnight to midnight
• Administrative fee of $50.00/tow of which $25.00 will be paid to the City monthly
(approximately 1,000 tows per year average)
• Vehicles held by the City subject to seizure will be charged $3.00/day to a maximum
of $540.00.
• City vehicles will be towed without charge.
• Any cars towed in error at the request of the City will be returned to the registered
owner at no charge to the owner or the City.
• All tow prices include street or highway cleanup by the contractor.
• After hours release charge of $100.00.
• Proposed contract duration is three years.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 3
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
Release hours for impounded vehicles:
• Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
• Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Lease Agreement Summary:
• $1,900/month rent with 1% annual increases.
• Real estate taxes will be paid monthly calculated as 30% of monthly rent.
• Duration tied to towing contract.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement
Lease Agreement
Prepared by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 4
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
VEHICLE TOWING AND IMPOUNDING AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT, made as of April 1, 2009, between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a
Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVES AUTO WORLD,
LLP ("Contractor").
The City and the Contractor agree as follows:
1. WORK TO BE PERFORMED
The Contractor agrees to perform the following services upon receipt of a specific request
from the City: To remove, impound and transport, or tow to storage facilities, all stolen,
abandoned, damaged, illegally parked or other vehicles upon proper police request found in
the public streets or elsewhere in the City of St. Louis Park. The Contractor also agrees to
care for and store all such cars when requested by the City and to preserve and deliver them
to the owners or persons entitled to the possession of them upon payment of towing and
storage fees, all in accordance with the provisions of the State and City statutes and
ordinances and these Contract documents. The Contractor represents that the Contractor
has a commitment for and agrees to maintain storage facilities large enough to accommodate
at least two hundred (200) automobiles, at the following location, 7107 126th Street West,
Savage, Minnesota.
2. LEASE OF REQUIRED STORAGE FACILITY
Contractor is leasing from the City a portion of the property commonly referred to as the
Water Tower property located at 5100 Park Glen Road upon which its required storage
facility is located (“Water Tower Property Lease). The City’s early termination of the Water
Tower Property Lease as a result of a default of the Lease terms by Contractor shall
constitute a breach of this Contract entitling the City to early termination pursuant to
Paragraph 13 herein. The early termination of the Water Tower Property Lease as a result of
a MnDOT acquisition shall also terminate this Agreement.
3. TERM
This Contract will be for a term of three (3) years commencing April 1, 2009 and ending
March 31, 2010, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Paragraph 13 of this Contract.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 5
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
4. DUTIES OF THE CONTRACTOR
4.1 The Contractor further agrees to pay all persons furnishing labor, supplies,
equipment, space, or material to the Contractor in and about the performance of this
Contract, these persons to be paid first, out of the amount due the Contractor, its
agents or assigns.
4.2 The Contractor shall take immediate possession of any vehicle duly ordered
impounded by the City and shall tow, not drive, such vehicle to the impounding
storage facility. All vehicles being held for evidential or investigative reasons by the
Police Department may not be released without authorization by the City Manager,
Chief of Police or other designee. Other vehicles may be released as provided herein
without formal authorization from the City Manager or Chief of Police.
4.3 The Contractor shall be responsible to check the theft status of any impounded
vehicle in the Contractor’s possession at least once every week.
4.4 The Contractor also agrees to establish the identity of the registered owners and lien
holders, if any, of impounded vehicles through the Department of Public Safety
automobile titles, insurance papers, and dealer bills of sale.
4.5 It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor, immediately upon the deposit of a
towed vehicle in the storage lot, to send the registered owner and lien holder of
record a notice by certified mail specifying the date and place of the taking, the year,
make, model, and serial number of the vehicle towed and the right to reclaim. Said
notice shall include the procedure for reclaiming the impounded vehicle. The notice
shall comply with Minn. Stat. 168B.06 and any other applicable law. A record of
this notice shall be retained by the Contractor during the term of this Contract, and
for an additional two (2) years after the expiration of this Contract. The cost of this
notice is included in the Contractor’s portion of the administrative fee. If the owner
of the impounded vehicle subject to a lien fails to reclaim the vehicle, the Contractor
shall provide notice to the lien holder, if any, prior to disposition of the vehicle.
Exception: When the vehicle is an abandoned vehicle (as defined by Minnesota law)
more than seven model years of age, is not currently licensed, and is missing vital
component parts, the Contractor may, with the approval of the Chief of Police,
immediately dispose of such vehicle pursuant to Minn. Stat. 168B.01 et. seq. and
any other applicable law.
4.6 The Contractor shall be solely responsible for all matters relating to the operation of
the storage facility as provided for in the City Code. Said storage facility shall be
fenced in a secure manner.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 6
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
4.7 The Contractor agrees to keep safely all impounded vehicles, equipment and
accessories contained therein, and personal property, and, notwithstanding the
foregoing, to retain possession of same until all charges against the impounded
vehicle have been satisfied, and to reimburse the City and the owners for any and all
losses relating thereto. All personal property valued at One Hundred and no/100
Dollars ($100.00) or more shall be removed from the vehicle and stored in a secured
place until returned to the owner at the time said vehicle is released. Personal
property that, in the judgment of the Police Department is necessary for health and
safety purposes, shall be released upon order of the Police Department.
4.8 The Contractor shall be required to keep, in a manner acceptable to the City, a
monthly report of all vehicles towed, released, and still held. The report shall be
forwarded to the Police Department no later than the tenth day of the following
month. The report shall also include the reason why vehicles, if any, towed in the
preceding month have not been released. All clerical, administrative, and late fees
due the City shall be paid no later than the tenth of the month following that in
which the charges accrued.
4.9 To promote the general welfare and safety, in all cases where the Contractor shall fail
to respond to any call for tow trucks within thirty (30) minutes, the City shall be
paid Fifty and no/100 Dollars ($50.00) by the Contractor. If the Contractor fails to
respond within sixty (60) minutes, another vendor may be contacted to provide
services, and the Contractor shall be responsible for the cost of the tow.
4.10 Contractor shall insure that all employees dress in appropriate attire that is clean and
well maintained. Clothing should display the name of the contractor displayed in a
contrasting color visible on the front of the employee’s shirt.
5. TOWING CHARGES
Towing charges for service provided by the Contractor under this Contract shall be $115.00
per tow. The Contractor will not charge additional fees for specific services provided nor
particular circumstances relating to any individual tow. The prohibited fees include, but are
not limited to the following: Show up but not hoisted; show up hoisted and dropped; use of
one dolly; waiting time, regardless of the amount; unusual labor required (e.g., more than
fifty feet off the roadway, in a lake, etc.); and winching more than fifty feet. No additional
administrative fees or charges of any kind, other than those specifically listed in this
Contract, shall be charged. Vehicles which are snowed in and require shoveling by tow truck
operator prior to towing shall be charged a $25.00 labor charge in addition to the standard
towing fee.
Towed vehicles exceeding one ton capacity shall be charged the standard tow fee plus an
additional labor charge pro-rated per hour or part thereof at $100.00 per hour, plus material
costs.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 7
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
The fee charged for storage of towed cars by Contractor will be the sum of $30.00/ per car
space per day, calculated from midnight to midnight.
The Contractor's towing charges shall include an additional administrative fee of fifty and
no/100 dollars ($50.00) per vehicle towed, of which twenty-five and no/100 dollars ($25.00)
per vehicle towed shall be paid to the City monthly, within ten (10) days of the end of each
month, by the Contractor for clerical and administrative expenses of the City. City vehicles
that require towing shall be towed without charge to the City. Contractor will not be liable
to tow oversized City vehicles (i.e. fire trucks and maintenance equipment) without charge.
Vehicles towed and stored pursuant to seizure under state law, at the request of the City,
shall be charged a storage fee by Contractor of $3.00 per day. Contractor’s storage fee and
tow fee for vehicles held pursuant to seizure under state law shall not exceed $540.00 per
vehicle.
Any private cars towed and/or stored in error at the request of the City shall be returned to
the registered owner at no charge to the registered owner or the City.
All tow prices shall include the clean-up of the street or highway by the Contractor.
6. STORAGE AND RELEASE OF IMPOUNDED VEHICLES
Any vehicle directed to be impounded, from the time it is taken possession of by the
Contractor and during the time it is impounded, and until it is reclaimed, shall be
considered to be in the custody of the law, and no work shall be done on it by the
Contractor, nor shall the Contractor permit anyone to do any work on it until the vehicle
has been reclaimed. All vehicles, when ordered released by the City Manager or Police
Department, shall be released to the registered owner without other charges other than the
impounding and storage fees. During the time the vehicle is impounded, the Contractor
shall not permit the owner or other persons to take or remove the vehicle or any parts or
change or repair any parts. All vehicles impounded may be stored in inside garages or in
fenced designated parking lots with a minimum fenced height of six (6) feet.
The Contractor's hours of operation for release of impounded vehicles shall be as follows:
Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon
Sunday and holidays 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Contractor shall allow the vehicle owner to pick up a towed vehicle after Contractor’s hours
of operation by paying an extra $100.00 fee.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 8
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
7. RELEASE FORM
No vehicles shall be released by the Contractor without authorization from the City. No
vehicle shall be released without proper proof of ownership and proof of current automobile
insurance. Vehicles ordered held by the Police Department shall not be released without
written authorization from the Police Department.
At the time of the return of the vehicle, the Contractor shall give a release in writing which
shall state the date of such release together with the charges enumerated thereon and the
purpose for which the charges were made. The release shall be made in one original and two
copies, all of which shall be signed by the Contractor and the person to whom the release is
made. The Contractor shall retain the original of the release and shall deliver one copy to
the owner of the vehicle and one copy to the Police Department.
8. CHARGES FOR OPERATIONS
To the extent allowed by law, all charges for towing and storage shall be secured by a lien
against the vehicle and its contents impounded and carried on account until the sale or other
proper disposition of such vehicle is authorized by the City.
9. COMMUNICATIONS
The Contractor shall provide a constant telephone answering service 24 hours a day, seven
days per week, for the purpose of receiving requests for service pursuant to this Contract.
10. INSURANCE
During the term of this Contract, the Contractor shall secure and maintain all bonds and
insurance policies as will protect them from claims arising out of or as a result of
Contractor's operations under this Contract whether such operations be by Contractor or by
a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any one
of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be held liable. Approval of the
insurance by the City shall not in any way relieve or decrease the liability of Contractor
hereunder, and it is expressly understood that the City does not in any way represent that the
required insurance or liability limits hereunder are sufficient or adequate to protect
Contractor's liabilities, obligations or interests.
Contractor shall furnish City an Insurance Certificate in the form approved by the City's
Risk Assessment Manager and/or City Clerk. Any insurance agent for coverage required by
this Contract shall have in force and effect errors and omissions coverage in limits of not less
than $500,000 per occurrence and $500,000 aggregate. Contractor shall not begin any work
until the City has reviewed and approved the Insurance Certificates and has so notified
Contractor directly in writing. Notice to proceed shall be subject to such approval of the
City. Certificate of Insurance shall show that the required insurance is currently in force,
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 9
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
and providing that said coverage shall not be terminated or changed by the Insurer except
upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the City. Failure to comply with the provisions
of this section shall automatically suspend this Contract until said insurance provisions have
been satisfied. A notice of insurance renewal shall be provided to the City (30) days prior to
the renewal date of this insurance or the annual anniversary date of this Contract. Failure to
provide the City with evidence of renewal shall automatically suspend this Contract until
satisfactory evidence of renewal is provided the City. No policy shall contain any provisions
for exclusion from liability other than the provisions for exclusions from liability forming
part of the standard, basic, unamended and unendorsed form or policy, except no exclusion
will be permitted if it conflicts with the coverage expressly required by this Contract or
which would conflict with or in any way impair coverage under the Contractual coverage
applying to this Contract. Compliance by the Contractor with the foregoing requirements
to carry insurance and furnish certificates shall not relieve Contractor from liability assumed
under any provision of this Contract.
11. LIABILITY
The Contractor will be liable for the loss of or damage to any impounded vehicle, including
equipment thereon, and any personal property or other contents, which loss or damage is
caused by the Contractor, its employees, agents or subcontractors. This liability would take
effect from the time the Contractor or the Contractor’s agent signs the receipt for the vehicle
provided by the Police Department or takes custody of the vehicle by hooking or hoisting,
whichever occurs first. The Contractor shall take all precautions necessary to protect the
public against injury, and will defend and hold the City harmless from all damages and
claims of damage that may arise by reasons of the towing and storage of vehicles pursuant to
this Contract.
12. INDEMNIFICATION
The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents and employees
from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys' fees, which
may be asserted against or incurred by the City or for which the City may be held liable
because of bodily injury including death at any time resulting therefrom, property damage
including loss of use thereof, economic loss of, or any other type of damage arising out of the
performance of this Contract by the Contractor, its employees, agents or subcontractors.
13. EARLY TERMINATION
The City shall have the right to terminate this Contract in the event of breach thereof by the
Contractor, and a continuing breach shall not be deemed to be waived because it was not
followed by prompt termination. Upon breach of this Contract, neither party shall be
entitled to any administrative hearing to establish the fact of default or a party’s right to
terminate. Rather, all parties retain any and all rights at common law to obtain redress for
breach of this Contract. This Contract shall terminate, and neither party nor officer of the
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 10
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
City shall be liable for further performance after such termination if the Contract shall
become invalid by reason of any present or future law other than an ordinance of the City.
14. EXCUSE FOR PERFORMANCE
The work shall be done with resources which are adequate to insure the satisfactory towing
of vehicles under all adverse conditions. Weather, breakdown, and similar hindrance which
on other work might be regarded as "acts of providence" shall not apply to relieve the
Contractor of the responsibility for carrying out the work.
15. PERFORMANCE BOND
The Contractor shall execute and deliver to the City Clerk a letter of credit or a performance
bond executed by a corporate surety company authorized to do business in the State of
Minnesota in the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($25,000.00) to
secure the faithful performance of this Contract by said Contractor conditioned upon that
the Contractor shall well and truly perform and carry out the covenants, terms and
conditions of this Contract in strict accordance with its provisions. This Contract shall be
subject to termination by the City at any time if said bond shall be canceled or if the surety
thereon is relieved from liability because of the Contractor's failure to pay the premium or
upon the occurrence of the expiration of the period of the bond without renewal thereof.
16. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
The Contractor, its successors, executors, administrators, and assigns are bound jointly and
severally to the City in respect to all covenants of this Contract. The Contractor shall not
assign or transfer any part of the Contractor’s interest in this Contract, or sublet as a whole,
nor shall the Contractor assign any moneys due, or to become due, without the City's prior
written consent.
17. SALE AND/OR DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES
When the total of all charges for towing, storage and necessary additional charges equals or
exceeds the value of the vehicle impounded, the Contractor shall sell at sheriff's sale or
dispose of by any other legal means the said vehicle. In disposing of impounded vehicles, the
Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 168B.09, Subd. (1) and
(2) and any other applicable law. The Contractor shall report all transactions of sale or
disposal, and the proceeds received therefrom, to the Office of the City Manager within two
business days. The Contractor shall keep a record of all losses and profits from the sale or
disposal of said vehicles and report annually.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 11
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
18. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
At all times and for all purposes herein, the Contractor is an independent contractor and not
an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so to find the Contractor
an employee of the City.
19. NON-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
During the performance of this Contract, the Contractor shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment or other individual because of race, color, creed,
religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability,
age, sexual preference, or any other basis prohibited by federal, state or local law. The
Contractor shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices
setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified
applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Contractor shall incorporate the
foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontractors for program work, and
will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all
subcontractors for program work.
20. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The Contractor recognizes that the City is an equal opportunity employer and agrees during
the life of this Contract to take affirmative action to provide equal employment opportunity
without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, marital status, sexual
preference, physical or mental disability, membership or activity in a local committee or
status with respect to public assistance.
21. COMPLIANCE
In providing services pursuant to this Contract, Contractor shall abide by all statutes,
ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the performance of this Contract. Failure of
the Contractor to comply with any of the obligations of this Contract shall constitute a
breach of the Contractor's obligations and shall entitle the City to terminate the Contract
and collect all damages, including the arrearages and all costs of collection including
reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 12
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
22. RECORDS AVAILABILITY AND RETENTION
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 16B.06, Subd. 4, Contractor agrees that the City, the State Auditor,
or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and
as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine,
audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are
pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of Contractor and involve transactions
relating to this Contract.
23. DATA PRACTICES
All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated or used for any purposes in
the course of this Contract by any party is governed by the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as amended, the Minnesota Rules
implementing such Act now in force or as adopted, as well as federal regulations on data
privacy.
24. NOTICES
All notices, requests, demands, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and
shall be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed, certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the following addresses:
If to City: City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
With Copy to: St. Louis Park City Attorney
Campbell Knutson, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
If to Contractor: Randy’s Bobby & Steves Auto World, LLP
8100 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 13
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
25. WHOLE AGREEMENT
This Contract embodies the entire agreement between the parties including all prior
understandings and agreements and may not be modified except in writing signed by both
parties.
EXECUTED as of the day and year first written above
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:_____________________________
Tom Harmening, City Manager
CONTRACTOR:
RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVES
AUTO WORLD, LLP
By:_____________________________
Its: _________________________
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 14
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS LEASE (the “Lease”), made as of this 1st day of April, 2009, by and between the CITY
OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), as Lessor and RANDY’S
BOBBY & STEVES AUTO WORLD, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership (“Auto World”),
as Lessee.
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the real property located at 5100 Park Glen Road and
legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Beltline Business Park Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the
“Water Tower Property”); and
WHEREAS, contemporaneously with the execution of this Lease, Auto World is entering into a
Vehicle Towing and Impounding Agreement with the City for a term of three (3) years commencing
on April 1, 2009 and terminating on March 31, 2012 (subject to early termination) (“City Towing
Contract”); and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the City Towing Contract, Auto World is leasing approximately
three-fourths of an acre of the Water Tower Property as shown on Exhibit “A” hereto (“Subject
Property”) from the City, and the City is leasing the Subject Property to Auto World, under the terms
and conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Demise of Subject Property. Subject to and upon the terms, conditions, covenants and
undertakings hereinafter set forth, the City hereby leases to Auto World, and Auto World hereby leases
from the City, the Subject Property.
2. Lease Term. The term of this Lease shall commence on April 1, 2009 and terminate
upon expiration or early termination of the City Towing Contract, except that Auto World shall
have thirty (30) days after such expiration or termination to remove its office trailer and personal
property from the Subject Property and otherwise complete its operations.
3. Rent. The rent for the term of this Lease shall be One Thousand Nine Hundred and
No/100 ($1,900.00) Dollars per month, payable on the first day of each month commencing April 1,
2009, with one percent (1%) annual increases on April 1 and continuing each April 1 through the term
of the Lease.
