HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/08/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
AUGUST 24 2009
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning --- September 14, 2009
2. 6:35 p.m. Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update (with consultant)
3. 7:20 p.m. Update on SWLRT/Freight Rail Study
4. 7:50 p.m. General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary
2010 Levy
5. 8:50 p.m. Mayor, City Council and the Economic Development Authority Compensation
6. 9:05 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
7. July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report
8. Change Order Approval --- Procedure Update
9. Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
9:15 p.m. Adjourn
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.
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: August 24, 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 – September 14, 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the study session on September 14, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
Attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for the study session on
Monday, September 14, 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for September 14, 2009
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, September 14, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Friends of the Arts Update – Parks & Recreation (25 minutes)
Representatives of Friends of the Arts will be in attendance to provide an annual update on
their activities, accomplishments, etc.
3. Audit Services for 2009 – Finance (15 minutes)
Does the Council wish to solicit bids for 2009 audit services or extend the existing contract
with Abdo, Eick & Meyers, L.L.P?
4. Review of 2010 Housing Rehab Fund and EDA budgets – Community Development/Parks
& Recreation (45 minutes)
Council and staff will discuss proposed budgets for the 2010 Housing Rehab and EDA
budgets. Does the Council wish to make changes to these proposed 2010 budgets that staff
has developed?
5. Policy on Considering Extensions to Commencement/Completion Dates in Development
Agreements – Community Development (30 minutes)
Does the Council want to direct staff to develop a policy for extending
commencement/completion dates in development agreements?
6. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
Zoning for Wind Generators – Community Development
End of Meeting: 8:40 p.m.
Meeting Date: August 24, 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:
Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. The purpose of this report and discussion is to update the Council on
the planning and project development activities related to this project – Project No. 20120100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The following input from Council is desired:
Does the City Council have a preference for a particular concept?
Does the City Council wish to continue with the development of this project given the
current project funding uncertainties? ?
BACKGROUND:
History
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the T.H. 7/Louisiana Avenue
intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project will provide for the
construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and T.H. 7. The project would
also include pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the
frontage roads in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the T.H. 7 corridor and
Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting the transportation and safety
needs of both Mn/DOT and the City.
In addition to high commuter usage (congestion) in the T.H. 7 corridor, the T.H. 7/Louisana
intersection experiences many other traffic and safety related problems. Louisiana Avenue serves as a
vital north-south corridor through the City, carrying anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per
day at this location and T.H. 7 carries 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day through this intersection.
The close configuration of the frontage roads to T.H. 7 and the heavy traffic generation of properties
in close proximity to the intersection (including Methodist Hospital and Sam’s Club) add to the
intersection’s congestion.
This intersection has also been identified as a higher safety priority concern for Mn/DOT. Despite
recent signal timing modifications by Mn/DOT to the T.H. 7 corridor, the T.H. 7/Louisiana
intersection still experiences significant delays during the peak traffic periods. In addition, traffic
studies for potential future re-development activities, a future LRT Station nearby, and hospital
expansions have determined that this T.H. 7/Louisiana improvement is a critical element in meeting
the future transportation needs in this area.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
T.H. 7 also creates a barrier for bicycles and pedestrians wishing to cross at Louisiana Avenue. A
grade-separated interchange will provide opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to safely cross
the T.H. 7 corridor in order to link with employment centers as well as destinations such as the SW
regional trail, Louisiana Oaks Park, and a proposed future light rail station at Louisiana Avenue and
Oxford Street.
Because of the needed traffic and safety improvements listed above, staff submitted an application in
July 2007 for Federal funds through the State’s Surface Transportation Program administered by the
Metropolitan Council. In, February 2008, staff was successful in obtaining $7,630,000 in federal
funds for this project.
PAST ACTIVITIES:
Public Involvement and Stakeholder Engagement
Since the last Council update on January 12, the first public informational meeting was held on
January 29th. The purpose of the first open house was to bring the public into the interchange
planning process early, to aid in the development and selection of a preferred alternative. Turnout
was light with about twelve people attending to view seven different interchange layout concepts. A
presentation was given to provide background information about the project and details on the
various concepts. The attendees were encouraged to provide comments on the concept ideas and to
share any of their own ideas. Comments were recorded for later use during the alternative screening
process.
In addition to the public meeting, staff and its consultant SEH, Inc. met with some of the property
owners abutting the project area. They included the owners of the Louisiana Oaks Apartment
located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection, Anderson Builders who own property on the
north side of Walker Street between Louisiana and Republic Avenue, and a representative from
Holiday Station Stores for the property at Walker and Lake Street. Each of these owners has a
particular interest in the various interchange concepts as some have significant impacts to their
property. At these individual meetings, each concept was reviewed along with the resulting impacts
to the property.
The owner of Louisiana Oaks Apartment has particular concern over the close proximity of the
entrance ramps on the diamond interchange options (options 5, 6 & 7). His concern is over the
change in view for the south facing apartment rooms that would result from larger retaining walls.
He is concerned over diminished value for those rooms. He also has concern over any access change
to the property entrance on Walker Street.
The owner of Anderson Builders has concern over the button hook concepts (options 1, 2, 3 & 4) as
they will significantly impact his proposed building plans on the property at Republic Avenue and
Walker Street. Anderson Builders plans to move its office into a new building on this site in the
near future.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
The Holiday Station Store representative has concerns over all the concepts because the Lake Street
access at Hwy 7 will be removed in all cases. Mn/DOT representatives have informed us that the
access at Lake Street must be removed with construction of the new interchange.
CURRENT ACTIVITIES:
Over the past several months the Project Management Team (PMT) has been evaluating and
refining the concepts in an effort to determine a preferred concept. In the process of evaluation,
screening criteria was developed to compare and rate the various concepts. The screening criteria
was developed from the initial project goals identified by the PMT and has subsequently been
refined into the following nine criteria:
• Traffic Operations
• Safety
• Transit Friendliness
• Environmental Impacts
• Right of Way/Property Impacts
• Aesthetics
• Estimated Costs
• Ongoing Maintenance
• Construction Staging and Complexity
Using the screening criteria, a comparison matrix was formed to better evaluate the various concept
alternatives. Each of the concepts was rated against the criteria using a positive (+), neutral (0),
negative (-) scale. Using the matrix, fatal flaws were quickly identified and overall feasibility was
discovered. A copy of the matrix is attached.
During the course of concept evaluation, the PMT discussed other concept alternatives, and thought
it would also be important to examine at-grade intersection improvements. As a result, a total of ten
concepts have been developed and evaluated. During evaluation of the concepts essentially three
tiers of intersection improvements have emerged: low level concepts which includes three at-grade
options (options 8, 9, 10); mid level concepts which includes grade separated options with more of a
neighborhood feel and lower costs (options 1, 2, 4); and high level concepts which includes grade
separated options with a more freeway feel, high capacity and high costs (options 3, 5, 6, 7).
All of the low level options were quickly eliminated due to fatal flaws identified in the traffic
operations analysis. All of the low level options would not meet the future traffic demands and
provide little in the way of pedestrian friendliness with regards to easy of crossing Hwy 7.
From the mid level concepts, the button hook ramp concept (option 4) has emerged as a finalist for
the preferred option. It has favorable ratings through nearly all of the criteria. The other two
options (options 1&2) were determined fatally flawed because the Louisiana Oaks Apartments is
essentially wrapped into the middle of the interchange creating significant right-of-way/property
impacts.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
Initially two options from the high level concepts appeared as possible candidates for the preferred
option, the single point diamond (option 5) and the tight diamond (option 6). From a traffic
operations standpoint, both perform the same. However, the single point was removed from
consideration due to its higher cost and its larger footprint. Options 3 and 7 were determined fatally
flawed due to being over designed, not meeting driver expectancy, and higher impacts to right-of-
way and the flood plains.