4. Real Estate Taxes. In addition to rent, Auto World will pay to the City at the time of
each monthly rent payment an additional thirty percent (30%) of the rent payment as reimbursement
to the City for its “payment in lieu of taxes” to Hennepin County.
5. Condition of Subject Property. Auto World accepts the Subject Property in its “as is”
condition existing at the commencement of the Lease term.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 15
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
6. Use. Auto World may use the Subject Property for the operation of its towing business.
No other use will be permitted without the written consent of the City.
7. Maintenance and Upkeep. Auto World is responsible, at its expense, for maintenance
and upkeep of the Subject Property, including, but not limited to fencing, lighting, landscaping, and
snowplowing. Auto World is also responsible, at its expense, for maintenance and upkeep of the asphalt
customer/employee parking areas and driveways into and out of the Subject Property including
sweeping, snowplowing, patching, and seal coating.
8. Utility Charges. During the term of this Lease, Auto World shall pay or cause to be
paid when due all gas, water, steam, electricity, heat, power, sewer, and other charges incurred in the
operation, maintenance, use, occupancy, and upkeep of the Subject Property.
9. Quiet Enjoyment. The City covenants that upon Auto World’ paying the rent reserved
herein, and performing all conditions and covenants set forth in this Lease, Auto World shall and may
peaceably have, hold, and enjoy the Subject Property for the term of this Lease. Auto World covenants
that upon expiration of this Lease, it shall give the City peaceable possession of the Subject Property,
together with the Improvements constructed thereon pursuant to this Lease.
10. Insurance. Auto World will comply with all insurance requirements contained in the
City Towing Contract which are specifically incorporated herein by reference.
11. Indemnification. Auto World will indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all
claims, including attorneys fees and costs, arising out of Auto World’ use of the Subject Property, except
to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of City or its officials, employees,
contractors or invitees.
12. MNDot Acquisition. The parties acknowledge that during the term of this Lease the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDot) may need to acquire by easement or fee title all or
a portion of the Subject Property for storm water ponding purposes. If MNDot acquires all or a
portion of the Subject Property by eminent domain or negotiation, this Lease will terminate in all
respects at the time of such acquisition. Auto World will not be entitled to any compensation paid by
MNDot to the City.
13. Assignment. Auto World may not assign this Lease without the written consent of the
City.
14. Events of Default Defined. Any one or more of the following events shall be an "Event
of Default" under this Lease:
(a) Failure by Auto World to pay any payment required to be paid hereunder at the
time specified herein; and
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 16
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
(b) Failure by either party to observe and perform any covenant, condition or
agreement on its part to be observed or performed.
15. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default shall have happened and be
continuing, the nondefaulting party may take, but only upon not less than five (5) days' written notice
to the defaulting party, one or any combination of the following remedial steps:
(a) If Auto World is in default, the City may: (i) without terminating this Lease, re-
enter and take possession of the Subject Property and exclude Auto World from using the
Subject Property until the Event of Default is cured; or (ii) terminate the Term of this Lease and
exclude Auto World from possession of the Subject Property.
(b) Take any action at law or in equity which may appear necessary or desirable to
enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant contained herein
16. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to either party is
intended to be exclusive and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every
other remedy given under this Lease or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. No delay or
omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power
or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to
time and as often as may be deemed expedient.
17. Binding Effect. This Lease shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon Auto
World and the City and their respective successors and assigns.
18. Severability. In the event any provision of this Lease shall be held invalid or
unenforceable by any court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision hereof.
19. Amendments, Changes and Modifications. This Lease may be amended or any of its
terms modified only by written amendment authorized and executed by the City and Auto World.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 17
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
20. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Lease, a notice, demand,
or other communication under the Lease by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or
delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or
delivered personally, to the following addresses (or to such other addresses as either party may notify the
other):
To Auto World:
To City: City of St. Louis Park
Attn: City Manager
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2518
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease as of the date first
above written.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
By:
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of __________, 2009, by
Jeffrey W. Jacobs and Thomas K. Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis
Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority
granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 18
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
RANDY’S BOBBY & STEVES
AUTO WORLD, LLP
By:
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ______________,
2009, by _____________________, the _________________ of Randy’s Bobby & Steves Auto
World, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership, on behalf of said partnership.
Notary Public
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2f) Page 19
Subject: Vehicle Towing and Impound Agreement. Property Lease Agreement for 5100 Park Glen Road
EXHIBIT “A”
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2g
MINUTES
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
February 2, 2009 – 8:30 a.m.
COMMUNITY ROOM, 1ST FLOOR CITY HALL
1) The meeting was called to order at 8:34 a.m. by Commissioner MacMillan.
2) In attendance were Commissioners William MacMillan and Marjorie Douville. Also
present were Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator/Staff Liaison; Eric Bakken, Union
President; Mark Nelson, Fire Captain; Shawn Glapa, Fire Lieutenant; Luke Stemmer, Fire
Chief; and Mike Dobesh, Mark Windschitl, and Cary Smith, Assistant Chiefs.
3) Commissioner Douville was named President of the Commission in accordance with state
statute.
4) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by President Douville, to
appoint Commissioner Lee as Secretary of the Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
5) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by President Douville, to
accept the minutes from the June 5, 2008 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
6) Chief Stemmer presented his Annual Report (attached) on activities in the Fire Department
for 2008. General discussion followed the Chief’s report.
7) Chief Stemmer discussed upcoming recruitment for 2009. Even though the department
currently does not have any vacancies, the eligibility lists for Firefighter and Fire Captain
will be expiring and it is important to keep those lists current. The Commissioners will be
asked to meet again in the spring to approve recruitment processes for these positions.
8) In other business, Staff Liaison Ali Fosse provided Commissioners with a Private Data
Release form that the City Clerk’s office is providing to all board and commission members.
Commissioners can voluntarily complete this form for the City to keep on file.
9) A motion was made by President Douville, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan to
adjourn the meeting. The Commission adjourned at 9:20 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2g) Page 2
Subject: Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes February 2, 2009
Fire Civil Service Commission Report
Luke Stemmer: Fire Chief
I. Introduction
I would like to share with the Commission the following report of the Department’s activities in FY
2008.
II. Fire Statistics 2008
2008 2007 2006 2005
Structure Fires 61 61 83 48
Other Fires 46 71 58 60
Rescue/Emergency Medical 3,200 2,959 3,032 2,741
False Alarms 293 314 322 312
Mutual Aid Given 67 62 61 54
Hazmat Responses 77 76 74 60
Other Hazardous Responses 66 111 80 118
All Other Responses 654 619 540 576
Total for all Incidents 4,464 4,273 4,252 3,970
III. Major Structure Fires 2008
March 15, 2008 - 6300 Cambridge St.
Call came in at 0502 hours as a structure fire with possible people still inside. On arrival
crews found fire coming out of a first floor window on the northeast corner of a two story
duplex. Crews from Ladder 1 & Engine 2 along with Police were able successfully
extinguish the fire and rescue a mother and two children from the burning building. All
three were removed unconscious and suffering from severe smoke inhalation. They were
transported to HCMC in critical condition where they were successfully treated and released
after several days. In all, 16 people were affected by this fire which started in the kitchen
from unattended cooking, the number one cause of fires in St. Louis Park.
St. Louis Park Fire Department
February 2, 2009
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2g) Page 3
Subject: Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes February 2, 2009
March 16, 2008 - 1405 Oregon
Call came in at 0702 hours from a passer-by as a fully involved house fire. On arrival crews
found a fully involved house with fire already burning through the floor and the roof.
Personnel were successful in stopping the spread of the fire to the neighbor’s house, which
was only ten feet away. Tragically after the fire was extinguished, the remains of the owner
were discovered still inside the residence. The house was completely destroyed.
July 18, 2008 - 2844 Dakota
This call also came in as a house fire and when crews arrived they found heavy smoke
coming from the side door and the eves. This was soon replaced with flames from the
basement fire, which worked its way up the stairs and through the floor registers. The
owner was home alone and was able to exit the residence without incident. Damage to the
house and contents was estimated to be in the $65,000 range.
October 28, 2008 - 4145 Salem Ave. So
Another basement fire, this one came in at 2048 hours and on arrival crews had heavy
smoke coming from the front. Upon entering the structure they determined that parts of
the first floor had already burned away the floor was starting to sag. Crews were able to gain
entry at another point and successfully extinguish the fire. Of note is the fact that we were
doing a joint training with Minnetonka who responded with an Engine and Ladder along
with Hopkins and Edina who are part of our regular first alarm assignment. Equipment was
lined up two deep for almost a whole city block.
December 17, 2008 - 4047 Utica
Called in by a neighbor at 1324 hours. Crews on arrival found heavy fire coming from a
basement egress window. Hampered by downed power lines and a frozen hydrant they were
able to contain the fire to the basement, but because of the long burn time (no one was
home at the time of the fire) the house suffered extremely heavy smoke damage throughout.
Although smoky, all of the Christmas presents were rescued. Damage was estimated to be
approaching $150,000.
III. Fire Prevention Bureau
• The Fire Prevention Bureau issued 220 permits with a valuation of $2,445,439. The largest
of these projects is the West End project in the northeast corner of the city.
• Crews continue to do company inspections of all businesses. In 2008 the fire department
conducted 529 company inspections. These walk through inspections allow them to
familiarize themselves with the structure while doing code enforcement. We are scheduled
to get through every business once every three years
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2g) Page 4
Subject: Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes February 2, 2009
IV. Fire Department Technology
• We continue to work on mounting mobile computers in all the first run apparatus.
Firehouse, our main database, has now come out with a mobile application which is much
improved. With the termination of the city’s WiFi endeavor, we will be returning to
cellular wireless connections.
V. Fire Equipment
• There were no major equipment purchases made in 2008.
VI. Mutual Aid
• We are now doing automatic mutual aid/auto aid with five cities: Edina, Hopkins, Golden
Valley, Plymouth and Minnetonka. This program continues to be successful by front
loading our fires personnel and equipment. To quote a famous firefighter we “Go ugly
early.”
VII. Staffing
• 2008 was the year we renewed the Lieutenant’s list and with the retirement of Lieutenant
Dale Antonson, promoted Eva Schlegel to replace him in the Fire Office. With Eva’s
promotion a position was opened in our firefighter ranks and Mike Lindblom, one of our
paid-on-call firefighters was hired to fill the position.
• With the hiring of Mike Lindblom to the career division, the Paid-On-Call numbers have
dropped down to 17. This puts us 7 below our budgeted strength. Budget constraints have
put hiring on hold for now.
VIII. Programs
• The File of Life program was kicked off at the June, 2007 Fire Open House and was
financed through a grant from Target Corporation. This program was established to help
Police and First Responders to provide service when a person may not be able to
communicate effectively due to a medical reason or personal injury. The kit includes a
magnetized refrigerator folder and an information card to indicate health problems,
medications, allergies, emergency contacts, etc. The kit costs $2.00 per household. In
2008, 80 households purchased a kit and $160.00 has been generated. This keeps the
program self sufficient financially. We will continue to market this program through the
city website, Park Perspectives, neighborhood groups and various other groups and
organizations, fire events and apartment/condo communities.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2g) Page 5
Subject: Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes February 2, 2009
• Our Child Car Seat Safety Program continues to be in high demand by both residents and
non-residents. Previously we held two car seat clinics per month and were scheduled out at
least six weeks in advance. In mid-2008 seven additional people from the fire department
(career, paid on call and administration) went to training to become certified in car seat
installation. We now have 10 people who provide car seat installations, which has greatly
helped with the scheduling backlash. We are now able to provide numerous clinics each
month. We also now require pre-payment of car seat appointments and use the city’s secure
credit card line to handle the credit card transactions. This has virtually eliminated “no
shows” for appointments, which was a big problem previously (approximately 40% did not
show up for their appointment). There were approximately 100 car seat inspections
provided in 2008, which generated $2,340.00 ($25.00 for the first car seat and $10.00 for
each subsequent car seat).
• Although not a program the Fire Department continues to provide training for city
employees in CPR, First Aid, and Right to Know.
IX. Stations
• It has been decided that Station 1 will be rebuilt on its existing site. In order to expand the
site the city has purchased the three houses immediately to the south of the existing station.
It has also been decided that the utilities department, which is currently in the basement of
the station, will be moved to the Municipal Service Center (MSC) on Oxford St.. This
creates another problem, as there currently is no room for them at this location. To deal
with this issue, the city has done a needs assessment of the facility and is currently working
with an architect to design an expansion the will double the size of the facility.
• We continue to work on the site for Station 2. The option of working with the developer
has been dropped as we were unable to work within their tight development schedule. We
are continuing to look at the possibility of expanding into Northside Park and have been
meeting with neighborhood and athletic associations to explain the impact such an
expansion will have on the park. Elliot still remains an option but it comes with about a 4
million dollar price tag.
• It is hoped that construction can start this summer on the MSC expansion, with completion
scheduled fore 2010. At that time, Station 1 will be moved into part of the new MSC space
to allow for the demolition and rebuilding of the station. The new facility should be
completed in 2011, allowing for the demolition and start of Station 2. To make this all
possible, we will have to start planning the station design this summer, so that we are ready
to break ground with a station as soon as the MSC is complete.
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2h
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Renee Fitzgerald,
Trinicia Hill
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kathy Larsen, Kevin Locke, Teresa Schlegel,
Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for January, 2009
The Board minutes of January 14, 2009 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Review of Proposed 2009 CDBG Allocation
Ms. Larsen stated that the City is expected to receive $203,450 in federal Community
Development Block Grant (CBBG) funds in 2009. The funds will be allocated primarily
between single family housing rehab, multi-family housing rehab and public services.
b. Approval of Public Housing Utility Allowances, Resolution No. 579
Ms. Schlegel explained the new utility allowance schedule for the scattered site public
housing program. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve Resolution No. 579,
Amendment of the Leasing and Occupancy Plan, Appendix C, Utility Allowances for
Scattered Site Public Housing Program. Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion,
and the motion passed 4-0.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2h) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes February 11, 2009
c. Approval of Public Housing Budget, Resolution No. 580
Ms. Schnitker presented the Public Housing Operating Budget for fiscal year ending
March 31, 2010, along with the Schedule of Nonroutine Expenditures and Funding
System Operating Subsidy. After discussion, Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to approve
Resolution No. 580, Resolution of the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park Approving
the Public Housing Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2010.
Commissioner Fitzgerald seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List February – 2009
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report for February – 2009
2. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
3. Draft Financial Statements
Ms. Schnitker stated that two persons have indicated an interest in serving as HA Commissioner.
Council interviews of the applicants will take place Tuesday, February 17th.
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Hill seconded the
motion. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Renee Fitzgerald, Secretary
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2i
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:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period February 28 through March 13, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
107.02TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
48.60GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
155.62
5,202.46EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTAAA-LICENSE DIVISION
5,202.46
256.41GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSACTION FLEET INC
256.41
203.85EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION RESOURCES CORP
203.85
402.50REILLY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAECOM INC
1,160.00SAMPLINGGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
12,032.97STUDIESGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
13,595.47
12.11GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSAMERICAN PRESSURE INC
12.11
57.87GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
137.70PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
433.22PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
95.92ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
88.58VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
78.31WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
78.30SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
969.90
182.46FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
182.46
890.14BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
890.14
784.43GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
417.84ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,202.27
30.95COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEAT&T
30.95
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,797.16WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
2,797.16
228.00TV PRODUCTION REPAIRSAVI SYSTEMS INC
228.00
1,950.00SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBARR ENGINEERING CO
1,950.00
466.47SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
466.47
89,026.00SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION CURRENTBELTLINE THREE LLC
89,026.00
176.65ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
176.65
112.00INSPECTIONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLOOMINGTON, CITY OF
112.00
1,821.00PE INVES/REVIEW/PERMITS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,821.00
411.73VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBRO TEX INC
411.73
2,062.50BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBUMGARNER, DON
2,062.50
861.12GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESBURTON EQUIPMENT
861.12
9,046.13ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
15.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
9,061.63
130.04WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSESCANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
130.04
2,183.28DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,183.28
3,065.17DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
743.09APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
3,808.26
4,829.47FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
2,695.21PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
300.51WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
357.42NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
414.65GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A HEATING GAS
9,177.84WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
465.64REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
1,062.07SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
19,302.81
10,400.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,400.00
41.88GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
41.76WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
83.64
20.55HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSECITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
54.10INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
239.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A TRAINING
150.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
6.93ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
78.81BROOMBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
596.99PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
339.10BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
521.85HOCKEYGENERAL SUPPLIES
2,007.33
188.30CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
188.30
15,103.68ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
15,103.68
103.50VOICE SYSTEM MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECOLLINS COMMUNICATIONS
103.50
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
31,408.60ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE IDEA INC
23,652.40CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
5,116.91CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
60,177.91
90.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSCOSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP
90.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
180.00
218.33EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTCRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC
218.33
201.45POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
37.83NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETING EXPENSE
239.28
285.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCURRAN-MOORE, KIM
285.00
528.02GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSCUSTOM HOSE TECH INC
528.02
276.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONCZAPAR, KIMBERLY
276.00
1,068.00NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTD&B POWER ASSOCIATES INC
1,068.00
300.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDAHL, STEPHEN
300.00
726.33WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
726.33
508.34BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
508.34
764.34POLICE G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTDELAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVIC
764.34
3,866.36INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,866.36
21,312.67POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
21,312.67
100.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSDOHMAN, WARD
100.00
1,470.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELERT & ASSOCIATES
1,470.00
77.33ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
77.33
48.75TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEEMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC
48.75
56,545.33CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIENCOMM MIDWEST
56,545.33
514.40STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
514.40
35,684.59SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
35,684.59
26.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
243.32PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
269.85
16.01GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSFASTENAL COMPANY
48.95WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
64.96
234.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC
234.80
519.69GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFORKLIFTS OF MN INC.
1,043.80TRAININGTRAINING
1,563.49
828.80EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONFORSTER, JAY
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
828.80
300.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGENESIS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INC
300.00
700.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGHIZONI, DAVE
700.00
1,750.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTGLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL
1,750.00
300.00POLICE G & A TRAININGGLOCK PROFESSIONAL INC
300.00
158.24VOLLEYBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESGLS SPORTS EQUIPMENT EXPERTS
158.24
1,085.98FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESGOPHER SIGN
1,085.98
117.14BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
398.48BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
515.62
600.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE COMPUTER SERVICESGREEN, HOWARD R COMPANY
600.00
431.33TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEHAINES TREE SERVICE, B J
431.33
250.00BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
250.00
6,439.24WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
140.15WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
6,579.39
5,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHELMBRECHT, JOSHUA
5,000.00
300.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
300.00
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6,436.72POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
2,469.05SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
88.44PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
315.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
9,309.21
1,950.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
1,950.00
33.33DAMAGE REPAIR SMALL TOOLSHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
21.28PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
54.61
43.04WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
43.04
10.60GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
34.05PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
14.32BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.57WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
47.73WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
63.83WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
15.94SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
196.04
120.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTI/O SOLUTIONS INC
120.00
400.00TRAININGTRAININGIMSA MIDWESTERN SECTION
400.00
13.58SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSINDELCO
58.44SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
72.02
87.51BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDUSTRIAL CONTROLS DISTRIBUTO
87.51
97.93GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M
97.93
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
285.00OPERATIONSTRAININGINVER HILLS COMM COLLEGE
285.00
384.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SHAWN
384.00
64.95FACILITIES MCTE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSJOURNAL OF LIGHT CONSTRUCTION
64.95
111.27GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESK & K SALES
111.27
117.00ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
5,009.00ESCROWS
5,126.00
100.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSKRAAYENBRINK, CHAD
100.00
167.90GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSKREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT INC
167.90
119.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEKRUGE-AIR INC
119.00
557.29PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESLAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS
557.29
124.84PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSLANO EQUIPMENT INC
183.44GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
308.28
3.07FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESLARSON, JH CO
3.07
4,250.00POLICE G & A TRAININGLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
75.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
4,325.00
96,491.25EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
9,049.71UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
105,540.96
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
37.75POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
37.75
33.55ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLOMBARDI, JIM
33.55
450.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMAAO
450.00
2,374.08GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
2,374.08
25.00TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMACTA
25.00
337.50BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMADISON, CHARLES
337.50
37.50BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMADISON, DANIEL
37.50
280.07REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMANAGED SERVICES INC
280.07
137.50BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCCHESNEY, CHARLIE
137.50
64.75WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
60.71VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELS
125.46
55.00BASKETBALLPROGRAM REVENUEMELLOH, KRISTIN
55.00
16.50PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
16.50
424.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
424.00
51,480.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
285,423.79OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
336,903.79
102,277.83CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
2,345.93WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
104,623.76
371.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
371.00
53.59POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINNESOTA CHIEFS POLICE ASSOC
5.20POLICE G & A POSTAGE
58.79
25.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA CONSERVATION VOLUNTE
25.00
21,541.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
21,541.00
112.13WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMINVALCO INC
112.13
695.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAININGMOBIUS INC
695.00
50.00ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUORMOST HOLY TRINITY
50.00
150.00BASKETBALLSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMRPA
150.00
33,814.45PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING
33,814.45
.09GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
566.34GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
20.97GENERAL REPAIR OTHER
17.02WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
604.42
26,941.25EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTNELSON AUTO CENTER
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
26,941.25
519.56WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY
519.56
205.18GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSNUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
205.18
500.00ANIMAL CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
70,286.88OFFICE EQUIPMENT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESOERTEL ARCHITECTS
70,286.88
182.83ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
105.55HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
13.41GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
59.25POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
55.14SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES
92.48PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.58PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.59PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.58VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
105.34SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
672.75
49.50INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
49.50
494.24PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
494.24
55.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPARK NICOLLET CLINIC
10.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
3,434.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,499.00
21.66ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEPETTY CASH
1.59POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
26.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
13.00TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
19.32INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
18.99PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
17.09PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
18.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
4.16WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
20.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
159.81
101.18GENERAL REPAIR TIRESPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
265.93GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
367.11
352.13PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
352.13
3,900.00COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
226.71WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
226.71SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
226.72SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
226.71STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
4,806.85
1.31-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPRECISION MOUNTING TECHNOLOGIE
21.41VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
20.10
195.70WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
195.70SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
195.70SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
195.68STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
782.78
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWREA, MATT
1,000.00
21.60WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF M
21.60
157.87VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB DISCOVER
35.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
192.87
51,677.96PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
51,677.96
38.00HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAININGSENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION
38.00
160.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESENSUS METERING SYSTEMS
160.00
260.10FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHEEHAN, ALEEAH
260.10
181.69GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
77.48-PAINTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
104.21
160.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSHRM
160.00
380.00BROOMBALLPROGRAM REVENUESMITH, ANN
380.00
80.30ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSONGLE, LISA
18.15HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
98.45
259.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TRAININGSOUTH METRO PUBLIC SAFETY TRAI
259.00
2,172.68DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
2,172.68
245.38BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
245.38
798.32ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
8,796.03PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
8,626.46PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
84,409.75PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,961.88CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
25,885.21CE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
130,477.65
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,300.00HOUSING REHAB G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK SCHOOLS
3,300.00
232.96POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSTAR TRIBUNE
232.96
32.54OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIESSTEMMER, LUKE
32.20OPERATIONSTRAINING
64.74
1,797.19TECHNOLOGY REPLACE G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESTRATEGIC INSIGHTS CO
1,797.19
2,167.22EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTSTREICHER'S
2,167.22
9,250.07REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
9,250.07
700.71ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
700.71
725.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWEELEY, DAVID
725.00
41.39NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETING EXPENSETARGET BANK
41.39
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
97.00
384.63ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
384.63
2,506.00ESCROWSDuke Construction-Mps West TSTKDA
296.00ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICES
2,802.00
488.56GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSTOWMASTER
488.56
2,575.14SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
9,270.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,264.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,109.14
27.63GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSTWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO
27.63
24.39WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
24.39
409,199.50CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC
409,199.50
650.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVANG, WILLIAM
650.00
118.25ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
118.25
1,360.44VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
72.10COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,432.54
1,389.20WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
1,389.20
22,026.06WOLFE LAKE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOLFE LAKE ASSOCIATION
22,026.06
9,209.31FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
223.01PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
341.55WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
12,077.45ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
852.86WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
19.23OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
110.75OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
22,834.16
175.88BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
175.88
107.19GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSZIEGLER INC
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
3/11/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:54:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
3/13/2009 -2/28/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
107.19
606.66ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
606.66
Report Totals 1,816,173.62
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2j
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:
Resolution Electing To Not Waive The Statutory Tort Limits For Liability Insurance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution electing to not waive the statutory tort limits for liability insurance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
If the City does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover
no more than $400,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total which all
claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence would be limited to $1,200,000.
BACKGROUND:
Each year the Council is required to pass a resolution indicating if they wish to waive or not waive
the monetary limits on municipal tort liability insurance established by Minnesota Statute 466.04.
The statutory liability limits for claims that occur after January 1, 2008 and before July 1, 2009 are
$400,000 per claimant and $1,200,000 per occurrence.
The City must decide whether to not waive the statutory tort limits, waive the limits and purchase
excess liability coverage, or waive the limits and not purchase excess liability coverage.
If the city does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to
recover no more then $400,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total
which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits
apply would be limited to $1,200,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether
or not the city purchases the optional excess liability coverage.
If the city waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a
single claimant could potentially recover up to $1,200,000 on a single occurrence. The total which
all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply
would also be limited to $1,200,000, regardless of the number of claimants.
If the city waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single
claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total
which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits
apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of
claimants.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2j) Page 2
Subject: Resolution Electing To Not Waive The Statutory Tort Limits For Liability Insurance
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City of St. Louis Park has elected to not waive the statutory tort limits and the City has not
purchased excess liability coverage in the past. Staff recommends continuing this practice and not
waiving the statutory limits.
The following resolution allows the statutory tort limits to remain in place until the Council changes
this election.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2j) Page 3
Subject: Resolution Electing To Not Waive The Statutory Tort Limits For Liability Insurance
RESOLUTION NO. 09-____
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO NOT WAIVE THE STATUTORY TORT LIMITS FOR
LIABILITY INSURANCE
WHEREAS, pursuant to previous action taken, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
has requested the City to make an election with regards to waiving or not waiving its tort liability
established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and
WHEREAS, the choices available are to not waive the statutory limit, to waive the limit but to
keep insurance coverage at the statutory limit, or to waive the limit and to add additional insurance
coverage;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the St. Louis Park City Council does hereby
elect to not waive the statutory tort liability limit established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04 and that
such election is effective until amended by further resolution of the St. Louis Park City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 23, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2k
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 7, 2009--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis
Morris, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person and Carl Robertson
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Vice Chair Morris called the meeting to order.
2. Minutes: None
3. Other Business
A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Commissioner Johnston-Madison nominated Commissioner Kramer as Chair.
Commissioner Kramer nominated Commissioner Person as Vice-chair.
There were no other nominations.
The nominations were approved on a vote of 5-0.
B. Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development
The Ellipse on Excelsior
Location: Northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue
Applicant: Bader Development
Case Nos.: 08-35-S, 08-36-PUD
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and discussed the site and code requirements. SRF
Consulting Group did a traffic analysis and found that the surrounding road system was adequate to
handle the proposed traffic generated from the site. Several conditions of approval were included in
the recommendation. There was discussion at the last meeting about fire and emergency vehicles
and an auto turn study was done showing they could adequately make it through the site. The
applicant updated the shadow study and it meets the zoning code requirements.
Chair Kramer asked if all questions and elements under contention were met.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
Mr. Walther replied that was correct. Several detailed items were included in conditions of
approval.
Commissioner Morris indicated one of the items of discussion was the possibility of a transit shelter
on the plaza on Excelsior.
Mr. Walther replied it was not provided in this plan. A public art process to review integrating
public art into the plaza space would begin soon. One of the ideas the developer had considered was
a transit stop incorporating public art, but that had not been decided and was not part of the
approvals.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat and
Final Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
4. Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit and Variances for Construction of Communication Tower
Location: 2301 Brunswick Avenue South
Applicant: Christopher Dahl
Case No.: 08-25-CUP, 08-51-VAR
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He said a neighborhood
meeting was held and nine residents attended. They primarily discussed lights, height and
interference. There have been complaints of interference on household appliances such as
telephones and garage door openers since the four antennas were put up in 1960. A study was
done by the City’s consulting engineer on communications technologies. He displayed a slide with
the range of interference expected from the existing AM stations and the proposed FM station. The
existing AM station would reach approximately .36 miles from the antenna, the interference
contour. Any properties within that dimension could experience interference, which included
approximately 350 households. The FM antenna was more powerful and the interference contour
extends from the antenna as far as 1.22 miles and included 8,000 households.
Mr. Morrison recommended four motions as noted in the staff report.
Commissioner Morris asked what remedy is typically given should a significant amount of
complaints be received about interference? Was it an FCC issue, a civil issue or within the realms of
the City Council?
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
Garrett Lysiak, the city’s consultant, responded the interference issue was handled by the FCC. He
was previously employed with the FCC and didn’t think there would be problems with telephones
with this FM station in a residential area. He would think the interference mechanism on this type
of tower would be close proximity FM receivers and the ability of the receivers to pick up other
stations. In his experience, all of the interference that would be generated by this facility could be
remedied. He didn’t think there would be a lot of complaints. There are several thousand FM
stations operating across the country and they are not being inundated with complaints about
interference.
Commissioner Morris stated if it did occur, what remedy the citizens have?
Mr. Lysiak responded the normal process would be the public would complain to the radio station.
They are required by FCC rules to take care of all interference problems at no cost to the public
within the first year. What he had seen is that they normally investigate the complaint and try to
find the problem. The next step would be that the City would write to the FCC who would refer it
back to the radio station.
Commissioner Morris asked for further clarification about the federal licenses and if the hearings are
annual.
Mr. Lysiak replied licenses were usually for eight years.
Commissioner Carper asked about the setback variance and if there were homes in the residential
district.
Mr. Morrison replied the code requires it to be set back from the residential district. The
measurements are taken from the tower to the district boundary. He had included information on
the distance from the tower to the actual developed property; to the east it is met.
Commissioner Carper noted that the boundary to the northeast is currently owned by the applicant
and the site consists of both IP zoning and R-3 Zoning.
Mr. Morrison replied that was correct, also the area shown as R-3 is DNR wetland and wouldn’t be
developed.
Commissioner Carper stated to the south there is another R-3 property and part of it is located
within a flood plain, but part of the southwest was not. Was that privately owned property?
Mr. Morrison responded he didn’t believe it was owned by the City because it was not put into the
Park and Open space district.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, believed it was owned by the railroad.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
Commissioner Carper asked if areas that were not in a wetland or flood plain could be developed for
residential.
Mr. Morrison replied there is very little area that could be developed.
Chair Kramer noted when they had a study session with Mr. Lysiak he made a distinction between
what some people call interference, but he said it was something else.
Mr. Lysiak replied he believed it was overload. Interference is normally meant to mean that it occurs
on all devices (i.e. all radios tuned to 100 MHz would hear it). The FCC considers interference to
home entertainment equipment, which is really overloaded. A telephone is not supposed to act like
a radio. It is defined by the FCC.
Chair Kramer asked if one home got interference and 100 didn’t, what would be the response from
the appropriate party? Mr. Lysiak replied an example would be that he had gone to two or three
homes in Sunset Ridge for telephones and he went there with a plain touch-tone telephone and
plugged it in to the phone. If it didn’t receive the problem, they felt it was the device. A radio
station is required by FCC rules to demonstrate that good reception is possible. A normal radio
should get reception. If there is a problem, the radio station has to remedy the problem.
Chair Kramer asked what the timeline is for this application.
Mr. Morrison responded the application was started almost 120 days ago and expires on January
30th.
Chair Kramer asked if the City discussed and clarified its height policies during that time period.
Mr. Morrison replied yes.
Chair Kramer asked if the antennae would have been allowed prior to the text changes.
Mr. Morrison replied there were some interpretation issues, but the idea was that the interpretation
the applicant was making was that the way the code was written they could get a CUP up to any
height.
Chair Kramer asked if the request for 284 feet was an interpretation issue.
Mr. Morrison replied yes, so that process was never followed. The ordinance was clarified and
amended to199 feet.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
Christopher Dahl, 5404 Interlachen Blvd, applicant, indicated he first met with City Council on
July 2nd of last year. His first contact with the City was in February of last year. He discussed the
setbacks as Mr. Morrison described. The intention is for visual purposes. It was difficult to comply
with the setback when part of his property was zoned residential and sat entirely in wetlands. The
other property zoned residential also exists in wetlands and is owned by the City and the railroad.
On the question of the 85-foot height variance, he wanted the Commission to consider that he had
suffered a serious hardship regarding this issue. His application was made under the old ordinance
that arguably would have permitted an increased height by CUP and not by variance. When he
agreed to the freeze that the City Council requested at its July 7th meeting, it was his understanding
that the present ordinance would be clarified and would accommodate this height request. Had he
not in good faith agreed to the freeze, he truly believed he would have his CUP now and the tower
could be under construction.
The idea of property values had come up. With the exception of the four towers on this property, it
had remained unchanged since the time the City was incorporated. Few of any privately owned land
parcels of this size in the City could make that claim. The present use of the property provides a
view easement to the surrounding residents as well as all of the residents of the Park, which he
thought had increased the value and enjoyment of the property surrounding it. If it were to be
further redeveloped as an industrial site in the areas where it could possibly be developed, which he
didn’t intend to do, he thought it would severely impact the value of the surrounding properties.
His property is buffered by numerous mature hard woods.
Mr. Dahl continued by saying for almost 37 years, until 1997, these towers had been lit. One of the
issues of concern on the replacement tower is because of the 84 foot increase, it would require three
red lights on the side of approximately 110 watts each, equal to a night light in front of a house.
The top light would be fading in and out red light and would be on at night. A question had been
brought up about air safety and about medical helicopters and plane accidents. In his many years he
had only seen a few such accidents, but it would seem to support the idea that at least one of the four
towers should be lit even now. With the replacement tower, that potential issue would be solved.
The reason for 284 feet, they had originally talked about 400 feet, the FAA made the determination
that this is the maximum height they could go with the FM tower without interfering with air traffic
in and around the Twin Cities.
Jared Andrews, Loucks Associates, consultant, stated he had submitted justification to the variance
criteria. It was important to point out there are unique physical attributes. It is unique both in its
distance from developed residential and developable residential. The other property owned by the
railroad could not be developed. He distributed information showing that they are 672’ from the
nearest residential property in Sunset Ridge. The setback from property line is about 500’ and to
the south it was 366’ to the railroad. There is a significant amount of wetland that cannot be
developed. The hardship is based on the change of ordinance due to the height and it was based on
the physical attributes of the property and the distances from residential. They are unique
circumstances both in physical aspects of the property and the application process itself. The
variance was also necessary for the continual viable use of the site as a tower site. Mr. Dahl has to be
able to use his property in the highest and best use under what the ordinance allows.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
Mr. Andrews said in looking at what is permitted and conditionally permitted, they felt this met the
intent of the ordinance. It has existed since 1960 and is there today. Mr. Dahl wants to continue
that use, which requires very little additional investment and very little additional impact in order to
keep the property viable with this application.
Mr. Andrews displayed a photo simulation of the heights and lighting. They felt this was not
contrary to the intent of the ordinance and Comp Plan. They wouldn’t put up a fifth tower. This
tower would require 85 additional feet, which would be 284 feet tall, to meet the coverage
objectives. It was a real hardship that occurred when the City changed the ordinance. They had
come to a point where they felt that the City hadn’t really seen the application. When they were
looking at an ordinance and adopting it, they were unable to demonstrate their hardship and
uniqueness of the property. It was important to point out by granting these variances, they weren’t
granting it for every property in the City. This was very unique and there is not another property
like it.
Commissioner Carper asked what is the perspective if they were looking at a particular point on the
map?
Mr. Andrews showed on the map the point where that shot was taken. The shot was taken from his
perspective, which was through the trees.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing.
Ms. McMonigal noted Mr. Tanick submitted two letters to Commissioners.
Marshall Tanick, Attorney representing a group of neighbors and residents in the area, NOT
(Neighbors Opposed to Tower) group, distributed additional documents to Commissioners.
Ms. McMonigal noted the information submitted included three realtor letters, a petition, height
highlights from other cities and a resident letter.
Mr. Tanick stated that NOT was opposed to the variance and conditional use permit sought by the
applicant and agreed with Mr. Morrison on the CUP and variance for the 284’ tower. They
supported the staff’s position and were opposed to the applicant’s position. It was important to note
that the request for the 284’ tower was an increase of about 40% above the allowable height. There
had been some discussion in the past about heights allowed in other communities and those were
highlighted in the document he submitted. They range from 200’ in Golden Valley and
Minneapolis, 150’ Minnetonka, Edina 125’ and Richfield 70’. It was notable that the applicant was
asking for something well beyond not just what St. Louis Park allows, but what would be allowed in
comparable surrounding communities.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
Mr. Tanick stated that in Edina the setback requirements range from 4-6 times the size of a tower
like this depending on the proximity to residential areas. The more significant impact was the value
of surrounding properties. There is the reality of the impact on surrounding properties and to some
extent conjecture and if the tower would affect the sale of properties in the area. It was a matter of
taking into account the depressed state of the housing market and pointing out that any kind of
impediment to buyers being willing to buy property had a depreciating impact on the value of
property. The three realtors thought there would be a 5-10% or more decline in the value of homes
in that area.