As a result of the concept evaluation, the PMT is recommending two finalists for the preferred
concept. The Button Hook Ramps with Roundabouts (option 4) and the Tight Diamond (option
6). The consultant continues to analyze variations for option 4 in an effort to minimize impacts on
the Anderson Builders property. One of the variations to option 4 replaces the roundabouts with
signal control at the intersections.
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
An updated schedule is provided in the attachments. We are nearing the completion of Phase 1 and
2 of the project development. Work remaining in phase 2 includes re-engaging the public to gather
input on the final two concepts. Based on comments received from the public the PMT will further
evaluate the two alternatives and recommend a preferred concept. Staff and SEH will then report
back to the City Council with the findings.
NEXT PHASE:
Selection of a preferred concept will mark the completion of phase 2. Staff will then request a cost
estimate from SEH for services required to complete work in phase 3. Phase 3 will consist of
preliminary design and environmental assessment of the preferred concept. Initiation of phase 3
would occur upon approval from City Council. At that time, staff will provide Council a picture of
the funding requirements needed to move the project forwards towards construction.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As briefly discussed in the Background section of this report, this interchange project has received
$7,630,000 in federal funds through the State Transportation Program Urban Grant solicitation.
In addition to those monies, the City recently applied for grant funds through the Metro District
Interchange Solicitation Application. The city is seeking $11,000,000 in construction funds from a
pool of $20,000,000. Results from our applications will likely be known by the end of September.
Staff is also pursuing High Priority Project (HPP) funding for inclusion in the next federal multi-
year transportation authorization bill with support from our US congress member and senate
members.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
The estimated total project costs at this time are as follows:
Total Project Cost (construction, ROW, agreements, design, etc.)
Construction $22,000,000
Design $ 3,000,000
Right of Way $ 3,000,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $28,000,000
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area has been identified by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: Concept Comparison Matrix
Interchange Concept Alternatives drawings (10)
Updated Schedule
Preferred Concept Alternatives refined drawings (2 finalists)
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 6
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 7
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 8
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 9
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 10
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 11
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 12
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 13
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 14
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 15
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 16
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 17
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 18
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 19
Meeting Date: August 24, 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:
Update on SWLRT/Freight Rail Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action proposed at this time. The purpose of this agenda item is to update the City Council on
the SWLRT and the Hennepin County Freight Rail studies.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
To consider options regarding City comments and recommendations regarding SWLRT routes and
freight rail issues.
BACKGROUND:
The SWLRT Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process has been underway for roughly
a year. It is fast approaching completion of the evaluation of alternative LRT routes which will lead
to the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) route for LRT. Once the LPA is chosen, a
more detailed evaluation of the impact of and mitigation measures for the proposed LRT line will be
prepared. The LPA is expected to be selected by the end of this year. The DEIS consultant is
expected to recommend a LPA. The Technical Advisory Committee is expected to make a
recommendation to the Policy Advisory Committee prior to the public hearing scheduled for
September 17th.
Since the last written update given to the Council on August 10th, the draft capital and operations
costs, ridership forecasts and Cost-effectiveness Index (CEI) calculations have been shared with the
SWLRT Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). This
information has also been made public. The information is currently under review by the
consultants and the advisory committees.
The draft results of the cost estimates and ridership forecasts show the LRT routes through the
Kenilworth corridor with CEIs of $24 to $31; and, the Midtown Greenway routes with CEIs of $39
to $48. These results are very significant. CEIs of more than $30 are not likely to get federal
funding to proceed. This suggests that the Kenilworth alternatives are the only viable alternatives.
This in turn raises questions about how freight rail currently using the Kenilworth corridor will be
accommodated and what might the potential impacts of freight rail route changes be on St. Louis
Park.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Update on SWLRT/Freight Rail Study
It is worthwhile to note that all the alternative routes for SWLRT generate impressive ridership
forecasts and estimated total travel time savings. Daily ridership forecasts for 2030 are 24-30,000.
Travel time savings are forecast at 6,500 to 9,000 user benefit hours. The big difference between the
alternatives is the much higher costs for the Midtown Greenway alternatives. The costs for the
Kenilworth alternatives are $850 million to $1.25 billion. The estimates for the Midtown Greenway
alternatives are $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion.
The Hennepin County Freight Rail Study (HCFRS), the purpose of which is to identify and
evaluate alternative routes for the Twin Cities & Western (TC&W) freight trains, is still in progress.
The county has confirmed that they will continue to study three alternatives including rerouting
trains through Chaska, as a part of the next step. The other two alternatives are keeping freight rail
in the Kenilworth corridor and rerouting freight rail north on the Canadian Pacific (CP) through St.
Louis Park. The county’s goal is to make sure that the relocation of TC&W is part of Mn/DOT's
state wide freight plan to be completed by the end of this year. This is important for potential federal
funding for rail improvements and potential mitigation actions. Hennepin County has indicated the
most likely provision that would be included in the state rail plan regarding the TC&W rail is that a
solution is needed and that further detailed study of the three options is required.
You will recall that several actions have been taken to help us understand the impacts and issues
related to the proposed LRT routes and potential freight rail changes. Among the actions are the
following.
1. David McKenzie from the consulting firm SEH is on board and working with us on rail
issues.
2. The City Attorney is identifying the city’s role and opportunities for influence and control of
freight rail system improvements, requirements for mitigation and what needs to be
including in Environmental Impact Statement requirements.
3. City staff has met with Marthand Nookala, the Hennepin County staff member responsible
for the Hennepin County Freight Rail Study (HCFRS) to press the county for responses to
the city’s questions posed in the July 21st letter regarding further analysis needed regarding
freight rail routing in St. Louis Park; including questions regarding continuing freight rail in
the Kenilworth corridor.
4. The Mayor and Councilmember Sue Sanger met with Commissioner Dorfman in person
August 3rd to explain the importance of the rail rerouting issue and the need for response to
the questions presented in the letter to Mr. Nookala. The City Manager and Community
Development director; and, Mr. Nookala and Kerri Pearce Ruch with Hennepin County
were in attendance as well.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Update on SWLRT/Freight Rail Study
5. Mr. Nookala has confirmed that the HCFRS will provide a recommendation to Mn/DOT’s
state wide freight rail plan. The expectation is that the recommendation will be for further
study of the TC&W rerouting options. The recommendation will acknowledge that
TC&W is currently operating under a temporary arrangement within the Kenilworth
corridor. It was also stated that operating TC&W in the Kenilworth corridor permanently is
one of the options for further study.
6. We are expecting responses to July 21st questions very soon from Hennepin County.
7. The county is preparing an analysis that will show what would be necessary to fit both
freight rail and LRT in the Kenilworth Corridor. The expectation is that this work would be
done and available by the city council study session.
In related news, the SWLRT project open houses scheduled for August have been held as scheduled.
The meeting in St. Louis Park was held Tuesday August 18th, 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at City Hall.
The station area plans were also being discussed. Roughly 100 people attended the open house. It
included many people from Minneapolis and other cities besides St. Louis Park.
Next Steps:
Staff will report back to the City Council as more information becomes available and/or conditions
change. A draft resolution stating the City’s position will be prepared for City Council
consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No new financial considerations at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 24, 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:
General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. Staff desires to continue the discussion that began on August 10
regarding the City’s General Fund and Parks and Recreation Fund preliminary budgets. The
primary goal of these discussions is to arrive at a preliminary property tax levy amount that the City
Council feels comfortable in certifying on September 8.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is the City Council in agreement with the specifics of the preliminary budget
recommendations as developed thus far?
• Is the City Council interested in reviewing more detail on a Leave Incentive Program?
• How would the City Council like to use the budget feedback received via the City’s web site?
• What dollar amount would the City Council be comfortable in certifying on September 8 as
a preliminary property tax levy?
• How does the City Council feel about continuing the HRA levy for infrastructure purposes?
• Does the City Council want staff to pursue increases to the City’s franchise fees?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council began discussing the budget implications of the State’s financial crisis starting at
the workshop held in January of this year.
At a budget workshop held on June 22 the budget framework/strategy that staff presented was
endorsed by the City Council as a prudent guide to preparing the 2010 budget.
At a budget work session held August 10, staff received feedback on the preliminary budget
summary that was presented to the City Council. Council asked for more detail on various aspects of
the preliminary budget. The work session on Monday will provide the additional information as
requested by the City Council and address other budget related issues as well. The topics proposed
to be covered on Monday night include:
• Overview of budget framework and where we left off on August 10
• Leave incentive program review: early retirement, voluntary resignation, other
• Impact of proposed position eliminations
• Review proposed line item reductions and related impacts
• Franchise fees
• Proposed 2010 General Fund/Park and Recreation Fund Preliminary Levy
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
• Proposed 2010 Preliminary HRA Levy
• Other state funding potentially at risk
• Communication with public and use of feedback received.
Summary of Strategy/Framework for Balancing the 2010 Budget
As discussed previously with the City Council, the proposed strategy is to address the estimated $1.8
million budget gap by a combination of reducing expenses and increasing revenues. Listed below are
the 5 recommended areas of focus being used to help balance the budget. These areas were
presented to Council on June 22 and also discussed on August 10:
• Wage and benefit freeze
• Position reductions
• Fees for service increase of 3 – 5% and review of new fee possibilities
• Strategic/selective line item reductions
• Modest tax levy increase
What follows is updated information on these five areas.
A. 2010 Wage Freeze - Goal: $311,000 to $610,000, Preliminary Estimate: $311,000
Staff has met with all settled union groups. We have also been holding budget information sharing
discussions with other union and staff groups. We plan to have continued discussions on this in
September. We will not know where this will end up until we are further into the process. For now,
we’ve used the more conservative number and are assuming that the savings will be the $311,000
base reduction at this time assuming all salaries for non-union and unsettled contracts have a 0%
change.
B. Staff Reductions – Goal: $630,113, Preliminary Estimate: $391,613
Thus far the preliminary budget only includes those current vacant positions previously identified
which amounts to a savings of $391,613. To meet the goal identified above, additional savings of
$238,500 will need to be identified via attrition, retirements, layoffs etc.
• Community Development Secretary (vacant) $ 47,555
• Police Clerical .5 FTE (vacant) $ 30,950
• Accountant (vacant) $ 62,000
• Dispatcher (City’s portion of savings) (vacant) $ 45,000
• Public Service Worker (vacant) $ 61,901
• Temporary Inspector (vacant) $ 34,707
• IR Temporary (vacant) $ 47,000
• IR Support Staff (1 FTE) (vacant) $ 57,000
• Other – to be determined $244,000
$630,113
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
Since a target reduction of $630,113 was identified, an additional $244,000 remains to be
identified and is listed as “other” which could be done through attrition, retirement or
position elimination (layoff) type programs.
Please note: Budgeted amounts shown on positions above reflect only the amount in the
general fund. Some of these positions are also funded, in part, from other sources.
Discussion: Attachment- Impacts of Staff Reductions/Changes
Attached you will find a document that outlines service changes as a result of the staff reductions
listed above. Staff would like to know if there are any other questions or if other information is
needed.
Discussion: Attachment – Leave Incentive Programs, Reduction in Force
As stated above, we are in the analysis process to determine the staffing changes needed to meet the
budget reduction of $244,400 listed as “other”. Over the past months staff has been reviewing
various types of leave incentive programs. Information regarding staffing reduction programs is in
the attachment. At the study session, we will discuss the following programs and provide some
general examples of cost:
• Current program – Reduction in Force
• ERIP – Early Retirement Incentive Program
• VRIP – Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program
• Other voluntary Leave or Voluntary furlough programs
C. Increased Fees and New Fees – Goal: $110,000, Preliminary Estimate: ($53,047)
In reviewing fee estimates for reasonableness, we have identified a number of areas where there are
lower estimates proposed. Four large reductions are for:
• Arbotech injection revenue -$51,000 to reflect the proposal of getting out of that service.
This revenue loss will be offset by lower expenses for the Arbotech program.
• Pool revenues -$49,000 to reflect actual revenues given the trend of cooler summers.
• Highway User Tax -$40,000 to reflect lower tax revenues than the initial state estimate.
• Liquor license -$32,140 to reflect the loss of several establishments.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
The specific increases and decreases in revenues and expenditures in the proposed budget are noted
below.
Fees & Revenue Changes Incr/(Decr)
Environment Injection Revenue $ (51,000)
Rec Center Reduction to more accurately reflect anticipated pool fees (49,000)
Public Works Highway User Tax - reduction from 2009 estimate (40,000)
Admin Liquor license revenue reduction per law change (32,140)
Comm Dev Rezoning (12,000)
Fire Permits (10,000)
Finance Housing Authority Contract (1,682)
Reduction in Revenues $ (195,822)
Inspections License fee increases 40,000
Environment Tree Assessments 35,000
Police Byrne stimulus grant 24,000
Rec Center Ice rental 22,500
Park Maint Shelter and Park rental 10,275
Vehicle Maint Other governmental - Housing Authority and Drug Task Force 5,500
Westwood Program revenue 3,800
Organized Rec Revenue increase 1,700
Increase in Revenues 142,775
Net Reduction in Revenues (53,047)
This leaves us about $163,000 short of our revenue increase target, which will be difficult to hit
without a significant new program.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
D. Line Item Reductions – Goal: $200,000, Preliminary Estimate: $284,590
We have identified a substantial number of modest line item reductions. This is net of line item
increases which were estimated at $122,000 in the original assumptions used to arrive at the
estimated $1.8 million budget gap.