Chair Kramer asked if those were facts or hypothesis? Were they certified and qualified real estate
appraisers based on comparables? Mr. Tanick replied they were facts. They were from real estate
sales people. They had submitted comparables in previous correspondence regarding this issue.
Commissioner Morris stated he worked somewhat in the real estate industry and was not following
the logic. There are four towers existing. Was he stating that the existing four towers are not
affecting the current real estate values, but by adding one 85’ addition, it would drop real estate
value?
Mr. Tanick replied that he was not saying they were below market value. The market value was
whatever the market is going to pay for them. The reality is that there have been four towers there
for 45 years and that has helped set whatever the market value is. What he and the realtors were
saying was that the replacement of one of those towers with a 284’ tower with the blinking light,
would have a negative affect on the existing property values and would result in a decline of 5-10%.
Changing one of those towers and making it 40% higher and having the light would have a
debilitating affect on the property values. If there is a decline in tax value and real estate market
value along the lines they suggested, they calculated it would result in a decline of about $170/home
and decline of $25,000/year to the City of St. Louis Park.
Mr. Tanick went on to say that initially there was a requirement that an Environmental Assessment
Work (EAW) sheet be done. It is required if the tower was 300’ or more within a wetland or flood
plain area. A petition was submitted in response to the original 400’ proposal signed by about 37
residents, which triggers an automatic requirement for an EAW under State law, however because
the new proposal was for 284’ the EAW was not required by law. They thought there ought to be
one.
Mr. Tanick stated that aesthetics were a major concern. It is an eye sore and impairs the view they
have and is an important consideration. They had submitted information from US Fish and
Wildlife service addressing some environmental related issues (Service Guidelines and the Siting
Construction Operation and Deep Commissioning of Communication Towers). It is the
Department of Interior guidelines, not requirements, relative to communication towers and suggests
“Towers no taller than 199’ in or near wetlands”, because of the potential danger to birds.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 8
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
Mr. Tanick said a conditional use permit requires consideration of the effect on nearby properties
and they believed there was a damaging and depreciating affect (market value, etc.). There was no
hardship to the applicant for a variance. There are other uses that can be made of the property. The
applicant contended that the hardship was that the rules of the game changed in the middle of the
game. In fact, the ordinance would have prohibited this type of proposal at its outset. It took a
strained interpretation of the ordinance to suggest that the applicant could have built a 284’ tower
under the old ordinance. To grant a variance under both the ordinance and State law, a variance has
to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the overall ordinance. In this case, a lot of work and
effort has been put into the ordinance with the 199’ restriction. Allowing this kind of 40% surplus
would be totally inconsistent with the spirit and the purpose of the 199’ foot restriction and open
the door to other applicants to ask for variances and CUPs. What benefit does the City of St. Louis
Park derive from this and what does it have to gain? In this case, the applicant is asking for a
special benefit and extraordinary benefits. The City and residents will suffer from this proposition
and the proposed CUP and variance should be denied.
Thomas Christiansen, 2170 Ridge Dr., Sunset Ridge, felt that there was no hardship. The City
Council, the Planning Commission and the residents were subjected to an application of a 400’
tower until it was pointed out to the applicant that the FAA would not allow it on that site. Then
there was a new application. He believes the applicant knew the application was not lawful. Now
there was a new application for a 284’ tower and more evidence it wouldn’t affect them. Sitting at
his computer, he could see all four towers. There are 100 balconies at Sunset Ridge that you can see
one of the towers from. He believed the photos were not realistic and didn’t bear any semblance to
reality. With a new tower, over 200’, with lights, the tower will be visible 24/7 and especially at
night. To allow something completely different that affected the way hundreds of residents at
Sunset Ridge live their life is unbelievable. The real hardship is to St. Louis Park residents that have
to surrender the night sky to the antennae. There was potential of electrical interference that would
never stop. New residents that move into the area would be confronted with the same problem and
complaints would always be there. He didn’t see why they should take this on when they had a new
ordinance crafted specifically to prevent this kind of tower from being built. Northern Lights, the
company putting the antenna on the tower, is located in Edina. If variances are required on a tower,
they should be in front of the Edina City Council. There are open spaces in Edina.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked how long he had lived in his condo.
Mr. Christiansen replied he had lived there a year and a half and his apartment is the closest to the
towers. The strategy for the new application was to give residents short notice of an information
meeting held the day before. He felt the residents wouldn’t notice it, but those in Sunset Ridge felt
they would notice them. He felt they should take their views under consideration. He hoped the
Commission supported the ordinance as written.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there were any residents in attendance that lived in the
townhouses prior to 1996.
Geri Nisen, 2110 Ridge Dr. #14, stated she faced the wetlands.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 9
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if towers were painted and lighted up to 1996.
Ms. Nisen responded she was living in a different section of Sunset Ridge at the time.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the units were filled or if there were a lot of vacancies.
She wanted to figure out if the towers were lighted prior, 24/7 and painted, how that affected people
living in the area.
Ms. Nisen replied she was not able to tell her because she was facing a different direction.
Claire Christison, stated she was against the request.
Judy Chucker, 2260 Ridge, stated she had concerns. The land had altered considerably over time.
Her concern was about any alteration to the habitat. They would need to provide supports for the
towers. She had seen a tremendous reduction in the diversity of the area wildlife. She was also
concerned if this went through it would disrupt nesting during construction. There could be a
possible buzzing sound generated and sound issues. If someone’s electronics have interference, how
many people have to report a problem before it is addressed and how quickly will it be addressed?
People will not know who to approach with concerns. Residents should be informed about how to
address the problem.
Chair Kramer closed the public hearing.
Ms. McMonigal stated she had received e-mails and calls from Tamara Faye, Ello Rouch and Mark
Knowe in opposition to the tower.
Commissioner Carper commented that one of the issues brought up was what the previous
ordinance said. One of the issues before when he considered the ordinance, it looked very
ambiguous in terms of the way it was written. The first part of the ordinance seemed to want to
control the height of towers and then if you chose to read the ordinance one way, the ordinance
abandoned any interest in controlling the height of towers and said they could build it as high as
they wanted as long as they had approval by the City.
The applicant had the opposite way of looking at it. He believed what they did when the Planning
Department looked at that and took that approach, they created the new ordinance to give
limitations to height and also organized it so it was more consistent. Some of the applicant’s
insistence that this was previously allowed was only subject to interpretation.
Why 284 feet? They see that the FAA has given a limitation of 284’ based upon aircraft approach
angles to the airport. If this was not mandated by the FAA, he thought they would be seeing a taller
tower. If you look at some of the illustrations in terms of the broadcast area, the higher a tower gets,
the more the broadcast area. Right now the Glencoe tower has a greater area of coverage, but it
doesn’t cover as far to the east as where there is more population. When they move in, they look at
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 10
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
the two other radiuses. One is the current tower height, which is 199’ and when they move it up to
284’ they seem to only get an increase in radius of about five miles, not a substantial difference.
This particular broadcast area does go out further into the eastern suburban area, so there is some
increase in population, but not a great increase in area. When they look at the concept of setback,
the fact that some of the setback for residential is already on the applicant’s property is not going to
impinge on that, and they have other areas that are very unlikely to be developed. He would be
comfortable granting any setback necessary for the construction. He didn’t think there was a good
reason to go beyond 199’. If they think that the property values are going to drop 10% because they
put a lighted tower in, then in 1996 they should have seen the property values go up by 10% when
the lights when off and he doubted that happened.
Commissioner Shapiro stated there were a lot of issues and a lot of talk. The property value
argument did not hold true. The fact that this was an Edina business didn’t matter. He agreed with
Commissioner Carper regarding the setbacks. It came down to the height and he probably wouldn’t
treat this any different than an office building that had a height limitation. They would stick with
that limitation. They have clarified the ordinance, whether it was ambiguous before or not, it was
hard for him to see why they should go above 199’.
Commissioner Morris commented he kept an open mind and listened to the arguments. There was
emotion, perception and a specific community that felt they were adversely affected. There are
business operations, but the Planning Commission has to decide why to go higher. What is the
harm in going higher? What are they harming and are there aesthetic reasons? He didn’t agree with
the property value argument or the hardship argument for the developer. Who makes money off of
this was not the issue here. Television and radio antennas serve a public interest. It may not be the
City of St. Louis Park, but antennas serve the public interest. They are there in emergencies, they
give news, and they give information. He didn’t envision the setbacks being a safety issue. If the
tower height increases, the setbacks will increase. The probability of a 100’ or 200’ tower falling
down and it having a 200% setback, means it falls 100’ from the property instead of right at the
edge. One issue he found quite relevant was the issue of precedence. If they allowed an increase in
the height of this tower, there are three other towers on the site. He was leaning in favor of granting
the increase to 284’. If there were to be a proposal and approval to increase the height of the towers,
he would suggest that the setbacks be reworked. Mr. Morrison stated the two variances requested by
the applicant were for a 284’ tower.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison didn’t have a problem with the proposal. She felt there had been
a hardship. When a property owner comes in and anticipates and reviews ordinances, and now it
had been clarified but in the middle of the process, that constituted a hardship. She didn’t think
there could be other development done and that it would not affect property values. She
recommended residents get more independent letters from realtors and not duplicates. She would
support recommending the 284’ variance.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 11
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
Chair Kramer stated he had heard enough about the interference to know they would work through
that. He was comfortable with the setback. He would advocate for the 284’ tower. He agreed the
view would not be a material difference. Where his house is, he had seen Highway 169 developed
and had a lot of things around there and other commercial buildings, etc. It had not been a material
difference for him and he didn’t think it would be here. He agreed that the owner of this property
had been stuck in middle and had come in with an application and because they didn’t think it was
clear enough, they codified the language to adversely affect his business and he didn’t like that
scenario. He stated he was in favor of granting the variance for the 284’ tower and the setbacks that
went along with it.
Commissioner Carper asked Mr. Lysiak if the City permits a tower to be built at 284’, that renews
the opportunity for anyone to file an objection or a complaint about any affect they are having
regarding reception of electronic equipment with the applicant and the FCC.
Mr. Lysiak replied if they allow the 284’ tower that affects the new FM station. The AM stations
that are there are not involved in this process. All complaints need to be addressed by the FCC.
Commissioner Carper stated the fact that they have existing AM stations and that the tower height is
increased and the broadcasting signal is coming from a different point than it was previously, if it is
an AM signal problem they don’t have to do any type of remediation?
Mr. Lysiak replied they were not required to, however he had dealt with the station owners who
dealt with Mr. Dahl and he believed their procedure was to have an engineer check out complaints.
Most stations work on their complaints.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a
284 foot communication tower, subject to conditions as recommended by staff; to recommend
approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower in a floodplain, subject to
conditions as recommended by staff; to recommend approval of a variance to allow a 284 foot
communication tower instead of the maximum allowed 199 feet, a variance to allow a 330 foot
setback from property zoned residential instead of the required 568 feet and a variance to allow a
366 foot setback from property zoned residential instead of the required 568 feet; and, directed staff
to change conditions appropriately.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-2
(Carper and Shapiro opposed).
Ms. McMonigal noted this would go before City Council on January 26th.
5. Communications
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2k) Page 12
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2l
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 21, 2009--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl
Robertson and Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper and Robert Kramer
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of December 17, 2008
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the December 17, 2008
minutes.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
5-0.
3. Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for Excavation
Location: 6560 23rd Street West
Applicant: Vlad Sivriver
Case No.: 08-41-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about trees on the property.
Mr. Morrison replied there were scrub trees along the east side, but no significant trees. He
explained the site was primarily grassy before the parking lot was put in.
Commissioner Morris noted the report indicates that the existing parking lot would be
removed prior to construction of the proposed lot, but that was not included in the
conditions for the CUP. He asked if there is a procedural reason for that because it is a
separate parcel.
Mr. Morrison replied it was not called out as a specific condition, but conditions of approval
include adoption of the grading and removal plan exhibits.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2l) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2009
Commissioner Morris asked as part of the conditions that the other parking lot be removed
and that the curb cuts for the driveway into that lot be removed to avoid any trespass
parking.
Commissioner Robertson and Mr. Morrison discussed parking spaces.
Vice Chair Person opened the public hearing.
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use
permit for excavating 800 cubic yards of material from the site, subject to conditions.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
B. Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD – The Towers at West End
Location: Southeast corner of Wayzata Blvd. and Utica Ave.
Applicant: Duke Realty
Case Nos.: 08-49-S, 08-50-PUD
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that as part of the
property lies in Golden Valley, the plan will also go before the Golden Valley Planning
Commission. He said staff had raised issues with the access point on the south side of the
property and the parking lot needs to be reworked. Staff also requested additional
information on the character and use of the open space in between buildings two and three.
Issues of traffic generated by this proposal were discussed previously through the AUAR.
The City is in the process of completing road improvements related to the project and
related to the recommendations from the environmental study. He said the developer is also
working with the City of Golden Valley on traffic calming measures along Wayzata Blvd.
Commissioner Morris asked about the anticipated schedule or procedure for the approval of
the Golden Valley portion of the development.
Mr. Walther replied it would be concurrent with the St. Louis Park review.
The applicant, David Bade, Duke Realty, gave a presentation describing the project and
showing the elevations. He said Duke is working to achieve good pedestrian connections
throughout the project. They have been working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District on the overall development and the storm water management plan has been
approved. He further discussed the storm water plans.
Vice Chair Person asked if the construction would be phased.
Mr. Bade replied there would be three or four phases for the final PUD.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2l) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2009
Vice Chair Person asked if the parking garage construction would be phased.
Mr. Bade replied the parking garage construction would be phased.
Vice Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Kenneth Huber, 1420 Alpine Pass, Golden Valley, stated his neighborhood is affected by the
development and as a member of the neighborhood association, he was asked to work on this
issue. Their neighborhood is to the east of the project. The neighbors are excited and want
to see the development do well and are looking forward to it, but recognize the potential for
a lot of change. The parking garage will have upwards of 4,000 spaces. The neighborhood
requests that all parties consider the ingress and egress from the parking garage, as a high
percentage of people will be using Wayzata Blvd. to get in and out of the development,
which runs through the neighborhood. He said the neighborhood has been in discussions
with the developer regarding the number of exits and entrances to the parking structures.
Last week at the open house they discussed reducing the number of portals into the structure
from four to two, which was well received by the neighborhood.
Mr. Huber said a related issue is the proposed physical changes to Wayzata Blvd., that being
the frontage road. He believed that was still an open question. He has gone to the meetings
and at one point it was proposed that the developer pay some money to help fund
improvements or changes to the frontage road due to potential traffic impact on the frontage
road. Mr. Huber stated there are going to be thousands of additional cars along the frontage
road every day. He asked what can be done in terms of physical changes to make it better for
the people trying to use it and people living in the neighborhood? He believed that
discussion had been tabled in the approval process at Golden Valley. He also believed that
money was taken off of the table and in an effort to supplant that money, the City of Golden
Valley submitted a Federal grant application to a program known as Transit for Livable
Communities. He believed Golden Valley had not received the grant funds for the project.
Mr. Huber went on to say that in working on the frontage road project, he learned that
MnDOT owns the frontage road and must review and approve any proposed changes.
When he spoke with MnDOT, they didn’t know anything about this project. Likewise, the
Target campus is a stakeholder which has made changes to the frontage road. The largest
percentage of the frontage road runs through the Bryn Mawr neighborhood. Their
neighborhood association has a land use committee and is interested in this project and the
frontage road. He stated that no one has taken charge of the frontage road aspect of the
project. Mr. Huber commented that all of the stakeholders want to see the development do
well, but all of the elements need to be brought together and the frontage road needs to work
well and he hoped the Planning Commission would take that into consideration.
Commissioner Person asked if there had been communication with MnDOT and the cities
of Golden Valley and Minneapolis about the frontage road.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2l) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2009
Mr. Walther responded when this issue came up both Duke and the City of St. Louis Park
wanted to take leadership to understand the issue and look at potential solutions. The City
hired SRF Consulting Group to do a study of the frontage road within Golden Valley.
Duke Realty paid for the study. The conclusions highlighted issues that the neighborhood
was aware of, the visibility issues at the intersections from entering and exiting from the
neighborhood onto Wayzata Blvd. The study included several options for addressing the
issues. Some were fairly easy steps such as tree trimming. In addition, some bump outs
were proposed along the roadway and a dollar amount was assigned to providing those.
Bump outs would allow the people exiting the neighborhood to be able to come out farther
and be protected and also improve visibility at those locations. It also had the affect of
narrowing the roadway and would have a traffic calming effect. Based on that, it was his
understanding that Duke Realty had committed or was willing to discuss with Golden Valley
a contribution toward the bump outs. The discussion was tabled. The Joint Powers
agreement is not going forward in the same scope that they had previously considered and
that was why they were in the process of doing two separate zoning reviews and approvals.
He suspected the cities would discuss and negotiate the opportunity to do a Joint Powers
Agreement.
Pat Maasia, Duke Realty, stated that Mr. Walther’s summary was outstanding. He noted
that Duke had not pulled the money off the table. They had initially funded the traffic
study and had established an escrow account with the City of Golden Valley to cover their
expenses as they looked through the traffic calming issue on Wayzata Blvd. Golden Valley
had approached Duke about funding all or part of whatever plan they had, which they
agreed to do. They had money in the development budget to accommodate that request.
The planning part got tabled. A neighborhood meeting was held in Golden Valley where
they discussed plans the City had put together for traffic calming. It was after that point that
things slowed down and the plan was never finalized. The City of Golden Valley is going
through the process of coming up with a new and more final plan for traffic calming that
they want to do on their side of the bridge and then they would determine what their part
should be and how they would fund necessary improvements. Duke was willing to look at
the overall plan, but needed the City of Golden Valley to say what they wanted to do.
Mr. Maasia said one of the biggest resident concerns regarded the number of exits from the
parking ramp. He spoke about redesign efforts to bring more cars to the west.
Vice Chair Person closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris thanked Mr. Huber for bringing the subject forward. He said he was
holding Duke Realty to correct that situation. He said he didn’t think he could support final
approval of this development without that intersection and the traffic issue on the Wayzata
frontage road being improved. He said it is abysmal. He could not see anything on the
plans being shown that there were changes being made. He spoke about taking the bus to
that intersection and having to cross the street to Health Partners. There is no pedestrian
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2l) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2009
crossing. Commissioner Morris said he was familiar with the problems on the eastern
frontage road of Wayzata Blvd. and having to creep out into the intersection to see if anyone
was coming around the curve, and the backups that occur. He thought there had been a
long term issue with that intersection and he was in support of what the neighborhoods were
discussing. He said it is key and must be addressed now as the development occurs, not
continually discussed after the development is completed. There is a major amount of traffic
being put onto that little segment of roadway and it was key to the development working
and the health, safety and welfare of the pedestrians and traffic goers using the development.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she was familiar with the traffic issues of that area and
agreed there had been a problem for years. She was not clear how Duke Realty would
resolve that entirely on their own, except if the amount of traffic coming into Wayzata Blvd.
on the east side was going to increase substantially. She asked about the amount of parking
that existed prior to the buildings being razed and how it compared to the parking that
would eventually be in this development.