Line Item Changes Incr/(Decr)
Facilities Maint Building & equipment maintenance (54,100)
Facilities Maint PBX (50,000)
Organized Rec Printing (32,100)
Communications Reduce other contractual services for consultants (30,000)
Police Non-capital equipment (25,270)
Vehicle Maint Motor Fuels (20,000)
Facilities Maint Reduce supplies (19,350)
Organized Rec Postage (13,200)
Police Supplies (11,500)
Fire Overtime (10,000)
Info Resources Reduce supplies (9,300)
Admin Reduce printing costs (9,000)
Inspections Services and other charges (8,000)
Facilities Maint Utilities (7,500)
Finance Liability Insurance (6,800)
Communications Reduce postage (6,500)
Rec Center Phones (6,000)
Park Maintenance Weed Spraying (6,000)
Admin Reduce other contractual (5,000)
Comm Devel Reduce general professional services (5,000)
Info Resources Reduce printing costs (5,000)
Fire Training (5,000)
Info Resources Various changes related to equipment maintenance (4,200)
Info Resources Reduce postage (3,900)
Admin Misc Adjustment (3,700)
Assessing Reduce equip rental expense for pool cars (3,200)
Rec Center Maintenance (3,000)
Rec Center Utilities (2,500)
Westwood Equipment Rental (2,500)
Park Maintenance Services and other charges (2,170)
Comm Devel Reduce mileage (2,000)
Communications Reduce training (2,000)
Info Resources Reduce repairs & maint (1,900)
Comm Devel Reduce training (1,500)
Comm Devel Reduce general supplies (1,000)
Comm Devel Reduce office equipment (1,000)
Facilities Maint Rental equipment (1,000)
Reduction in Expenditures (380,190)
Admin Increase for election judges 38,500
Communications Increase printing for combined brochure 28,000
Organized Rec Credit Card Fees - missed last year 15,000
Public Works Other Improvements - street lights 10,000
Westwood Program Expense 3,100
Vehicle Maint Licenses 1,000
Increase in Expenditures 95,600
Net Decrease in Expenditures (284,590)
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
E. Modest Levy Increase – Estimate $500,000
Based on the status of the preliminary budget in early August, the August 10 staff report noted a
projected budget imbalance of approximately $178,000. Since that time, staff has continued to
review and refine the preliminary budget numbers and has made necessary budget adjustments
which have increased the gap to $388,236. The difference has come primarily from recognizing
only $24,000 of a $107,000 police grant in 2010 (a drop of $83,000- this amount is now accounted
for in 2009), increasing tree removal by $100,000 to account for the impacts of Emerald Ash Borer
and Dutch Elm removals, and adding back the Communications Intern and Westwood Hills
Temporary positions which were removed in error.
Assuming the staff reductions meet the target of $630,000 (see Section B), approximately $244,000
could be subtracted from the budget gap, thereby lowering it to approximately $144,000.
As noted in previous staff reports, it is estimated the City could increase its property tax levy for
2010 by approximately $1.2 million. The vast majority of this amount is considered a one time levy
as the state is allowing cities to levy back for lost aid in 2008 and 2009. Given this fact, as noted
previously by staff (see attached – Overview – 2010 Budget Strategy/Framework from June 22) staff
would recommend not levying more than $650,000 for the city’s operating budget. If the City
Council wished to levy more than $650,000, staff would recommend that these funds be allocated
towards the City’s capital needs.
In terms of the City’s capital funding needs, as identified previously in the City’s Long Range
Financial Management Plan and as shown on the attachment titled Debt Service and Capital Outlay
Funds, longer term funding shortfalls are expected for our Pavement Management Fund and Capital
Replacement Fund (capital fund for equipment, fleet, buildings and technology replacements).
Possible increases to the City’s franchise fees would help address the anticipated shortfalls in the
Pavement Management Fund. As noted on the attachment, the Park Improvement Fund shows a
projected very healthy fund balance and, as recommended on June 22, staff proposes that
approximately $200,000 of the city’s annual $1 million property tax levy for this fund be redirected
to the Capital Replacement Fund. Even with a redirection of funds to the Capital Replacement
Fund, a funding imbalance will still exist. If the City Council were willing to direct a portion of a
2010 property tax levy increase for capital purposes, staff would recommend it be placed in the
Capital Replacement Fund.
In summary, from a operating levy perspective, staff would recommend the City Council consider
increasing the City’s levy by approximately $500,000 but not more than $650,000.
From a capital funding perspective, if the City Council was willing to increase the property tax levy
for operations by $500,000 to $650,000, and also consider a levy to help address longer term capital
needs, the amount available to levy on a one time basis would range by as much as $550,000 to
$700,000. This would result in the adoption of a preliminary property tax levy at the maximum of
the $1.2 million allowed. Any amount below this is possible as well. Please see the table below for
further clarification. Also attached are exhibits showing estimated property tax impacts to
homeowners based on various scenarios.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
Maximum Levy Increase $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Potentional Operations Levy $500,000 $650,000
Maximum Capital Levy $700,000 $ 550,000
HRA Levy
The City has implemented an HRA levy since 2001 to serve as a funding source for infrastructure
improvements in redeveloping areas. The following is the estimated 2010 Preliminary HRA Levy
based on valuations obtained from Hennepin County with comparative information from 2009.
Due to the legislative changes enacted for Pay 2009 and beyond, the previous year’s ending Taxable
Market Value is used rather than a current market value. For example, Final 2008 Taxable Market
Value is used to calculate the maximum allowable HRA Levy for Pay 2009.
Staff is factoring these changes to arrive at the following estimated levy amount for 2010:
2010 2009
Valuation: $5,639,683,900 $ 5,556,997,200
Multiplier per State Statute 469.033: .000185 .000185
Maximum Allowable HRA Levy: $ 1,043,341 $ 1,028,045
This is a $15,296 increase from 2009 to 2010 in the potential maximum allowable HRA levy.
Budget Communications Update
City staff continues to promote the budget website, which includes background information, reports
and timelines related to the budget process. The site also features the budget feedback tool. The
feedback tool is currently promoted on the city’s cable TV channels, website and through cards
distributed by staff, Council members and Council candidates. To date, more than 60 responses
have been received. The budget feedback tool will remain “live” until Oct. 1. Once turned off, all
responses will be collected into a report for the Council and will be available for a budget workshop
scheduled for October 12. As requested by the City Council at the August 10 study session, staff
proposes that discussion occur on how the data received could be used.
Franchise Fees
The City Council has asked about the ability to increase our franchise fees for capital purposes. Our
current franchise fees, which amount to approximately $1million annually, are used to fund the
Pavement Management Program. The City also levies $415,000 annually in property taxes which
supplements the franchise fees. Based on our Long Range Financial Management Plan, if the
program is maintained at its current level a deficit is projected in the Pavement Management Fund
by about 2016. We have some ability to increase our franchise fees both automatically with Xcel
and CenterPoint, but they have expressed a willingness to open negotiations for a potential rate
increase above what could be raised through the automatic adjustment (staff is trying to determine
how much an automatic increase might generate). In reviewing fees used in other communities,
from a comparative perspective it appears we could increase the fees to raise about $156,000 via Xcel
and $118,000 from CenterPoint for a total of approximately $274,000.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
Our projections show we could use the entire amount of new revenues noted above in order to
maintain a cash balance in the Pavement Management Fund. Staff does not see increases in these
fees providing any relief to the general property tax levy at this time.
Other State Funding at Risk
The City Council asked for information on revenues the City receives from the state that may be at
risk. The revenues that may still be at risk if the state budget crisis continues are:
• Police Aid $350,000 (helps offset city’s cost for pension payments)
• Fire Aid $300,000 (helps offset city’s cost for pension payments)
• Court Fines $303,500
These are the only aids not coming from constitutionally dedicated sources. Court fines are
included in case the court system stops prosecuting misdemeanor charges as was threatened earlier
this year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed tax levy will be used for the Truth-in-Taxation notices that will be mailed to each
property owner in November.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Budget Problem Estimated vs. Preliminary
Debt Service and Capital Outlay Funds
Overview 2010 Budget Framework/Strategy & Estimated Savings
Impacts of Staff Reduction/Changes
Leave Incentive Programs, Reduction in Force
Service Impact of Line Item Reductions
Tax Impact of Levy at $500,000
Tax Impact of Levy at $650,000
Tax Impact of Levy at $1,000,000
Tax Impact of Levy at $1,246,000
Budget Calendar
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 9
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 10
Overview – 2010 Budget Strategy/Framework
Important Assumptions and Understandings
• Based on the Guiding Principles of sustainability and responsibility, we need to develop a
solution that balances the General and Park and Recreation Fund Budget and also addresses
longer term debt service and capital funding needs.
• Estimated 2010 operating budget gap – approximately $1.8 million (this number is subject
to change based on changing circumstances and assumptions).
• Approximately 78% of the General Fund budget is comprised of personnel to allow for
service delivery.
• Total maximum allowable increase in 2010 property tax levy under the law – approximately
$1.2 million (this number subject to change and is based on increasing levy by .86% under
the levy cap and also levying, as allowed by law, for unalloted MVHC in 2008 and 2009
and other miscellaneous adjustments. The state will provide a final number later this year).
• Total amount of equivalent new property taxes estimated to come on line in 2010 due to
expiration of Excelsior Blvd and Oak Park Village TIF Districts – approximately $800,000.
Summary of Strategy/Framework for Balancing 2010 Budget
The proposed strategy is to address the budget gap by a combination of reducing expenses and
increasing revenues. What follows is a summary of the strategy. A more detailed outline of the plan
is attached.
• Reduce expenses by:
Implementing a wage and benefit freeze in 2010. The attached document shows a range
of savings. The higher end savings estimate assumes all three closed contracts have been
reopened and renegotiated. The lower end savings estimate assumes the opposite.
Reduce staff by making current vacancies (or other equivalent positions) permanent cuts
plus anticipated savings from future attrition, retirements, reassignment, reorganization
and/or layoffs.
Strategic/selective line item budget reductions.
• Increase revenues by:
Increase/adjust existing fees for service by 3 to 5%.
Implement new fees for service. An example includes charging for personal injury
vehicle accidents that public safety staff responds to. Other cities have similar fees.
Another option would be to revisit the concept of implementing a street light utility fee.
Increase property tax levy. As noted above, under the law it is estimated the City could
increase its 2010 levy by approximately $1.2 million. The plan being presented to the
City Council identifies an operating levy increase of $500,000. Increasing the tax levy is
an important feature of this plan. Given the economic climate we are in, staff is
particularly interested in the Council’s reaction to this approach. If the City Council was
willing to consider a tax levy increase, staff would recommend that any levy for
operations not be increased by more than $650,000. This is based on the fact a
significant portion of our total allowable levy adjustment is permitted as a one time
special levy to make up for lost MVHC. More explanation will be provided at the Study
Session.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 11
Budget Framework/Strategy - 2010 Estimated Savings
A. 2010 Wage Freeze (short term solution) $311,000 to $610,000
B. Staff Reductions/Changes
Make following current vacancies (or equivalent positions) permanent, and anticipate
savings from attrition, retirement, or other staffing reductions.
Community Development Secretary (vacant) $ 47,555
Police Clerical .5FTE (vacant) 30,950
Accountant (vacant) 62,000
Dispatcher (City’s portion of savings) (vacant) 45,000
Public Service Worker (vacant) 61,901
Temporary Inspector (vacant) 34,707
I.R. Temporary (vacant) 47,000
IR Support Staff (1 FTE) (vacant) 57,000
Other (attrition, retirement or other) 244,000
$630,113
C. Increased Fees and New Fees
Existing Fees (3-5%) $ 75,000
New Fees 35,000
$110,000
D. Selective/Strategic Line Item Reductions (estimate) $200,000
E. Levy Adjustment for Operations (revenue) $500,000
Total Savings and Revenues: $1,751,113 to $2,050,113
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 12
Budget Framework/Strategy – 2010
Impacts of Staff Reductions/Changes
The following references Item B – from the “Budget Framework/Strategy – 2010”.
Listed below are current vacancies (or equivalent positions) that will be eliminated and made
permanent as part of the 2010 budget and includes statements on service changes or reductions that
will need to be made due to the staffing changes.
Community Development Secretary - 1 FTE vacant
Specific services that have been reduced include updating of the Community Development portion
of the City webpage, less clerical support for preparation of slide shows and presentations. There is
less ability to back up the Inspections front desk and the Housing Secretary. We are shifting some
tasks to other staff. Most notably agenda, minutes and other support tasks for BOZA have been
shifted to the Administrative Secretary. To help with work loads, we will be talking to Council
about eliminating BOZA as a separate entity and giving BOZA’s responsibilities to the Planning
Commission. In addition, Planning staff, Housing staff, Economic Development staff, Inspections
front desk staff, the Community Development Administrative Secretary and Housing Authority
Secretary have all absorbed more responsibility for their own clerical and support needs from photo
copying to arranging meetings to assisting at the front counter and handling other general support
type tasks.
Police Clerical - .5FTE vacant
Loss of this position will result in occasional backlogs and stockpiling of routine work, primarily data
entry. It is our hope that we can catch up on this work during slower periods which are generally
not predictable or seasonal in our business. In addition, more care will have to be taken in granting
time off and sending employees to training because this staff reduction lessens the amount of cross-
trained support and back-up available to this work group. It is also likely that overtime may increase
to manage workload fluctuations which cannot be stockpiled. We are looking forward to the
replacement of the additional PD Support Staff that is also vacant to help with this workload.
Accountant - 1 FTE vacant
Loss of this position will mean that some areas will continue to have a lower level of oversight and
attention. Finance staff has not been able to devote significant time to capital project tracking or to
EDA projects until the need becomes critical. The response time that other departments expect for
financial questions is longer than is often expected or needed for their timely performance of duties.
We also have quit preparing the CAFR document in house by asking our auditors to prepare it at a
cost of $9,500 annually.
Dispatcher - 1 FTE vacant
Loss of this position will mean primarily the lead position will need to spend a significant amount of
time working on a shift, and we will need to exercise caution in granting time off and sending
employees to training. It becomes more difficult to grant time off or send employees to training
without paying overtime, and our general policy has been not to pay overtime for either of these.
The uncertainty of our relationship with Golden Valley and other discussions regarding
consolidations and possible configurations for public safety dispatching in the long term are good
reasons for not filling this position as well. However, it is important to note that should we have
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 13
another vacancy or a long term leave occur in Dispatch with the new staffing level, it will be very
difficult to fill shifts and maintain staffing levels without significant overtime and schedule
adjustments, which may frustrate Dispatchers.
Public Service Worker - 1 FTE vacant
The current vacancy is in Park Maintenance. Due to work load demands this time of year and skill
sets of staff, there was a transfer of one staff person from Facility Maintenance to Operations, then
one staff transfer from Operations to Park Maintenance. The current opening is in Facility
Maintenance. The vacancy is being shared right now between various divisions based on critical
work needs and this will continue until final determination or an “equivalent” position for vacancy is
determined. More discussion will take place to determine when and how this vacancy will fit within
all of our maintenance operations. Service in certain areas will need to be reduced due to a reduction
of staff in this area.
Temporary Inspector - 1 FTE vacant (non-benefit earning)
Eliminating a full time temporary inspector position is the result of expected reduced service requests
for inspections and reduced revenue. Permitting activity for 2010 is expected to be lower. As a fee
for service program, staff resources need to be adjusted based on work activity. No effect on public
service levels is expected unless construction activity exceeds projections.