Mr. Bade commented that the old offices on this site were about 175,000 sq. ft. The
proposed towers are approximately 300,000 sq. ft, and the surface parking was not quite up
to that. Regarding the improvements underneath Highway 100, as part of their application,
it is being improved and was difficult to see on the plan. He said they were planning to
create a “T” intersection and a 3-way stop. A pedestrian crossing will be well marked with
controlled access and will be a safe intersection for pedestrians and cars. The frontage road
was a bit more complex as it involved Golden Valley and MnDOT. Some of that discussion
would occur again now that Golden Valley is reengaging on the traffic analysis of Wayzata as
it heads further east. He expected some resolution on this soon.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Mr. Walther if he was aware if any neighborhood
associations had tried to take leadership and unite the different neighborhood associations or
were they waiting for the cities to do that?
Mr. Walther replied he was not aware of any neighborhood efforts beyond being engaged in
the public process and public hearings.
Commissioner Robertson indicated he was interested in moving this forward. He agreed
with Commissioner Morris that he would feel better seeing a resolution to the east side
traffic issue, rather than assuming it was being taken care of. He assumed Golden Valley
would address it. He said he preferred the four-tower scenario rather than the three tower
plan. The overall design is strong.
Vice Chair Person suggested adding an additional condition regarding the subject of traffic
control on both sides of Highway 100.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2l) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 2009
Commissioner Morris clarified that he was comfortable with discussion they were having
regarding traffic and the Golden Valley and MnDOT portions. These are preliminary
approvals. He was expressing concern should the final PUD come in and those issues still be
unresolved. He had no problem with the preliminary design and approvals.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of The Towers at West End
preliminary plat, subject to conditions recommended in the staff report; and, motion to
recommend approval of a preliminary PUD subject to conditions as recommended in the
staff report.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Boards and Commissions
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to appoint citizen representatives to fill vacancies in the following Boards and Commissions
with terms as follows:
Name Commission Term
Expiration
Justin Kaufman Housing Authority 06/30/2009
Jonathan Awasom Human Rights Commission 12/31/2011
Linae Haggerty Human Rights Commission 12/31/2011
Jeff Mueller Human Rights Commission 12/31/2011
Christina Barberot Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2011
Andrew Ford (youth) Planning Commission (non-voting) 08/31/2009
Ken Huiras Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2011
Alexa Trussoni Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2011
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to appoint the individuals to the respective commissions and for the terms
listed above?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council reviewed and interviewed seventeen (17) applicants who met the application
deadline to fill eight vacancies on various boards and commissions. Interviewing began in mid-
February, with final interviews taking place on March 5. Council thereafter discussed the candidates
and unanimously agreed to make appointments to the boards and commissions and for the terms
listed above. The majority of the openings were due to term expirations at the end of 2008.
The City is thankful and overwhelmed by all the wonderful and well-qualified applicants that
applied. The applications of those applicants who were not placed will be kept on file for a period of
six months and contacted if a vacancy occurs in their area of interest.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
Vacancies for Youth Commissioners
The City Clerk’s office continues to work on recruitment for the youth openings that remain on the
following Boards & Commissions: Human Rights Commission (two youth openings); Parks &
Recreation Advisory Commission (one youth opening); Police Advisory Commission (one youth
opening) and Telecommunications Advisory Commission (one youth opening). An article seeking
youth commissioners was placed in the March/April Park Perspective.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Appointing diverse citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards and
Commissions assures St. Louis Park is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of being a
connected and engaged community.
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 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 – April 6 and April 13, 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager meet to set the agenda for the special study sessions on April 6 and
13, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the special study sessions on April 6 and 13, 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for April 6 and 13, 2009
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, April 6, 2009 – 6 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. MSC Update – Inspections (45 minutes)
Staff will provide an update to the Council about the MSC Project
3. Wooddale Pointe Redevelopment Contract – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will discuss the business terms for the Wooddale Pointe Redevelopment Contract with
the Council. Does the Council agree with the proposed terms?
End of Meeting: 7:20 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, April 13, 2009 – 4 p.m.
1. Extended Workshop- Budget Discussion with Consultant Carl Neu – Admin Services (2
hrs., 25 minutes)
Consultant Carl Neu will lead the Council in a discussion about the 2010 budget process.
Adjourn for Local Board of Appeal and Equalization at 6:30 p.m. Reconvene Study Session at 6:45
p.m.
2. Continue Budget Discussion with Consultant Carl Neu – Admin Services (2 hrs., 45
minutes)
End of Meeting: 9:30 p.m.
Meeting Date: March 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:
Requested Extension of Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 7100 LLC (Anderson Builders).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff wishes to apprise the EDA of Anderson Builders’ request to extend the completion date for its
proposed Oak Hill II Office Building project specified within its Redevelopment Contract with the
EDA.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support Anderson Builders’ request to extend the completion date for the Oak Hill II
Office Building project?
BACKGROUND:
Anderson Builders plans to redevelop the property at 3340 Republic Avenue and construct a new 2-
story, 15,000 sq/ft office building on the site. The subject property is located at the northwest
corner of Walker Street and Republic Avenue; immediately east of Anderson’s recently completed
Oak Hill Office Building.
On October 15, 2007, the EDA approved a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Oak Hill
7100 (Anderson Builders) for the redevelopment of 3340 Republic Ave. Since that date, the
Redeveloper entered into a purchase agreement for the sale of its Oak Hill Office Building (at 3555
Louisiana Avenue S.), purchased the property next door (3340 Republic Ave.), and demolished the
former two-story 6,400 SF office building that occupied the property. Anderson Builders plans to
vacate the Oak Hill Office Building and move next door into a portion of the newly constructed
Oak Hill II Office Building by the end of 2009.
The remainder of the new office building will be marketed to general office users and specialty
medical users (offices that operate on an appointment basis). Anderson has received expressions of
interest for this office location given its proximity to Methodist Hospital.
To facilitate the project, the EDA agreed to reimburse Anderson for certain “Public Redevelopment
Costs” incurred in connection with the subject site in the maximum principal amount of $400,000.
Upon satisfaction of the requirements specified in the Contract (including EDA acceptance of the
Redeveloper’s itemized Public Redevelopment Costs), the EDA will make annual payments to the
Redeveloper according to a declining schedule over 10 years with no interest.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Requested Extension of Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 7100 LLC (Anderson Builders)
Requested Extension of Project Completion Date
According the Redevelopment Contract, Anderson Builders was to have completed construction on
the Oak Hill II project by December 31, 2008. Due to project delays, including the acquisition of
project financing, the Redeveloper has requested that the project’s completion date be extended to
December 31, 2009.
Next Steps
Staff maintains that the Redeveloper’s request to extend the proposed completion date within the
Contract is reasonable given market conditions. Staff will proceed with the preparation of a First
Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract and schedule it for formal consideration on April 6th
unless it hears otherwise from the EDA.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed extension of the construction schedule for the Oak Hill II Office Building reflects the
current construction timetable and market reality relating to the project. Terms of the business
assistance would remain unchanged except that the payment schedule and dates within the
corresponding Assessment Agreement would likewise be extended one year.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed redevelopment project supports the strategic direction of environmental stewardship.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2009 Community Open House.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. Staff is providing this report as an update on the upcoming Community Open
House.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any questions or concerns regarding the plans which have been
developed for the Community Open House scheduled for June?
BACKGROUND:
In the fall of 2007, City Manager, Tom Harmening, asked Marney Olson and Jamie Zwilling to
research other metro area City Open Houses. This idea grew out of one of the Council’s Strategic
Directions of – “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community”. The
Outreach Connection Group, comprised of representatives from each city department, began
discussing the Community Open House concept in December, 2007. The idea was brought to
Council in June, 2008, and the Community Open House idea has emerged into a true Community
Celebration for June 9, 2009.
The purpose of the Community Open House is to reach out to both new and long-term residents of
St. Louis Park and to connect people in this community with one another and city staff. The goal is
to bring residents together in a community-wide event that will be fun and inviting, that encourages
residents to learn about the city and many of our key partners. The key partners identified as
potential participants in the Community Open House are: Children First, the St. Louis Park School
District including Community Education, STEP, the St. Louis Park Community Foundation,
Parktacular, Park Nicollet, and the Twin West Chamber of Commerce. Many of these partners
have indicated that they will participate.
The Community Open House is intended to be a celebration for the whole community of St. Louis
Park. Here is what it will look like: In addition to city staff, our key partners, and city equipment
(Fire Trucks, Public Works Vehicles, Police Cars, etc.), there will be a lot of fun activities. The
event will be held at Wolfe Park and the Rec Center and will be held rain or shine. The aquatic
center will be open for free swimming, free skating will be offered in the Rec Center, and there will
also be a band in the amphitheater, inflatables, and free food! There will be something for everyone.
This will be a great chance to market our Rec Center and Aquatic Center and promote Parktacular.
Most importantly, residents will get to connect with city staff and their neighbors.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: 2009 Community Open House
All residents are welcome to attend this event. Marketing will play an important role in getting
residents of all ages and backgrounds to attend this event. The event was advertised in the
March/April Park Perspective and is in the Summer Park & Rec brochure. The May/June Park
Perspective will have a feature article on the event and additional marketing opportunities include:
Posters, Cable TV, Web Site, Sun Sailor, Kids backpack stuffers, SPARC (St. Louis Park Area
Rental Coalition), neighborhood associations and block captains, etc. Participating partners in the
Community Open House may also have additional marketing opportunities available.
Why is the Community Open House an important event for St. Louis Park? Vision. As outlined in
the Vision Consideration area below, the Community Open House aligns with the St. Louis Park
vision of being a connected and engaged community.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The budget for the Community Open House is $10,000 which has been approved and included in
the City’s Housing Rehab Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. This is one of the vision
strategic directions and is the reason for hosting a Community Open House. The Vision handbook
that was sent to the community in July 2007 said the following about community events: “Activities
and celebrations throughout the year provide ways for residents, workers and visitors to come
together and keep the St. Louis Park community welcoming, vibrant, and active. In the fullest sense
of community, such events provide an opportunity for residents of different ages and backgrounds to
connect on common ground.” The Community Open House is part of St. Louis Park’s vision.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 23, 2009
Agenda Item #: 12
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
West End Public Art Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required by the City Council. The purpose of this report is to update the City Council
on the status of the implementation of public art in the West End project area.
In summary, staff proposes to proceed with two public art projects and entering into contracts with
the artists for design of the projects.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns about the approach being used?
BACKGROUND:
As part of Duke Realty’s development of the West End, two public art projects were selected. A
committee was assembled, made up of residents and representatives from the Parks & Recreation
Advisory Committee, Friends of the Arts, and staff to review artist proposals. The committee met
three times to review the proposals and select finalists.
The first public art piece is an outdoor sculptural design for the exterior plaza adjacent to Roundy’s
Rainbow Store and 16th Street. Foster Willey Jr. has designed a sculptural plaza consisting of two
pre-cast concrete columns, sculptures, an artistic bench, and custom paving patterns. Inspired by the
historic beehive barbecues built in the late ‘30s, the columns are inset with honeycomb patterning, a
relief depiction of the historic beehive barbecues. Colorful terra cotta tiles could be made by youth
as part of a community outreach process and incorporated into the art work. Atop the two columns
(12 – 17 feet) are kinetic abstract welded aluminum sculptures representing the whirling flight of
bees, both graceful and swirling (see photo of model). These lyrical forms will turn slowly as wind
passes through the site. Between the two columns is a whimsical pre-cast bench with a polished
concrete surface and large metal wings for a backrest. The laser cut steel will convey the translucency
of wings while providing strong support for up to four persons sitting on the bench. The patterning
on the plaza will reflect the hexagonal designs of the beehives and interact with shadows cast by the
sculptures and the bench backrest. The artist will engage in design development with the plaza’s
landscape architect to further enhance and integrate his concepts into the surrounding environment.
The city will contract with the artist based on a budget of $90,000. The developer will pay for the
cost of the art work. Foster Willey Jr. is a Minneapolis-based sculptor who has created several major
commissions for the city of Minneapolis and Burnsville. Many of his recent commissions can be
seen at http://www.fosterwilley.com/commissions/gallery.aspx.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 12) Page 2
Subject: West End Public Art Update
The second public art piece will be placed in the interior atrium of the cinema complex at West End.
Camille Utterback will design Moving Light, a site-specific interactive light sculpture featuring six
columns of LED light tubes, each approximately 30 – 50 feet long, suspended at various heights
above the stairwell. Some columns extend slightly into the ground floor space and are clearly visible
as people enter through the street level doors. The art is also visible from outside the building – its
length echoing the verticality of the lobby space. Sensors embedded in the railings around the
stairwell on the second floor allow patterns of light in each column to be recorded and “played” by
visitors. Each time a person taps or touches a railing, a new band of color is added to a column.
Different sections of the railing correspond to different columns. Holding the railing creates a long
streak of color, while tapping creates a short burst. The colors on each column animate in various
ways – moving faster or slower, up or down, depending on how people tap or touch the railing.
Moving Light allows for individual exploration, but also reacts to coordinated group efforts. If
people at different sections of the railing coordinate their tapping – for example, holding and
releasing at the same tempo – larger states or qualities of the animated patterns will change. The
background color of all the columns might change to the same color, or areas corresponding to
coordinated input will start to blink or fade in concert. The LED lights in the sculpture will be
bright enough to be visible during the day, so at all times the dynamically animating patterns will act
as a beacon to people on the street.
The contract with the artist will be based on a budget of $85,000. This art piece is also being paid
for by the developer. Camille Utterback is a pioneering artist and programmer in the field of
interactive installation. She has exhibited internationally and her works are in several public and
private collections, including the La Caixa Foundation in Barcelona, Spain. In addition to creating
her own artwork, Utterback develops installations for commercial and museum settings, including
the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and the Pittsburgh Children's Museum.
Her work can be seen at http://www.camilleutterback.com/.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of developing and constructing the art pieces is paid for by the developer. City staff is
working out cost estimates for the maintenance of the art.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The public art projects represent St. Louis Park’s commitment to promoting and integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
Attachments: Outdoor Sculptural Design by Foster Willey, Jr.
Interior Interactive Light Sculpture by Camille Utterback
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 12) Page 3
Subject: West End Public Art Update
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 12) Page 4
Subject: West End Public Art Update
Meeting Date: March 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:
Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) Annual Report and Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
The TAC will be in attendance at the Study Session to discuss their annual report and work plan.
This report is being provided to assist with that discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the TAC in alignment with Council expectations? What are Council directions
regarding the pending fiber optic ordinance study, further research into Wireless Minneapolis, and
future citywide technology initiatives?
BACKGROUND:
The Telecommunications Commission officially met four times in 2008 and Commissioners
remained involved in other ways including:
• Commissioners Browning, Dworsky, Dyer, Jacobson, Hartman and Keeler attended the
April 14 Council Study Session to discuss the Telecommunications Commission annual
report, work plan for 2008 and ParkWiFi.
• Commissioner Dworsky attended 3 eNATOA teleconference educational sessions.
• Commissioners Dworsky, Hartman and Keeler attended the MACTA annual conference in
October.
• Chair Browning contacted staff as needed to prepare or follow up on Commission activities.
• Commissioner Keeler and Commission liaison Reg Dunlap attended a National Association
of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) conference in Atlanta and reported
back to the Commission.
What follows is a summary of various topics of interest regarding TAC, the City’s cable system and
other related matters.
Public-Educational-Government (PEG) Access Channels
Channel 14 covers the St. Louis Park School District including concerts, plays, and School Board
meetings. Channel 14 originates from the Senior High School and is programmed by School
District staff.
Channels 15, 16, 17 and 96 originate from City Hall and are programmed by City staff. Adults who
live or work in St. Louis Park can submit a program or make a program to submit for playback on
Community TV channel 15, reaching 13,000+ cable TV homes!
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Park TV 16 "On Location" is the mobile van crew that covers high school sports, Concerts in the
Park, graduations, and events all over town. The NASA channel runs on channel 16 from midnight
to 3 p.m., via an earth station (large satellite dish) installed on the west side of City Hall.
Civic TV 17 shows public meeting coverage of City Council, Planning Commission and the
Telecommunications Commission, and programming about city services and activities.
Channel 96 is the second Community TV channel, used for long format programming submitted by
the public and for community announcements.
Video on Demand
As part of the renewal process negotiated with Time Warner in 2005, there was a swap of the second
educational access channel, which used to carry the NASA channel full time, for 20 hours of local
programming each month that would be made available via Video On Demand. (Now NASA runs
from midnight to 3 p.m. on Park TV channel 16).
Time Warner showed the Local On Demand (LOD) programming on channel 1000 beginning in
March 2006. In the fall of 2008, Comcast moved On Demand programming to Channel 1,
including LOD, while simulcasting LOD on channel 1000 for several more months to allow the city
to promote the change in location. We posted information on the web site, ran a feature in Inside
the Park! and created a 1-minute PSA to run on Park TV channel 17 frequently. Comcast removed
the channel 1000 listing in December 2008.
It was easier to find the LOD programming when it was on channel 1000 because the viewer had
these steps to find the program listing: select channel 1000; select between Fridley or St. Louis Park.
Now the LOD programming requires these steps: select channel 1; scroll down in a menu and select
“Get Local;” select “Civic on Demand;” select “St. Louis Park.”
School District #283 Funding Grant
On May 15 the Commission recommended $35,000 for operating expenses, $10,000 for equipment
requested by School District staff, $4,000 to support the Junior High Video Club and $3,000 for an
additional video editing computer. The Commission felt that the added editing computer would
make it easier for students to complete assignments. The total recommendation of $52,000 was
approved by the City Council on June 2.
School District Facility Rental for Community TV Studio
The Commission continued facility rental of the SHS TV studio, at the rate of 12 hours monthly,
$25/hour. Community TV was the primary client, with hours available 4-8pm, Tues-Wed-Thurs.
by prior reservation.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
WiFi Hotspots
At the joint meeting with the Commission on April 14, the City Council approved the concept of a
Commission subcommittee studying WiFi hotspots. A subcommittee was created and had its initial
meeting with CIO Clint Pires on October 6, with more meetings to follow. Subsequent meetings
resulted in the installation of Wi-Fi Hotspots at City Hall and the Rec Center. City Hall now has
two networks in place, one for public access and a secured one that allows staff to access the city’s
network. Similar Wi-Fi hotspots are currently also in place at the Rec Center. Staff is planning to
add the Nature Center in 2009 and will also investigate the possibility for hotspots at Lenox
Community Center in conjunction with the School District.