IR Temporary Staff - 1 PT 25hrs/week contract (non-benefit earning)
This means the IT technical staff is reduced to 80 hours/week versus 105 hours/week with the IT
Temp, a 24% reduction. At the same time, the two remaining IT staff are currently absorbing a new
function – complete management of the City’s telephone system. Finally, we are using additional
support from LOGIS Network Services for items that cannot wait. Like other vacancies, the result is
more responsibility with fewer staff resources. This essentially results in the need to enhance triage
for calls for service, slower response times to service calls, less time to add technical functionality, and
less time for preventive maintenance functions. Beyond daily servicing of the technical
infrastructure, major outages are more likely (due to reduced preventive maintenance) and response
to major outages that do occur can be slower. It is also important to note the increasing reliance
Communications has on technology, i.e., web streaming, video on demand, web site, e-newsletters,
intranet, and technical support for the growing number of modern communications tools are a
known risk. Reduced staff support during periods of increasing reliance creates a risk, despite cross-
training efforts and outsourcing (which also have a cost and trade-offs).
IR Support Staff - 1 FTE vacant
The major impact of leaving one of the Support Services Representative positions vacant (or
eliminating it) includes elimination, reduced volume, or longer lead time required to perform non-
essential duties. The largest impact is on coverage of the front desk reception, imaging
(scanning/microfilming) of records, printing of newsletters for 15 neighborhood associations, high
volume copying, bulk office supplies and records center management. Priorities are and will
continue to be adjusted; however, there are not resources to continue all tasks at the same volume or
speed. Most requests in the IT Help Desk would have typically been addressed in days or weeks.
Now, requests are more likely to addressed in weeks or months. The current approach is to triage
requests more. This results in primary attention to public safety and network-wide issues and less
critical issues as time allows. Ultimately, more requests or larger projects either will not be addressed
or need to be outsourced if they must be done. This also has a cost.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 14
Budget Framework/Strategy – 2010
Leave Incentive Programs, Reduction in Force
The following references Item B – “Other” from the “Budget Framework/Strategy – 2010”.
As you are aware, under the listing of staff reductions in “B” there is a category called “Other” that
relates to additional staffing reductions of $244,000 to meet the budget target. This reduction could
be done in a number of ways including reduction in force (layoff/position elimination), or other
incentive to leave type programs. Below are policy questions and information to assist Council
discussion as it relates to work force modifications, early retirement or voluntary resignation
programs and voluntary leave or furlough programs.
• Does the Council wish to make modifications to our current reduction in force program?
• Is the Council interested in Early Retirement or Voluntary resignation programs for budget
reduction?
• Is the Council interested in voluntary leave or voluntary furlough programs?
BACKGROUND:
When undergoing analysis on Early Retirement or Voluntary Resignation programs, the following
are important considerations:
Early Retirement or Voluntary Resignation Incentive Programs (ERIP & VRIP)
The goal of this type of program is to reduce budget costs through a reduction in the workforce. At
a minimum, an ERIP or VRIP needs to take into consideration the following:
• Does the ERIP or VRIP align with business considerations? (What are we trying to achieve?
Do we have a specific number of positions to be reduced or certain job titles or classifications
that no longer fit with business needs?)
• Does the ERIP or VRIP align with Vision, Mission, Values and top focus areas of Council?
• Will the ERIP or VRIP support the organization’s immediate needs as well as long-term
goals?
• Are reductions through ERIP or VRIP sustainable in meeting long term savings? (Do
positions need to be replaced? If so, can the replacement positions be moved to a lower level
job or combined with other positions? If position(s) are replaced, did you include the cost
for recruitment, testing, training, uniforms and equipment?)
• Will it target those positions or areas that need to be impacted?
• Has cost analysis been conducted?
• Which individuals will this potentially impact and will this have a negative impact on
business operations? If so, would an involuntary reduction – in – force, which may rely on
lay-off criteria, be a better way to go?
If a program is approved, the City Manager, after consulting with Directors, would need to make
final determination on which positions would be eligible for the program based on business needs.
Decisions need to be made on how we change operations if we did not replace the position(s),
changed the position(s), reorganized and/or reassigned work, and changed department or division
structure and operations in order to save staffing costs.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 15
Staffing Reduction Program Examples
At the meeting on August 24th, staff will discuss the following programs and will provide some
general examples of cost:
• Current program – Reduction in Force
• ERIP – Early Retirement Incentive Program
• VRIP – Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program
• Other Voluntary Leave or Voluntary furlough programs
1. Current: Reduction in Force - Personnel Manual Section 12.3
The City Manager may lay off any employee whenever such action is made necessary by
reason of shortage of work or funds, the abolition of a position, or because of changes in
organization. However, a regular employee may not be laid off while there are temporary or
probationary employees serving in the same position for which the regular employee is
qualified, eligible and available. In the case of a reduction in personnel, four weeks’ notice of
reduction will be provided, all of which may be provided as paid leave. (Resolution 01-078)
Comment: Along with this program we typically offer outplacement services.
There are possibilities to modify this program, examples as follows:
a. Use existing program and increase notice or payout from current level of 4 weeks to
6, 8, 10 or 12 weeks etc. and provide outplacement.
b. Eligibility from 12/1/09 through 12/31/10.
2. Early Retirement Incentive program as discussed with Council on June 22, 2009
Comment: This is the same program that was offered to staff in 2002-2003. Many of the
positions that were reduced have been replaced over time.
Early Retirement Incentive Program
DRAFT - For Discussion
Business needs require us to continually evaluate the effectiveness of our organizational structure.
The City needs to reduce costs and maximize our effectiveness and efficiencies. This Early
Retirement Incentive program is developed as an incentive to assist employees who want to retire
and save the City money by reducing salary costs.
Retirement Incentive
A. If an employee voluntarily elects to participate in this program, and retires on or
between November 1, 2009 and February 28, 2010, they will receive the following:
• The City will contribute up to $750 per month towards the purchase of the employee
elected medical, dental and life insurance through the plans offered by the City from the
date of retirement through December 31, 2010, and
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 16
• The City will offer an open enrollment period allowing employees who participate in this
program and retire on or before December 31, 2009 to change their medical and dental
benefits as needed to assist them in this retirement program, and
• 12 weeks (480 hours) of additional pay.
B. If an employee voluntarily elects to participate in this program, and retires on or
between March 1, 2010 and June 30, 2010, they will receive the following:
• The City will contribute up to $750 per month towards the purchase of the employee
elected medical, dental and life insurance through the plans offered by the City from the
date of retirement through December 31, 2010, and
• 8 weeks (320 hours) of additional pay.
There are many details to this voluntary plan, so please read carefully. The first step is to
determine whether you are eligible for the program.
Eligibility Requirements
1. Must be eligible for a full or reduced pension through PERA in 2009 and
2. Are a benefit earning employee as determined by the City Manager, and
3. Are in a position that is eligible for this program.
Program Application
• You will have from Tuesday September 1, 2009 through noon on Friday October 30,
2009 to decide whether or not to apply for this program. Early retirement incentive
application packets are available in Human Resources.
• Employees eligible for this incentive must retire between November 1, 2009 and June 30,
2010. Once your application package is approved, the retirement date cannot be
extended or withdrawn. It must be taken on the date you selected or sooner.
• All Early Retirement Incentive Program applications must be submitted in writing to
Human Resources no later than noon on Friday, October 30, 2009. We will, however,
appreciate learning of your decision as soon as it has been reached.
Positions Eligible and Positions Excluded
• This offer is available to City of St. Louis Park benefit earning employees as determined by
the City Manager. Due to staffing restrictions, the following positions are excluded from
this program.