Broadband Over Power Line Technology (BPL)
The Commission requested a staff report on BPL, a technology for internet access over power lines.
Download speeds are similar to DSL, and BPL is widespread in Europe which uses a different
alternating current system. In the United States, there are no industry-wide standards for BPL, and
trial results have been mixed. Rochester, Minnesota, did a trial, but closed it down. Xcel may
develop BPL and Centerpoint Energy has a trial going on and customers in Houston. The
Commission directed staff to prepare a follow up report, which hasn’t occurred yet.
Digital Television Transition (DTV)
The Commission discussed issues relating to the digital television transition in broadcasting several
times. As a result, staff held a series of public informational meetings at City Hall and Lenox
Community Center. These meetings were promoted in the Park Perspective newsletter.
State Legislative Issues
At the request of the Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Advisors
(MACTA), the Commission passed a motion supporting Minnesota Statute 238 and opposing
statewide franchising that would allow a telephone company to serve only the most affluent areas.
The Council passed a Resolution of support on March 3.
Comcast Complaints
Staff categorized complaints logged by city staff as directed by the Commission, and presented the
results at the December 4 meeting (attached). In the last two to three years, these complaint
categories have dramatically increased: billing, rates/prices, and programming options. The
Commission reviews complaints at each meeting, and Comcast’s Public Affairs Administrator
answers questions, explains company policies and follows up on Commission suggestions.
Comcast Audit
The Commission approved a motion on February 21 to direct staff to prepare requests for proposal
for a cable television franchise fee audit, at the discretion of City Council to audit or review, for
2005 through 2007. Staff worked with other cities to partner on costs and minimize the
inconvenience to Comcast, and hired Scott Lewis and Associates to do the audit, which is underway.
Staff will provide an update at the meeting on the status of the audit.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
City Relationship with Comcast
At the request of the Commission, staff gave a presentation about the City’s relationship with
Comcast at the August 13 Commission meeting and posted the summary on the City’s web site.
Key points include the City’s franchise, funding provided by Comcast franchise fees and how those
funds are used, and Federal law limitations on City authority.
Comcast Fees and Services Changes Effective January 1, 2009
Staff and Comcast’s Public Affair Coordinator Arlen Mattern addressed new prices and changes in
service at the December 4 meeting.
Officers
Bruce Browning served as Chair for 2008. Vice Chair Bob Jacobson passed away in May. Rolf
Peterson was elected vice chair and Mike Mulligan was appointed to replace Commissioner
Jacobson.
At the December 4 meeting, the Commission elected Toby Keeler as Chair and Rolf Peterson as
Vice Chair for 2009.
Telecommunications Commission Attendance: 2008
Commissioner 2/21/0
8
4/14/08
@
Council
Study
Session
5/15/08 8/13/0
8
12/4/0
8
Total
attended
Bruce Browning (Chair) - YES - YES YES 3
Bob Jacobson (Vice Chair)* YES YES 2
Rolf Peterson (Elected Vice
Chair 8/13/08)
YES - - YES YES 3
Rick Dworsky YES YES YES - YES 4
David Dyer YES YES YES YES - 4
Dale Hartman YES YES YES YES YES 5
Toby Keeler YES YES YES - YES 4
Kirk Morrow^ - - YES 1
Mike Mulligan# YES YES 2
*Passed away in May
^Youth appointee, officially resigned at end of school year
#Appointed 7/21/08
Fiber Optic Ordinance
At the joint meeting with the Commission, there was a Council consensus for staff to prepare a draft
fiber optic ordinance to bring to a Council Study Session, and for staff to facilitate Commission
written reports to Council. During the budget process, $50,000 was included in the City’s 2009
Cable TV budget to do a fiber optic ordinance feasibility study.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
City Staff and the commission seek guidance from council on its desire to proceed with this
expenditure in light of the current economic and budget situation.
Wireless Minneapolis
Council has been interested in a status update on Wireless Minneapolis. To remind Council,
Wireless Minneapolis represents a 10-year commitment between the City of Minneapolis and US
Internet Wireless (USIW). The City of Minneapolis pays USIW each of the 10 years for municipal
use of the wireless network (e.g., Police vehicles). The City’s primary financial benefit is that it could
then potentially cancel or modify some of the wireless contracts it has with the private sector to
provide similar services. While USIW has been working diligently to build the municipal use
network, it has additional work to do to complete this network. Once it is completed, the City could
cancel some of the existing private service provider contracts; however, the to-be completed
Minneapolis network cannot provide wi-fi service for municipal vehicles when outside of
Minneapolis, except along its borders. In summary, at this time, it is understood Police (and other
municipal services) have tested but not yet switched to Wireless Minneapolis.
However, on the public side, USIW currently has an estimated 13,000 residential customers. It is
unclear if this is its goal or break-even point as additional money has been put into construction of
the network – currently at an estimated $23.5 million. Web research revealed no current data on
speeds, overall performance, or reliability compared to what is advertised. It is also understood that
Minneapolis parks are spaces yet to be covered with wireless service, but an agreement with the Park
Board has apparently been reached. Some multiple dwelling units that happen to receive coverage
are among Wireless Minneapolis customers, but it is unclear whether USIW has developed formal
agreements with MDU owners to ensure broader wireless service availability. Finally, it appears
USIW has not yet aggressively pursued similar agreements with other cities, which was part of the
original plan.
Any further research on the status of the Wireless Minneapolis could be obtained with additional
staff time invested if that is Council’s direction.
Fiber Service to Schools
Earlier this year, the City Council and the TAC received a report describing the interest expressed by
St. Louis Park Schools and Benilde-St. Margaret School of the City’s potential to provide Internet
bandwidth to these two institutions. Such service could be made available because the City and St.
Louis Park Schools already share the existing fiber optic network. Service to Benilde-St. Margaret
could be provided using equipment and part of the fiber network the City received as part of the
wireless project’s legal settlement. As indicated in that report, staff has been researching the costs and
benefits of such a service. Staff plans to meet again with both St. Louis Park Schools and Benilde-St.
Margaret to determine if pricing estimates necessary for the City to provide such service are attractive
to them.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Future Citywide Technology Initiatives
About one year ago, Council asked staff to pursue settlement and clean-up of the ParkWiFi project,
and then return to Council in about a year to re-visit any new potential citywide public technology
initiatives of interest to Council. It is anticipated that the final clean-up step of pole removal will be
completed this summer.
Staff is interested to learn Council’s current direction on pursuit of any other initiatives at this time.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As Council may recall from its recent workshop, the Cable TV Fund is currently not sustainable
given current transfers to the General Fund and expenditures such as the grant to the School District
and fiber optic ordinance study mentioned in this report. Staff reminds Council of these real budget
concerns when considering future Cable funded activities.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This report supports the strategic direction – St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community.
Attachment: Cable TV complaints received & logged by city staff 2004-2009
Telecommunications Commission Work Plan: 2009
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Complaint Category Complaints
2004
Complaints
2005
Complaints
2006
Complaints
2007
Complaints
2008*
through
12/4/08
Billing 11 10 36 19 28
Construction (e.g., right
of way, unburied cable,
property damage)
4 7 3 0 2
Customer Service/
Relations (e.g., missed or
late appointments,
company response to
issue, attitude)
10 7 3 8 7
Installation (e.g., property
damage)
0 0 0 0 0
Programming Options
(lost channels, want new
channels)
7 7 12 27 16
Rates, prices 2 6 3 22 16
Technical Service (e.g.,
outage, reception,
equipment faulty/lack of
features)
5 7 15 3 14
Service Requests (e.g.,
residential/commercial)
0 0 0 0 0
Telephone Customer
Service (e.g., hold, busy,
no one available)
9 2 12 10 7
Miscellaneous 0 2 3 8 9
Total Cable Service
Complaints
48 48 87 97 99
Digital Voice/Telephone 0 0 2 2 3
Cable Modem/Internet
Issues
2 3 18 13 6
Combined Total of All
Processed Complaints
(includes Digital
Voice/Telephone and
Cable Modem/ Internet)
50 51 107 112 108
Cable TV complaints received & logged by
city staff
(Some customers reported more than one
complaint)
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
AVERAGE
COMPLAINTS PER
MONTH REPORTED
TO CITY STAFF
4.2 4.3 8.9 9.3 9.8
Total complaint calls
(some callers mention
more than 1 complaint)
89 85 83
Approx number of
subscribers on average for
the year
13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Notes: Time Warner to Comcast transition: August 1, 2006
Time Warner to Comcast billing & service transition in October, 2006 was a big factor. Prior to
October, cable staff received 30 calls, (average of 3.3 per month); after transition began, received 59
calls (mostly billing & email issues).
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
2009 Telecommunications Commission Work Plan
February 12, 2009 Council Chambers
♦ Fiber optic ordinance study update
♦ Park TV & Community TV update
♦ Franchise fee audit update
♦ WiFi hot spots subcommittee update
March 23, 2009 Joint meeting at City Council Study Session
May 7, 2009 at the High School or Council Chambers
♦ School District quarterly report & funding for 2008
♦ Fiber optic ordinance study update
♦ Franchise fee audit update
Mid year Commission written report to Council
August 13, 2009 Council Chambers
♦ Review draft mid year report
October 8, 2009
♦ Review School District reports
♦ Comcast customer service update
December 10, 2009 Council Chambers
♦ Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up
♦ Draft Annual Report for 2009
♦ Set meetings for 2010
♦ Draft Work Plan for 2010
♦ Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting
Meeting Date: March 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:
Park Perspective Newsletter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests direction from the City Council on the recommendations provided in this report regarding
the Park Perspective newsletter and other communication methods.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the Council comfortable with staff:
• Combining the Park Perspective with the Park & Rec Brochure three times annually and
eliminating three issues of Park Perspective. Issues would arrive to residents in March (covers
April through August), August (covers September through November) and November (covers
December through March). This is the same publication schedule as the current Park & Rec
brochure schedule.
• Creating two new monthly subscription-based electronic newsletters (one for residents, one for
businesses)
• Creating a new bi-weekly electronic newsletter recapping council actions
• Publishing a monthly City Manager’s Column in the Sun-Sailor
• Exploring the use of social media applications such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (with no
commitment to implementation prior to council direction)
BACKGROUND:
During 2009 budget discussions, council asked staff to consider electronic options for communicating
city information and subsequently cut $10,000 from the Communications & Marketing budget with the
intent of making some transitions during 2009.
Currently, the single largest expense in the Communications & Marketing Budget, except salaries, is the
bi-monthly production and distribution of the Park Perspective newsletter. It is mailed to approximately
25,000 households and businesses six times a year.
Staff has identified that combining the Park & Rec Guide with the Park Perspective could save the city
more than $40,000 annually.
This of course would limit the amount of information distributed to the public using this
communication tool. However, the city would be able to add a total of three new electronic publications
available on the website and by subscription: a monthly residential e-newsletter, a monthly business e-
newsletter, and a bi-weekly council action e-newsletter. See attachments to view examples of what each
could look like.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Park Perspective Newsletter
In addition, staff is considering producing a weekly news program on Cable TV highlighting news and
events, and the communications staff is exploring the use of social media applications as additional tools
to share city information with residents and other interested parties. This reflects alignment with
evolving technologies and demographics.
While it is true that cutting three issues of Park Perspective will decrease the amount of information
residents receive through that vehicle, it could be argued that the city would actually be increasing the
depth and timeliness of its information in several ways as well as increasing and encouraging the use of
electronic communications. It would also address environmental goals and not require additional staff or
other out of pocket expenditures.
Still, it is important to note that eliminating three issues of the city newsletter could be perceived as a
service cut that would not, at least in the near future, be fully replaced by the addition of electronic
newsletters, guest columns, social media, etc. It will take time to build up a substantial number of people
who subscribe to the electronic newsletters. This could particularly impact our Public Works and
Community Development departments’ ability to communicate to the city as a whole as often and in
timely a fashion as they are currently able to do.
It is also important to note that, while the newsletters will be made available on the Web, the city’s main
approach to delivering the electronic publications will be e-mail notification to subscribers. This is
referred to as a method of “pushing” content to people, as compared to them “pulling” content from the
web.
Community Survey
There exists some important data in our recent community survey related to how residents receive
information about the city which should also be considered:
• 37 percent of residents use Park Perspective for their primary source of city information (tied only
with the Sun-Sailor newspaper)
• 33 percent of residents would prefer to continue using the newsletter as their primary source of
city information (tied only with the Sun-Sailor newspaper)
• 92 percent of respondents reported receiving the newsletter
• 95 percent of those respondents reported that someone in their household read it regularly
Communications Plan
The above recommendations align with the current Communications Plan adopted by City Council in
2006 in the following areas:
• Devote more time and resources to communicating the city’s message
• Enhance the city’s business communications practices
• Increase frequency of timely city information going to residents
• Increase use of television to feature more city information, specifically a daily or weekly news
program
• Continue to improve and promote the city website
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Park Perspective Newsletter
The city will continue to work on the Communications Plan in the following areas where gains have
already been made:
• Defining the brand
• Gain exposure with local media as strategic communications partners
• Updating the brand manual
• Continue to improve the city’s website
• Increase the city’s emphasis on quality customer service and face-to-face communications
STAFF IMPACTS:
The recommended changes can be made within the existing resource allocations provided for our
communication functions.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Current Costs Printing Mailing Total
Park & Rec Brochure (3 issues) $12,000 $3,000 $45,000
Park Perspective (6 issues) $4,600 $4,000 $51,600
Grand Total
$96,600
Projected Costs Printing Mailing Total
Combined Publication (3 issues; 48 pages) $15,000 $4,000 $54,000
Total projected cost savings:
$42,600
VISION CONSIDERATION:
One of the Strategic Directions is for St. Louis Park to be committed to being a connected and engaged
community. The way we distribute and collect information is becoming more and more diverse and our
city communications must be able to adapt to these changes if we are going to thrive.
Attachments: Electronic Newsletter example
Council Bulletin example
Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Approved by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Park Perspective NewsletterPage 4
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Park Perspective Newsletter Page 5
Meeting Date: March 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:
Excess Land Sale Proceeds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests direction from the City Council on the ideas and recommendations outlined in this
report on the use of the proceeds from the sale of land.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What are the best options to consider for the use of the proceeds from the sale of land for Move Up
homes; and, how to involve the community in the decision making process?
BACKGROUND:
To date, the city has received approximately $428,000 for the sale of land. The city’s share of the
revenue from Hennepin County for the tax forfeited property will come later this year. That will
raise the total land sale proceeds to $565,526. There are other parcels yet to be sold that could
generate more revenue in the future, but the uncertainty of the housing market makes it very
difficult to project how much additional revenue could be generated and when it would accrue.
After extensive discussion at the 10/27/08 study session, the City Council directed staff to prepare
and bring back for their consideration, ideas for the use of the Excess Land Sale Proceeds. From
there, a public process would be developed.
OPTIONS TO CONSIDER:
The number of possible uses for the land sale proceeds is almost endless. Staff used the following
criteria to sift through the multiple possibilities and identify options for your consideration.
1. Identify potential uses for the funds where we can have a noticeable impact. The amount of
land sale proceeds we have is relatively modest. The amount may be too small to make a
significant impact in some areas.
2. Similarly, the focus was on using the funds in only one or two areas to maximize the impact.
Spreading the fund between too many projects will result in very little identifiable impact.
3. Use the funds for actions consistent with the city’s vision.
4. Focus on areas where existing funding sources don’t exist. While we can always use more
funds for city activities like parks or housing programs, those areas and many other city
functions have other sources of funding. The funding from excess land sales would be only a
modest increase in funding for areas like parks and housing; and, the use of the excess land
funds might not be very visible to the community.
5. Use the funds for something permanent or of lasting impact; not operations.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Excess Land Sale Proceeds
Using the criteria described above, staff identified 3 proposals for your consideration. Many more
could be added. We think each of the options described below is a worthy use of the funds. They all
are consistent with the City’s Vision and addresses projects or activities for which we have no other
identified source of funds. They are described below. Each has some sub components
1. Establish a permanent Community Public Art Fund: Essentially the land sale proceeds would be
seed money to establish an Arts Fund. The city has no permanent, designated fund to maintain,
manage, replace or expand our growing public art collection. And yet public art is clearly an
important part of our community and the community vision. The interest on the initial money
($5,000-$8,000 a year) would grow the fund and could also be used as a way to pay for the
maintenance of our public art. Possible specific art projects could include:
A. Maintenance. With the addition of public art at West 36th Street, West End and the
Ellipse, there are increasing on-going maintenance costs associated with our public art
inventory. At this time, a budget source is not identified to pay for this maintenance.
B. Art works. Right now the only source of funds for public art has been developer
contributions. The principle of the fund could be used to pay for future public art
projects on public sites or facilities (i.e. bridges, transit stations, parks, projects in the
neighborhoods).
C. W36th St. Arts Corridor Terminus Project. Extensive redevelopment projects proposed
along W36th Street, combined with the public spaces along W36th (Rec Center and
Bass Lake Preserve), led to the concept of treating W36th Street as an “arts corridor”.
The Elmwood redevelopment projects and streetscape improvements are incorporating
public art in the west end of the corridor. The open space at Beltline & W36th &
Monterey has been seen as a potential east terminus to the corridor. No funds are
currently identified to under take improvements in this area. The land sale money could
be used for public art and landscaping of the city owned property at the corner of
Beltline and Monterey. This area could be turned into a sculpture park and nicely
landscaped area. The art on this corner could be temporary in nature or it may consist
of permanent installations. This could be part of future conversations about additions to
or pursuit of a separate community center.
2. “Green” Environment Initiatives: Commitment to being a leader in environmental stewardship
is another one of the four strategic directions from our community vision. The city has very
limited resources available to fund environmental activities. And many environmental initiatives
with significant environmental benefits have very slow payback. The land sale proceeds could be
used for environmental investments. Some initial “green” ideas are described below.
A. Projects with residents. The money could be used to provide incentives for residents to
participate in projects that are “green” in nature. Rain barrels could be available at a low
cost or no cost to residents for watering their flowers, gardens or lawn. Landscape
architects could be made available to create rain garden plans for installation on private
property. Plantings could also be provided at a reduced cost. This project is consistent
with the city’s vision of commitment to maintaining our housing stock as well as to the
environment.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Excess Land Sale Proceeds
B. Demonstration Projects. The funds could be used to underwrite the cost of solar panels
or green roofs for a city building or some other dramatic project with significant
environmental benefits but a very long payback or only indirect paybacks. The city
initiatives could become an educational tool as well.
3. Community Center Master Planning. Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center was a key
component of the Community Connection element of the vision strategic direction. A portion
of land sale proceeds could be used to hire a consultant to further the study of what would go
into a future community center, where it would be located, and what the estimated cost of the
facility would be. This is another undertaking without a specific funding source at this time.