- Sworn positions, including but not limited to: Police Chief, Deputy Police Chief,
Police Lieutenant, Sergeant, Support Services Agent, Police Patrol Officer, Fire Chief,
Assistant Chief, Fire Lieutenant, Fire Captain and Firefighter. Other position(s)
excluded from this program: Public Safety Dispatcher. Please note: other positions
may be added to this listing as determined by the City Manager due to budget
restrictions and staffing needs.
Other Considerations
• To accept this offer, you must sign a release agreement acceptable to the City, waiving your
right to pursue any legal claim against the City of St. Louis Park, its employees and
officers.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 17
• Consideration of this offer and acceptance is strictly voluntary.
• All payments made are subject to customary payroll deductions.
• This incentive program is offered in addition to the normal benefits granted to a retiring
employee.
• Program application forms must be completed and submitted within the timeframe set for
the program.
• The City reserves the right to decline any employee’s request for the Early Retirement
Incentive Program based on the number of requests we receive, an employee’s critical skills,
or business need.
• Health Care Savings Plan/VEBA participation rules will remain in effect for employees
who submit their resignation notice as stated in Section 12.6 of the Personnel Manual.
• The 8 or 12 weeks additional pay are not considered severance and will not be deposited
into the employee’s VEBA account, regardless of participation guidelines stated in Section
12.6 of the Personnel Manual.
• Employees who separate employment under this program cannot be rehired while
collecting benefits under this program and cannot be hired after that period as a benefit-
earning employee.
• Contact your union business agent or Human Resources if you have questions.
3. Voluntary Resignation Incentive Program(s) - VRIP
This program could be designed in many different ways. A few options are listed below.
Because it’s impossible to know who would take advantage of a VRIP, costs are difficult to
estimate.
A. VRIP designed same as Early Retirement Incentive Program with conditions as listed
below:
• Eligible to non-probationary regular benefit earning employees
• Additional severance issued at same level to all who participated
• Additional payment toward health insurance at the same level to all who participate.
• Positions excluded: Sworn Police, Fire and Public Safety Dispatch
• Other positions may be excluded based on business needs
B. VRIP with additional severance based on years of service
• Eligible to non-probationary regular benefit earning employees
• Additional severance based on years of service
• Positions excluded: Sworn Police, Fire and Public Safety Dispatch
• Other positions may be excluded based on business needs
• Could possibly include some funding for health insurance based on years of service
4. Other Voluntary Leave Without Pay or Furlough Programs
• Allow employees to request time off without pay but continue to receive City
benefits (would need to define what “benefits” would continue).
• Program eligibility expires 12/31/10.
• Approval of leaved would need to be based on business needs and City Manager
approval.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 18
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 19
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 20
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 21
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 22
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 23
August 10 Council receives preliminary 2010 budget info.
• First look at general budget numbers from department budget
recommendations for 2010.
• Discussion of guidelines used to prepare the 2010 budget.
• Present preliminary data and obtain direction for more detailed discussion on
August 24th.
• Review concept of Street Light Utility fee.
• Communication plan in place inform public on budget on preliminary 2010
levy and information continues through October 1.
August 24 Council has continued discussion on 2010 budget and more detailed
information including:
• Franchise fees
• Leave incentive program review: retirement, voluntary resignation, other with
info on cost(s)
• Line item cuts: review and service impacts
• Service changes as it relates to reduction of positions
• HRA Levy
• Communication with public – information posted on the web and in
ParkPerspective, gathering info online through October 1, to be compiled for
the October 12 Council meeting. Also how will info gathered be used in the
budget process.
• Provide a list of “other funding cuts” that we may be facing.
September 1 CIP items due to Finance from Department Directors
September Council to discuss CVB (Convention and Visitors Bureau) concept
September 8 Council establishes preliminary property tax levy
September 14 Council to review 2010 Housing Rehab Fund and EDA Budget
October 12 Budget and CIP workshop on a Monday night (extended to review budgets)
October -
November
Finance conducts follow up budget work
November 23 Council reviews proposed budget and CIP at study session
December 7 Council Truth-in-Taxation budget public hearing
December 21 Council adoption of budget, tax levy and CIP
2010 Budget Activities
and Calendar
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: General Fund Budget/Parks and Recreation Fund Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy Page 24
Meeting Date: August 24, 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:
Mayor, City Council and the Economic Development Authority Compensation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
At budget discussions earlier this year, Council requested that the topic of the Mayor, Council and
EDA salaries be placed on an agenda for discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire to make changes in the compensation of the Mayor, Council, EDA or
EDA President?
BACKGROUND:
Below is a summary of compensation:
Year Council Mayor EDA
EDA
President
01/01/2008 – Present $7,165 $12,417 $4,299 $4,299
01/01/2006 $7,165 $10,985 $4,299 $5,731
01/01/2002 $6,365 $9,760 $3,819 $5,092
01/01/2000 $6,000 $9,000 $3,600 $4,800
1985 – 1999 $4,800 $7,200 $2,400 $3,600
If Council wishes to make changes in compensation, we would use the following process:
How are Council salaries set? According to City Charter, City Council compensation is set by
ordinance. This requires a public hearing along with a 1st and 2nd reading. If approved, the salary
becomes effective on December 1, following the municipal election, and would be applied as a new
rate on January 1.
New for 2009: Recently enacted legislation, however, authorizes the Council to reduce their salaries
before the next election.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Mayor, City Council and the Economic Development Authority Compensation
MN Session Laws 2009 Chapter 152, Sec. 17. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 415.11, was
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 3. Temporary reductions. Notwithstanding subdivision 2 or a charter provision to
the contrary, the governing body may enact an ordinance to take effect before the next
succeeding municipal election that reduces the salaries of the members of the governing
body. The ordinance shall be in effect for 12 months, unless another period of time is
specified in the ordinance, after which the salary of the members reverts to the salary in effect
immediately before the ordinance was enacted.
How are EDA salaries set? EDA salaries are set by resolution in accordance with MN State Statutes
Section 469.097. Although they do not require the same process as setting Council salaries, they are
typically adjusted at the same time the Council salaries are adjusted.
What do other cities do? Attached are salary surveys from the League of MN Cities that show the
annual compensation for other metro area suburbs with populations between 25,000 – 90,000.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for Mayor and Council salaries are in the General Fund. Funds for EDA President and
Commissioners are from the EDA (non-general fund).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance
Resolution
Mayor and Councilmember Salary Surveys
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Mayor, City Council and the Economic Development Authority Compensation
ORDINANCE NO. _____-09
ORDINANCE SETTING SALARIES
FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. The annual salary of the Mayor shall be _________, and the annual salary of
each Councilmember shall continue to be ________, until changed by ordinance as provided in
Section 2.07 of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter or MN Session Laws 2009 Chapter 152 Sec.