NEXT STEPS:
If the City Council is interested in any or all of the ideas suggested by staff, the next step may be to
share them with the public and ask for their comments and suggestions. Possible ways to do that
might be to share the ideas with the City’s boards and commissions and ask for their comments. In
addition we can work with Jamie to publicize the proposed ideas on our webpage and in the
newspaper. We would encourage residents to let us know what they think and share their own ideas
with the City. We could then provide you with the feedback received prior to your picking a
preferred proposal and placing it on a City Council agenda for formal action.
.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of the option(s) chosen will be funded with the money acquired through the sale of excess
land in the city.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The options potentially address all of the vision strategic directions. They are consistent with St.
Louis Park’s commitment to promoting and integrating arts in City initiatives, leadership in
environmental stewardship, housing and community connections.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 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:
Property Valuation Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff will be in attendance to discuss the 2009 taxable valuation notices that were mailed March 13, 2009 that
will be used for calculation of taxes payable in 2010. Detailed information is being compiled and will be
presented and explained at the study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire any further clarification of value changes prior to the Board of Equalization
meetings scheduled for April 13 and 27?
BACKGROUND:
This year’s assessment process has been one of the most difficult in recent memory because of the turmoil in
the housing market. Coupled with fears of recession, foreclosures, and shrinking median sale prices, there is a
distinct dichotomy between actual sales transactions in different sectors of the market. Our purpose in
presenting this information at study session is to give the City Council a full appreciation of the state of our
property market. This should help the City Council in undertaking its role as the Board of Equalization and
respond to questions it might receive prior to the Board meetings in April and May.
We will use a PowerPoint presentation to show various stratifications of the residential market to illustrate
what is happening in the condo market, typical single-family residential and high value residential markets.
We highlight these because the activity tells a very different story in each segment.
The good news is that St. Louis Park remains a strong residential market in contrast to some other places in
the Metro area. We continue to see decent sales activity and prices for the most part are holding up
reasonably well in relation to our 2008 estimated market values.
Our commercial and industrial property classes continue to be strong even though the number of sales
transactions has fallen from previous years. The interest in St. Louis Park is great as evidenced by
construction activities in the Park Place Blvd. area and the recent building permit application just received for
the Ellipse mixed use project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The actions taken at the Board of Equalization will have tax ramifications for the individual property owners
in 2010.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 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:
Planning Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes work performed by the Planning Commission in 2008 and outlines the
intentions of Planning Commission work to be completed in 2009. The Planning Commission and
planning staff request feedback and guidance from Council regarding the reports.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the proposed Work Plan of the Planning Commission in alignment with City Council
expectations?
Does the City Council wish to meet with the Planning Commission?
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with Council policy, the 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan are attached in
full for City Council review at the March 23 study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The 2009 Planning Commission Work Plan intends to address nearly all of the focus areas of the
Vision Process through incorporating Vision into the Comprehensive Plan update.
Attachments: Planning Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
St. Louis Park Planning Commission
2008 Annual Report
Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department
Conceptual drawing of West End Blvd by Duke/RSP Architects
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
2008 St. Louis Park Planning Commission
Carl Robertson, Chair
Dennis Morris, Vice-Chair
Claudia Johnston-Madison
Robert Kramer
Lynne Carper
Richard Person
Larry Shapiro, School Board Representative
St. Louis Park Planning Staff
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Adam Fulton, Planner
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
In 2008, the Planning Commission held public hearings on numerous applications. The cases are
listed by type, and the projects are described in the paragraphs to follow.
Applications Processed 2006 2007 2008
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 1 1
Conditional Use Permits 14 8 9
Planned Unit Developments 3 5 5
Re-zonings 2 2 2
Subdivisions 11 7 5
Variance 7 1 5
Zoning Code Amendments 3 3 5
Major Development and Redevelopment
2008 saw several major projects come before the Planning Commission for review. The projects are
briefly summarized below:
The West End – Planned Unit Development, Subdivision & Rezoning – The West End was
reviewed by the Planning Commission and received a recommendation for final approval in 2008.
This complicated redevelopment includes approximately 410,000 square feet of retail, restaurants
and a cinema in the south east quadrant of 394 and Park Place Blvd.
Kamberg Condominium – CUP, Variances – The Kamberg is an infill development located at 4101
31st Street West. It features a nine-unit condominium building with 19 underground parking
spaces. In addition to a CUP, the project received two small variances to the side yard setbacks.
Walgreens – CUP, Variance – Walgreens received a recommendation for approval to construct a
13,300 square foot building at the northwest corner of Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Ave. In
addition to a Walgreens drug store, there is room within the building for a second retail/coffee shop
tenant. A conditional use permit with a variance was approved for a drive-thru to be utilized by the
Walgreens pharmacy.
Wooddale Pointe – PUD, Subdivision – A PUD and Final Plat were recommended for approved for
the construction of Wooddale Pointe. The development includes a five story mixed use building
featuring retail on the ground floor with senior residential above. The senior residential provides for
several senior life stages from unassisted to assisted living to memory care. The retail includes a
grocery store, coffee shop, hair salon and fitness center. Ample structured and surface parking is
provided for the tenants of the building, and is made available for general public parking.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
Minnehaha Creek Restoration - CUP – A CUP was recommended for approval for Park Nicollet to
remove approximately 650 cubic yards of material from the wetland located on their property at
Methodist Hospital. The fill was removed as part of the re-meander of the creek. This
extraordinary project re-meandered Minnehaha Creek. Park Nicollet partnered with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District to restore the meandering creek channel. The expected result of this
project is improved/restored ecological functions of this segment, and to provide access for passive
recreation and education opportunities.
Ellipse – Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, Variances and PUD – A
redevelopment of the Al’s Bar and Anderson Cleaners sites on the northwest corner of Excelsior
Boulevard and France Avenue. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a five-story
mixed use building with 133 residential apartments and 16,383 square feet of commercial on the
ground floor, and underground and surface parking.
Nordic Ware – CUP – The Planning Commission recommended approval of a major amendment
to the special permit for a 60,000 square foot warehouse expansion to the existing warehouse and
manufacturing facility. The expansion will eliminate numerous semi-trailers parked on the east side
of the building, currently being used for storage.
Mulberry’s Dry Cleaner – CUP, Variance – A recommendation for approval was given to reuse the
existing building for a dry cleaning pick-up and drop-off retail outlet. A conditional use permit,
with a setback variance is required only for the in-vehicle pick-up and drop-off of laundry.
Mulberry’s is located at 3900 Minnetonka Blvd.
Single Family Developments
2008 saw a decrease in new single family residential subdivisions over previous years. One
subdivision was approved, which is summarized below.
Westling Estates - Subdivision with Variances – a four lot subdivision located on the north side of
Minnetonka Blvd, at Aquila Avenue. Variances were recommended for approval with the
subdivision in order to save the existing house and barn. (The house is thought to be the oldest
house in the city, and the barn is the last remaining barn in the city.)
Zoning Amendments
The Planning Commission reviewed several major amendments to the Zoning Ordinance during
2008. These amendments, now adopted by the City Council, have made the Zoning Ordinance a
more functional document and will enhance the community by improving the final product in
development. Major amendments reviewed during 2008 included:
• Advertising Signage in Athletic Fields. This amendment allows small signs to be displayed
on the outfield fences of ball fields in city parks.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
• Miscellaneous Amendments. CUP for religious and educational uses, establishing
regulations for Currency Exchange, Payday Loan and Pawn Shops. Provisions were
amended into the code to allow the uses by conditional use permit and with specific
conditions.
• Communication Towers. A section was added to the zoning ordinance specifically
identifying regulations and performance standards for communication towers. Each zoning
district was also amended to establish a maximum height that could be approved
administratively and a taller height that could be approved by CUP.
• Service land use in the Office Zoning District. The Office Zoning District was amended to
allow service land uses as a permitted land use. Service land uses include uses such as nail
and hair salons and spas.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Work Plan
St. Louis Park Planning Commission
2009 Work Plan
1. 2009 Comprehensive Plan Update – Continue working closely with Staff to update and
revise the 2020 Comprehensive Plan to reflect:
The intent of the City’s 2006 Visioning Process
Redevelopment that has occurred since the completion of the previous
Comprehensive Plan
New planning trends and city-wide redevelopment goals
An improved plan that will be utilized and will inform the regular work completed
by the Planning Commission, City Staff, and the City Council
2. Comprehensive Plan Update - Participate in “Plan by Neighborhood” public process for
the Comprehensive Plan update. The Commissioners will attend neighborhood meetings
and join in the process with citizens to hear first hand their concerns and perspectives.
3. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance – Continue work to update the Zoning Ordinance,
including some clarification and reorganizing, as well as substantive items relating to signs
PUDs, and changes resulting from the Comprehensive Plan Update.
4. Review Planning Applications – Hear applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs),
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings,
Preliminary Plats and variances. Hold public hearings, discuss planning impacts, and make
recommendations to the City Council.
Potential and Continuing Applications:
West End (Duke) Redevelopment – Rezoning, PUD, Plat for the office phase
Wooddale Pointe, revised concept
Santorini restaurant site
Small subdivisions
Ellipse development at Excelsior Blvd and France Ave.
Municipal Buildings – Municipal Service Center, two fire stations.
Hotel at Metropointe
Meeting Date: March 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:
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: March 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:
Wind Turbines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is providing general information to Council about the city’s Zoning Code as it relates to wind
turbines. Based on staff’s initial review, if the City Council wishes to consider this further, staff
recommends that the city hire a consultant to complete a zoning study on wind turbines that
recommends how the Zoning Code should address this emerging use.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to have staff proceed on studying how the zoning code should address
wind turbines?
Does the Council have any other questions on this topic prior to the start of the study?
BACKGROUND:
City Council directed staff to look at the city’s ordinance as it pertains to wind turbines and to
report back on what is currently allowed in the city.
After extensive review and discussions with staff, it was determined that the City’s Zoning
Ordinance does not specifically address wind turbines. We could use various pieces to try to
interpret what we could do, but after discussions, staff determined that it would be best to take a
closer look and be more proactive in how this could be added into our zoning code.
Wind turbines in residential setting are a challenge because of generally small lot sizes, proximity of
neighbors, low wind speed, and the height required to operate the turbine efficiently. Small wind
turbines may require a minimum of 0.5 to 1.0 acres of land for operational needs, and to achieve
maximum efficiency may be up to 100 feet (30 meters) in height.
Turbines are generally easier to site in large lot and rural areas, which allow for a larger setbacks from
trees and structures, and provide a sufficient collapse radius for safety in the event of a tower failure.
For these reasons, staff recommends hiring a consultant to conduct a zoning study on wind turbines
that would recommend how to address wind turbines in the city’s Zoning Code. Community
Development would take the lead on this study and would plan to start on this in March or April.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Wind Turbines
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff estimates that the cost of the zoning study should not exceed $10,000 and can be funded
through the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Research on wind turbine towers is consistent with the Council’s Vision Strategic Direction, “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: None
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning/Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 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:
February 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 February in the fiscal year, actual revenues and expenditures should generally run
about 17% of the annual budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 14.7% and
the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 14.6%. Significant variances exceeding budget are
highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
• We need to carefully monitor building permit revenues. They are at 17% - right where they
should be at this point in the year, but the economic slowdown may cause this large revenue
source to run below budget this year.
• Liquor license revenues are coming in slower this year than last. We projected a significant
increase based on West End establishments that are planned, but not yet completed.
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 yet 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.
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 43% for the year.
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:53:54R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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- 189,004.77- 529,908.63- 1,985,091.37- 21.07 |2,712,715.00-792,962.82- 29.23
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 312,000.00-27,308.47- 284,691.53-8.75 |311,000.00-34,721.14- 11.16
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,647,214.00- 27,898.83- 83,696.49- 1,563,517.51-5.08 |1,709,365.00-328,167.72- 19.20
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,201,900.00- 79,325.74- 81,699.88- 1,120,200.12-6.80 |1,084,975.00-49,507.11- 4.56
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-1,368.56- 3,964.42- 96,035.58-3.96 |100,000.00-17,916.66- 17.92
4001 REVENUES 20,746,389.00-297,597.90-726,577.89-20,019,811.11-3.50 |20,025,234.00-1,223,275.45-6.11
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,646,154.00 1,452,040.80 2,979,900.15 15,666,253.85 15.98 |17,638,555.00 2,976,295.55 16.87
6210 SUPPLIES 781,135.00 49,155.58 119,062.65 662,072.35 15.24 |758,098.00 156,510.64 20.65
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 70,775.00 3,156.81 5,909.19 64,865.81 8.35 |71,350.00 5,237.45 7.34
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,195,215.00 176,856.83 384,360.43 3,810,854.57 9.16 |4,258,872.00 538,811.62 12.65
6001 EXPENDITURES 23,693,279.00 1,681,210.02 3,489,232.42 20,204,046.58 14.73 |22,726,875.00 3,676,855.26 16.18
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,628,910.00-2,628,910.00-|2,555,694.00-425,949.02- 16.67
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-398.15-1,601.85- 19.91 |2,000.00-114.73- 5.74
8100 INTEREST 350,000.00-350,000.00-|325,000.00-86,604.42 26.65-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 50.00-50.00 |125.00-
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 73.75-167.50-167.50 |110.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,980,910.00-73.75-615.65-2,980,294.35-.02 |2,882,694.00-339,694.33-11.78
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.55
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,000.00 .59- 181,000.59 0.00 |180,650.00 7.28 0.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 31.56 1,031.20 17,968.80 5.43 |400.00 1,988.42 497.11
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,000.00 31.56 1,030.61 198,969.39 .52 |181,050.00 1,996.25 1.10
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 165,980.00 1,383,569.93 2,763,069.49 2,597,089.49-1,664.70 |3.00-2,115,881.73 **********
01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 1,383,569.93 2,763,069.49 2,597,089.49-1,664.70 |3.00-2,115,881.73 **********
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:53:54R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 925.00- 1,775.00-1,775.00 |1,400.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 55,702.00-999.44-999.44- 54,702.56-1.79 |56,402.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,141,598.00- 18,324.38- 32,323.19- 1,109,274.81-2.83 |1,058,170.00-110,772.19- 10.47
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 883,000.00- 57,331.75- 149,877.53- 733,122.47- 16.97 |823,061.00-9,501.29- 1.15
4001 REVENUES 6,153,418.00-77,580.57-184,975.16-5,968,442.84-3.01 |5,687,830.00-121,673.48-2.14
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,520,813.00 240,103.90 513,474.35 3,007,338.65 14.58 |3,403,854.00 533,190.90 15.66
6210 SUPPLIES 922,131.00 56,639.59 96,540.45 825,590.55 10.47 |795,292.00 120,517.21 15.15
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 20.97 20.97 4,099.03 .51 |4,500.00 508.80 11.31
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,703,002.00 55,127.56 293,652.31 1,409,349.69 17.24 |1,543,904.00 405,265.14 26.25
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 15,352.00 15,352.00 |19,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,165,418.00 351,892.02 903,688.08 5,261,729.92 14.66 |5,766,550.00 1,059,482.05 18.37
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00-
8100 INTEREST |1,600.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 12,000.00-1,500.00- 10,500.00- 12.50 |11,100.00-100.00- .90
8200 MISC REVENUE 29,060.08- 29,060.08 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 12,000.00-30,560.08-18,560.08 254.67 |87,700.00-100.00-.11
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 1,496.84 16.67
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 3.79 3.79 3.79-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 520.72 520.72-|1,600.81
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 3.79 524.51 524.51-|8,981.00 3,097.65 34.49
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 274,315.24 688,677.35 688,677.35-|1.00 940,806.22 *********
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 274,315.24 688,677.35 688,677.35-|1.00 940,806.22 *********
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 15.00-32.26-32.26 |74.54-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-118.56-118.56- 84,881.44-.14 |85,000.00-14,166.66- 16.67
4001 REVENUES 15,100,480.00-133.56-150.82-15,100,329.18-0.00 |14,237,384.00-14,241.20-.10
6001 EXPENDITURES
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,542,855.00-2,542,855.00-|2,471,711.00-425,949.02- 17.23
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-|2,796,711.00-339,344.60-12.13
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 17,813,335.00-133.56-150.82-17,813,184.18-0.00 |16,854,095.00-353,585.80-2.10
100 GENERAL 17,813,335.00-133.56-150.82-17,813,184.18-0.00 |16,854,095.00-353,585.80-2.10
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 5
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 215,500.00-50.00 147,705.00- 67,795.00- 68.54 |178,000.00-171,350.00- 96.26
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 97.00-97.00 |
4001 REVENUES 223,500.00-50.00 147,802.00-75,698.00-66.13 |186,000.00-171,350.00-92.12
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 531,500.00 47,215.84 97,666.97 433,833.03 18.38 |511,250.00 98,673.98 19.30
6210 SUPPLIES 3,700.00 182.83 448.86 3,251.14 12.13 |4,350.00 115.06 2.65
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,635.00 29,523.06 69,561.81 386,073.19 15.27 |518,727.00 78,650.67 15.16
6001 EXPENDITURES 990,835.00 76,921.73 167,677.64 823,157.36 16.92 |1,034,327.00 177,439.71 17.16
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 73.75-167.50-167.50 |30.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 73.75-167.50-167.50 |30.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.55
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |.55
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 767,335.00 76,897.98 19,708.14 747,626.86 2.57 |848,327.00 6,060.26 .71
110 ADMINISTRATION 767,335.00 76,897.98 19,708.14 747,626.86 2.57 |848,327.00 6,060.26 .71
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 6
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 50,000.00-3,909.25- 3,909.25- 46,090.75-7.82 |50,000.00-3,909.25- 7.82
4001 REVENUES 50,000.00-3,909.25-3,909.25-46,090.75-7.82 |50,000.00-3,909.25-7.82
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 999,200.00 92,933.95 187,873.23 811,326.77 18.80 |951,407.00 182,569.30 19.19
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 5.33 388.48 3,836.52 9.19 |4,000.00 979.47 24.49
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 162,555.00 944.71 2,516.71 160,038.29 1.55 |167,356.00 18,853.83 11.27
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,165,980.00 93,883.99 190,778.42 975,201.58 16.36 |1,122,763.00 202,402.60 18.03
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 50.00-50.00 |125.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 50.00-50.00 |125.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 .59-500.59 .12- |150.00 7.28 4.85
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 500.00 |300.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 .59-1,000.59 .06-|450.00 7.28 1.62
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,116,980.00 89,974.74 186,818.58 930,161.42 16.73 |1,073,213.00 198,375.63 18.48
120 FINANCE 1,116,980.00 89,974.74 186,818.58 930,161.42 16.73 |1,073,213.00 198,375.63 18.48
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 7
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 9,000.00-7,639.00- 5,139.00-3,861.00- 57.10 |9,000.00-1,338.00- 14.87
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-7,639.00-5,139.00-3,861.00-57.10 |9,000.00-1,338.00-14.87
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 481,000.00 37,205.56 75,755.59 405,244.41 15.75 |459,624.00 76,782.90 16.71
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 136.34 396.19 1,603.81 19.81 |2,000.00 192.49 9.62
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 5,814.55 45,074.62 115,475.38 28.08 |168,050.00 46,902.86 27.91
6001 EXPENDITURES 643,550.00 43,156.45 121,226.40 522,323.60 18.84 |629,674.00 123,878.25 19.67
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 634,550.00 35,517.45 116,087.40 518,462.60 18.29 |620,674.00 122,540.25 19.74
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 634,550.00 35,517.45 116,087.40 518,462.60 18.29 |620,674.00 122,540.25 19.74
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 8
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 12,000.00-720.00- 1,250.00- 10,750.00- 10.42 |12,000.00-2,020.00- 16.83
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 585,000.00- 62,640.64- 62,837.77- 522,162.23- 10.74 |572,675.00-37,418.57- 6.53
4001 REVENUES 597,000.00-63,360.64-64,087.77-532,912.23-10.73 |584,675.00-39,438.57-6.75
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,047,000.00 104,899.59 215,474.35 831,525.65 20.58 |1,019,147.00 224,565.71 22.03
6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 29.85 79.50 2,920.50 2.65 |3,000.00 150.13 5.00
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,750.00 251.97 1,275.97 55,474.03 2.25 |57,750.00 1,664.01 2.88
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,107,750.00 105,181.41 216,829.82 890,920.18 19.57 |1,080,897.00 226,379.85 20.94
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 510,750.00 41,820.77 152,742.05 358,007.95 29.91 |496,222.00 186,941.28 37.67
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 510,750.00 41,820.77 152,742.05 358,007.95 29.91 |496,222.00 186,941.28 37.67
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 9
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 15,000.00-1,250.00- 3,750.00- 11,250.00- 25.00 |15,000.00-3,750.00- 25.00
4001 REVENUES 23,200.00-1,250.00-3,750.00-19,450.00-16.16 |23,200.00-3,750.00-16.16
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 534,000.00 37,166.70 78,256.85 455,743.15 14.65 |510,784.00 79,136.27 15.49
6210 SUPPLIES 105,500.00 3,215.27 3,963.68 101,536.32 3.76 |109,500.00 12,054.51 11.01
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 726.91 726.91 25,273.09 2.80 |31,000.00 439.60 1.42
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 537,942.00 45,063.07 69,627.41 468,314.59 12.94 |536,642.00 76,899.98 14.33
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,203,442.00 86,171.95 152,574.85 1,050,867.15 12.68 |1,187,926.00 168,530.36 14.19
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 3.07 3.07 3.07-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 3.07 3.07 3.07-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,180,242.00 84,925.02 148,827.92 1,031,414.08 12.61 |1,164,726.00 164,780.36 14.15
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,180,242.00 84,925.02 148,827.92 1,031,414.08 12.61 |1,164,726.00 164,780.36 14.15
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 10
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 51,674.32 104,961.16 470,038.84 18.25 |566,679.00 111,858.97 19.74
6210 SUPPLIES 30,800.00 85.98 253.89 30,546.11 .82 |31,200.00 1,925.76 6.17
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,672.50 2,672.50-|2,300.00 560.10 24.35
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 877,970.00 27,054.36 33,991.79 843,978.21 3.87 |860,660.00 112,036.36 13.02
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,483,770.00 78,814.66 141,879.34 1,341,890.66 9.56 |1,460,839.00 226,381.19 15.50
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |25.76
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |25.76
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,483,770.00 78,814.66 141,879.34 1,341,890.66 9.56 |1,460,839.00 226,406.95 15.50
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,483,770.00 78,814.66 141,879.34 1,341,890.66 9.56 |1,460,839.00 226,406.95 15.50
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 11
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 7,694.28 16,610.38 168,369.62 8.98 |173,932.00 12,892.77 7.41
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 104,245.00 120.19 19,483.66 84,761.34 18.69 |113,850.00 29,327.81 25.76
6001 EXPENDITURES 289,225.00 7,814.47 36,094.04 253,130.96 12.48 |287,782.00 42,220.58 14.67
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 286,225.00 7,814.47 36,094.04 250,130.96 12.61 |287,782.00 42,220.58 14.67
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 286,225.00 7,814.47 36,094.04 250,130.96 12.61 |287,782.00 42,220.58 14.67
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 12
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 303,500.00-27,308.47- 276,191.53-9.00 |302,600.00-34,328.14- 11.34
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 809,009.00- 27,898.83- 83,696.49- 725,312.51- 10.35 |882,160.00-74,392.22- 8.43
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-4,559.85- 8,719.60- 100,980.40-7.95 |110,300.00-5,989.75- 5.43
4001 REVENUES 1,222,209.00-32,458.68-119,724.56-1,102,484.44-9.80 |1,295,060.00-114,710.11-8.86
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,572,294.00 506,554.51 1,029,627.46 5,542,666.54 15.67 |6,185,321.00 1,028,410.44 16.63
6210 SUPPLIES 150,900.00 6,722.09 11,667.87 139,232.13 7.73 |155,300.00 6,388.37 4.11
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 35,775.00 638.97 718.85 35,056.15 2.01 |33,550.00 4,237.75 12.63
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 547,053.00 20,369.19 45,164.66 501,888.34 8.26 |552,343.00 61,485.64 11.13
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,306,022.00 534,284.76 1,087,178.84 6,218,843.16 14.88 |6,926,514.00 1,100,522.20 15.89
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-398.15-1,601.85- 19.91 |2,000.00-114.73- 5.74
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00-398.15-1,601.85-19.91 |2,000.00-114.73-5.74
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 20.33 479.67 4.07 |100.00 35.96 35.96
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 20.33 979.67 2.03 |600.00 35.96 5.99
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,082,813.00 501,826.08 967,076.46 5,115,736.54 15.90 |5,630,054.00 985,733.32 17.51
160 POLICE 6,082,813.00 501,826.08 967,076.46 5,115,736.54 15.90 |5,630,054.00 985,733.32 17.51
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 13
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 5,892.13 11,987.48 64,512.52 15.67 |73,127.00 12,245.22 16.75
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |1,100.00 21.38 1.94
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 318.96 318.96 8,386.04 3.66 |9,756.00 4,846.93 49.68
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,055.00 6,211.09 12,306.44 73,748.56 14.30 |83,983.00 17,113.53 20.38
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 6,211.09 12,306.44 12,306.44-|17,113.53
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 6,211.09 12,306.44 12,306.44-|17,113.53
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 14
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 50,000.00-1,838.95- 2,955.53- 47,044.47-5.91 |55,000.00-2,764.90- 5.03
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-300,000.00-|332,000.00-33,660.00- 10.14
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-485.00-860.00-3,140.00- 21.50 |4,000.00-385.00- 9.63
4001 REVENUES 354,000.00-2,323.95-3,815.53-350,184.47-1.08 |391,000.00-36,809.90-9.41
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,815,680.00 208,864.89 426,306.75 2,389,373.25 15.14 |2,712,378.00 425,803.42 15.70
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 1,826.66 3,970.84 67,839.16 5.53 |93,648.00 41,330.68 44.13
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 1,790.93 1,790.93 3,209.07 35.82 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 224,183.00 7,618.24 12,529.11 211,653.89 5.59 |223,092.00 24,999.37 11.21
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,116,673.00 220,100.72 444,597.63 2,672,075.37 14.27 |3,029,118.00 492,133.47 16.25
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,762,673.00 217,776.77 440,782.10 2,321,890.90 15.95 |2,638,118.00 455,323.57 17.26
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,762,673.00 217,776.77 440,782.10 2,321,890.90 15.95 |2,638,118.00 455,323.57 17.26
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 15
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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- 185,445.82- 366,648.10- 1,795,851.90- 16.95 |2,392,615.00-608,827.92- 25.45
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 77.00-105.00-105.00 |800.00-392.00- 49.00
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 95.86-95.86 |
4001 REVENUES 2,162,500.00-185,522.82-366,848.96-1,795,651.04-16.96 |2,393,415.00-609,219.92-25.45
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,941,500.00 140,475.25 288,231.65 1,653,268.35 14.85 |1,771,747.00 292,161.05 16.49
6210 SUPPLIES 22,300.00 812.60 1,902.70 20,397.30 8.53 |11,500.00 1,320.53 11.48
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 71,627.00 536.50 2,799.41 68,827.59 3.91 |69,627.00 13,995.09 20.10
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,035,427.00 141,824.35 292,933.76 1,742,493.24 14.39 |1,852,874.00 307,476.67 16.59
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS |80.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |80.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 28.49 1,007.80 16,992.20 5.60 |1,926.70
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 28.49 1,007.80 16,992.20 5.60 |1,926.70
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 109,073.00-43,669.98-72,907.40-36,165.60-66.84 |540,541.00-299,896.55-55.48
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 109,073.00-43,669.98-72,907.40-36,165.60-66.84 |540,541.00-299,896.55-55.48
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 16
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 67,473.30 133,055.24 693,444.76 16.10 |793,133.00 120,299.46 15.17
6210 SUPPLIES 4,500.00 306.30 348.67 4,151.33 7.75 |4,500.00 422.67 9.39
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 22,950.00 762.00 1,747.00 21,203.00 7.61 |33,450.00 1,912.43 5.72
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,950.00 68,541.60 135,150.91 719,799.09 15.81 |832,583.00 122,634.56 14.73
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,950.00 68,541.60 135,150.91 719,799.09 15.81 |832,583.00 122,634.56 14.73
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,950.00 68,541.60 135,150.91 719,799.09 15.81 |832,583.00 122,634.56 14.73
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 17
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 75,000.00-1,050.00- 11,350.00- 63,650.00- 15.13 |75,000.00-8,000.00- 10.67
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 436,000.00-436,000.00-|330,000.00-
4001 REVENUES 511,000.00-1,050.00-11,350.00-499,650.00-2.22 |405,000.00-8,000.00-1.98
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 844,000.00 53,304.68 109,080.14 734,919.86 12.92 |690,511.00 110,335.55 15.98
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 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 2,135.62 3,050.14 67,699.86 4.31 |85,671.00 3,037.42 3.55
6001 EXPENDITURES 923,800.00 55,440.30 112,183.65 811,616.35 12.14 |785,182.00 113,814.35 14.50
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 412,800.00 54,390.30 100,833.65 311,966.35 24.43 |380,182.00 105,814.35 27.83
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 412,800.00 54,390.30 100,833.65 311,966.35 24.43 |380,182.00 105,814.35 27.83
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 18
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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-|400.00-393.00- 98.25
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 490,000.00-490,000.00-|450,000.00-220,115.50- 48.91
4001 REVENUES 490,500.00-490,500.00-|450,500.00-220,508.50-48.95
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,217,000.00 90,685.80 205,012.90 1,011,987.10 16.85 |1,219,515.00 200,560.51 16.45
6210 SUPPLIES 374,500.00 35,832.33 95,588.60 278,911.40 25.52 |331,000.00 91,168.21 27.54
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 894,300.00 36,344.41 77,219.18 817,080.82 8.63 |861,898.00 64,199.22 7.45
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,485,800.00 162,862.54 377,820.68 2,107,979.32 15.20 |2,412,413.00 355,927.94 14.75
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,995,300.00 162,862.54 377,820.68 1,617,479.32 18.94 |1,961,913.00 135,419.44 6.90
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 1,995,300.00 162,862.54 377,820.68 1,617,479.32 18.94 |1,961,913.00 135,419.44 6.90
01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 1,383,569.93 2,763,069.49 2,597,089.49-1,664.70 |3.00-2,115,881.73 **********
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 19
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 259,298.00-5,211.00- 7,940.54- 251,357.46-3.06 |242,070.00-72,398.20- 29.91
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-3,432.50 1,045.00 35,045.00-3.07- |19,600.00-350.00- 1.79
4001 REVENUES 4,411,118.00-1,778.50-6,895.54-4,404,222.46-.16 |4,056,569.00-72,748.20-1.79
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 729,162.00 53,171.71 112,147.36 617,014.64 15.38 |711,222.00 121,693.75 17.11
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 2,395.27 2,933.18 56,517.82 4.93 |66,892.00 3,940.54 5.89
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 502,597.00 18,085.88 216,097.56 286,499.44 43.00 |472,585.00 224,173.64 47.44
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,291,210.00 73,652.86 331,178.10 960,031.90 25.65 |1,250,699.00 349,807.93 27.97
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |1,600.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 14,000.00-1,500.00- 12,500.00- 10.71 |13,100.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE 29,060.08- 29,060.08 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 14,000.00-30,560.08-16,560.08 218.29 |14,700.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 3.79 3.79 3.79-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 481.38 481.38-|1,521.69
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 3.79 485.17 485.17-|1,521.69
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,133,908.00-71,878.15 294,207.65 3,428,115.65-9.39-|2,820,570.00-278,581.42 9.88-
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,133,908.00-71,878.15 294,207.65 3,428,115.65-9.39-|2,820,570.00-278,581.42 9.88-
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 20
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
22Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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- 10,847.13- 19,947.15- 659,052.85-2.94 |645,500.00-27,562.99- 4.27
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 722,000.00- 60,030.25- 140,564.54- 581,435.46- 19.47 |691,200.00-9,315.55 1.35-
4001 REVENUES 1,401,000.00-70,877.38-160,511.69-1,240,488.31-11.46 |1,336,700.00-18,247.44-1.37
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 792,467.00 46,122.63 94,290.38 698,176.62 11.90 |765,999.00 93,429.02 12.20
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 7,230.21 16,998.97 153,351.03 9.98 |167,100.00 12,892.60 7.72
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 491,950.00 28,284.99 46,329.00 445,621.00 9.42 |413,284.00 54,461.79 13.18
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |12,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,454,767.00 81,637.83 157,618.35 1,297,148.65 10.83 |1,358,383.00 160,783.41 11.84
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 53,767.00 10,760.45 2,893.34-56,660.34 5.38-|21,683.00 142,535.97 657.36
201 RECREATION CENTER 53,767.00 10,760.45 2,893.34-56,660.34 5.38-|21,683.00 142,535.97 657.36
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 21
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
23Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 925.00- 1,775.00-1,775.00 |1,400.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,700.00-10,700.00-|8,700.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 26,000.00-720.00- 9,225.99- 16,774.01- 35.48 |11,600.00-1,690.00- 14.57
4001 REVENUES 36,700.00-1,645.00-11,000.99-25,699.01-29.98 |20,300.00-3,090.00-15.22
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 986,400.00 66,043.59 146,725.97 839,674.03 14.87 |961,356.00 152,850.31 15.90
6210 SUPPLIES 93,555.00 1,978.95 5,004.53 88,550.47 5.35 |88,700.00 9,504.88 10.72
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,000.00 508.80 12.72
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 369,510.00 4,721.15 18,237.70 351,272.30 4.94 |316,462.00 48,735.61 15.40
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,460,585.00 72,743.69 169,968.20 1,290,616.80 11.64 |1,377,518.00 211,599.60 15.36
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,423,885.00 71,098.69 158,967.21 1,264,917.79 11.16 |1,357,218.00 208,509.60 15.36
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,423,885.00 71,098.69 158,967.21 1,264,917.79 11.16 |1,357,218.00 208,509.60 15.36
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 22
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
24Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 82,600.00-1,816.25- 4,050.50- 78,549.50-4.90 |80,150.00-5,997.85- 7.48
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 14.00-82.00-82.00 |
4001 REVENUES 82,600.00-1,830.25-4,132.50-78,467.50-5.00 |80,150.00-5,997.85-7.48
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 420,586.00 28,694.60 62,186.75 358,399.25 14.79 |404,679.00 63,573.36 15.71
6210 SUPPLIES 26,700.00 218.73 592.19 26,107.81 2.22 |22,650.00 2,131.43 9.41
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 44,500.00 1,759.05 3,792.66 40,707.34 8.52 |39,349.00 4,663.61 11.85
6001 EXPENDITURES 491,786.00 30,672.38 66,571.60 425,214.40 13.54 |466,678.00 70,368.40 15.08
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |100.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |100.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 39.34 39.34-|79.12
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 39.34 39.34-|79.12
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 409,186.00 28,842.13 62,478.44 346,707.56 15.27 |386,528.00 64,349.67 16.65
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 409,186.00 28,842.13 62,478.44 346,707.56 15.27 |386,528.00 64,349.67 16.65
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 23
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
25Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 110,000.00-450.00-385.00- 109,615.00-.35 |81,750.00-4,813.15- 5.89
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,050.00-1,050.00 |
4001 REVENUES 110,000.00-450.00-1,435.00-108,565.00-1.30 |81,750.00-4,813.15-5.89
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,898.00 8,292.45 17,055.15 91,842.85 15.66 |99,297.00 17,523.17 17.65
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 182.89 1,001.89 18,423.11 5.16 |17,900.00 3,762.97 21.02
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 158,470.00 781.08 2,637.87 155,832.13 1.66 |171,285.00 46,872.40 27.37
6001 EXPENDITURES 286,793.00 9,256.42 20,694.91 266,098.09 7.22 |288,982.00 68,158.54 23.59
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 8,806.42 19,259.91 159,533.09 10.77 |209,232.00 63,345.39 30.28
204 ENVIRONMENT 178,793.00 8,806.42 19,259.91 159,533.09 10.77 |209,232.00 63,345.39 30.28
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 24
3/16/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 17:55:29R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
26Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20092/28/2009 <==========================================>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 11,000.00-999.44-999.44- 10,000.56-9.09 |11,700.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-101,000.00-|100,661.00-16,776.84- 16.67
4001 REVENUES 112,000.00-999.44-999.44-111,000.56-.89 |112,361.00-16,776.84-14.93
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,300.00 37,778.92 81,068.74 402,231.26 16.77 |461,301.00 84,121.29 18.24
6210 SUPPLIES 552,650.00 44,633.54 70,009.69 482,640.31 12.67 |432,050.00 88,284.79 20.43
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 20.97 20.97 20.97-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 135,975.00 1,495.41 6,557.52 129,417.48 4.82 |130,939.00 26,358.09 20.13
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 8,352.00 8,352.00 |
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,180,277.00 83,928.84 157,656.92 1,022,620.08 13.36 |1,024,290.00 198,764.17 19.41
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |75,000.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 1,496.84 16.67
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |8,981.00 1,496.84 16.67
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,068,277.00 82,929.40 156,657.48 911,619.52 14.66 |845,910.00 183,484.17 21.69
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,068,277.00 82,929.40 156,657.48 911,619.52 14.66 |845,910.00 183,484.17 21.69
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 274,315.24 688,677.35 688,677.35-|1.00 940,806.22 *********
Meeting of March 23, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: February 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 25