17.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect _______________.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council _____________
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Mayor, City Council and the Economic Development Authority Compensation
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_____
SETTING THE COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT
OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota was
officially established on September 19, 1988 by Resolution 88-134; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Economic Development Authority bylaws, the
Economic Development Authority shall hold its regular meetings the first Monday of each month;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Section 469.097 (4), a
Commissioner, including the President, shall be paid for attending regular or special meetings of the
Authority and such compensation must be expensed to the Authority’s budget,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park to set the compensation and reimbursement of the Commissioners of the Economic
Development Authority at an annual salary of $________ and the President at an annual salary of
$________, effective _______________.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council _____________
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
Num. ofElectedOfficialsAndover30,207 1 $9,500.00 meeting for EDA N/AApple Valley48,832 1 $11,220.00 HealthPartners $6,924.00 $9,960.00 Bloomington85,832 1 $26,400.00 Authority HealthPartners $6,694.08 $12,720.00 Brooklyn Center27,901 1 $11,166.00 Brooklyn Park71,942 1 $17,100.00 Burnsville61,048 1 $12,000.00 $35 Medica$3,672.00 $3,672.00 Cottage Grove33,529 1 $9,216.00 Eden Prairie61,325 1 $10,620.00 35 Health Partners $0.00 $0.00 Fridley26,603 1 $10,525.00 Medica$4,279.92 $10,808.52 Lakeville52,323 1 $9,996.00 Maple Grove58,491 1 $14,000.00 Maplewood36,397 1 $12,302.00 NoneN/AMinnetonka51,519 1 $12,000.00 0NA$0.00 $0.00 Plymouth70,676 1 $14,004.00 BC/BS$0.00 $0.00 Richfield33,099 1 $9,688.00 HealthPartners $0.00 $0.00 Roseville33,969 1 $9,300.00 0NA$0.00 $0.00 Shakopee30,971 1 $7,854.00 Shoreview26,093 1 $8,976.00 St. Louis Park44,569 1 $12,417.00 EDA - $4,299/yrMayor Salary SurveyOrganization PopulationAnnual WagesAdd'l Pmt. for Special Meetings Health ProviderOrganization ANNUAL Cost for Single Health Cov.Organization ANNUAL Cost for Family Health Cov.Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 5) Subject: Mayor, City Council and the Economic Development Authority CompensationPage 5
Num. ofElectedOfficialsAndover30,207 4 $7,500.00 MeetingN/AApple Valley48,832 4 $8,028.00 HealthPartners $6,924.00 $9,960.00 Bloomington85,832 6 $12,396.00 comm/boards HealthPartners $6,694.08 $12,720.00 Brooklyn Center27,901 4 $8,549.04 Brooklyn Park71,942 6 $11,400.00 Burnsville61,048 4 $8,400.00 $35 Medica$3,690.00 $3,690.00 Cottage Grove33,529 4 $6,780.00 Eden Prairie61,325 4 $8,220.00 35 Health Partners $0.00 $0.00 Fridley26,603 4 $7,654.00 Medica$4,279.92 $10,808.52 Lakeville52,323 4 $8,664.00 Maple Grove58,491 4 $12,000.00 Maplewood36,397 4 $10,827.00 NoneN/AMinnetonka51,519 6 $9,000.00 0NA$0.00 $0.00 Plymouth70,676 6 $10,145.00 BC/BS$0.00 $0.00 Richfield33,099 4 $7,520.00 HealthPartners $0.00 $0.00 Roseville33,969 4 $7,020.00 0NA$0.00 $0.00 Savage25,065 4 $6,000.00 0Shakopee30,971 4 $6,715.00 Shoreview26,093 4 $6,648.00 St. Louis Park44,569 6 $7,165.00 EDA - $4,299/yrCouncil Member Salary SurveyOrganization PopulationAnnual WagesAdd'l Pmt. for Special Meetings Health ProviderOrganization ANNUAL Cost for Single Health Cov.Organization ANNUAL Cost for Family Health Cov.Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 5) Subject: Mayor, City Council and the Economic Development Authority CompensationPage 6
Meeting Date: August 24, 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:
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: August 24, 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:
July, 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.
Through the month of July, actual revenues and expenditures should generally not exceed about
58% of the annual budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 45.6% and the
Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 43.5%. Significant variances from the budget are
highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
• Property tax revenues are slightly below 50% because of delinquent taxes. Staff expects this
figure to get back to roughly the 99% that we have collected in prior years.
• We need to carefully monitor building permit revenues. They are at $2,101,402 – 83% of
the annual budget – which bodes well for the rest of the year. Staff will continue to watch
for any downturn in the coming months.
• 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. Our
license revenue will probably be below budget because we have lost Bennigans and
Santorinis. Also, Fuddruckers downgraded their license and Al’s Bar has closed.
• Community Development revenues have come back up to the normal range in the last
month. Staff will monitor this revenue source both for 2009 budget purposes and as an
indicator of 2010 construction activity.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report
• Communications & Marketing service charges are at almost 97% for the year, but this
reflects the full cost of the combined Park & Rec brochure and Park Perspective. The 2009
budget for IR did not assume paying for the full cost of the combined Park and Recreation
and Park Perspective publication. As such, savings will be shown in the Park and Rec budget
relating to the cost of the Park and Recreation publication. We will need to properly allocate
the costs for the rest of the year.
Parks and Recreation
Revenues:
• Environmental revenues are usually lower because of the time lag between the contractor
removing trees until the city is able to generate invoices. Many of the tree removals are
specially assessed so revenue is not recorded until the end of the year.
Expenditures:
• 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 66% for the
year.
• Recreation Center supplies expenditures are at 73% of the total budget because most of the
pool supplies and concessions have been purchased by this time of the year.
• Environmental services expenditures are at 76%. Many of the tree removals are performed
during the winter due to lower likelihood of spreading diseases and damage to lawns.
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
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:45:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,970,275.00- 7,051,493.31- 7,051,493.31- 7,918,781.69- 47.10 |14,107,179.00-7,134,840.22- 50.58
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,515,000.00- 416,352.84- 1,995,261.35- 519,738.65- 79.33 |2,712,715.00-2,364,325.43- 87.16
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 312,000.00- 31,119.07- 193,349.90- 118,650.10- 61.97 |311,000.00-167,663.59- 53.91
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,647,214.00- 293,865.94- 674,248.70- 972,965.30- 40.93 |1,709,365.00-826,569.77- 48.36
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,201,900.00- 57,273.75- 394,707.62- 807,192.38- 32.84 |1,084,975.00-366,954.88- 33.82
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00- 13,533.00- 96,215.57-3,784.43- 96.22 |100,000.00-74,569.93- 74.57
4001 REVENUES 20,746,389.00-7,863,637.91-10,405,276.45-10,341,112.55-50.15 |20,025,234.00-10,934,923.82-54.61
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,646,154.00 888,169.31 10,586,597.30 8,059,556.70 56.78 |17,638,555.00 10,637,170.14 60.31
6210 SUPPLIES 781,135.00 49,631.07 299,881.20 481,253.80 38.39 |758,098.00 430,790.54 56.83
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 70,775.00 41.19 23,488.64 47,286.36 33.19 |71,350.00 11,812.73 16.56
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,195,215.00 315,613.40 1,922,305.16 2,272,909.84 45.82 |4,258,872.00 1,958,088.18 45.98
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 102.51 102.51-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 23,693,279.00 1,253,454.97 12,832,374.81 10,860,904.19 54.16 |22,726,875.00 13,037,861.59 57.37
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,628,910.00- 219,075.82- 1,533,530.74- 1,095,379.26- 58.33 |2,555,694.00-1,490,821.57- 58.33
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-494.61- 3,449.80-1,449.80 172.49 |2,000.00-163.34- 8.17
8100 INTEREST 350,000.00-76,283.34 426,283.34- 21.80- |325,000.00-86,604.42 26.65-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 9,520.00- 9,520.00-9,520.00 |100.00-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 2,800.00- 3,225.00-3,225.00 |5,450.00-
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 140.00-307.50-307.50 |537.31-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,980,910.00-232,030.43-1,473,749.70-1,507,160.30-49.44 |2,882,694.00-1,410,467.80-48.93
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES .71 .71-|8.25
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,000.00 19.90 81.33 180,918.67 .04 |180,650.00 61,258.82 33.91
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,918.76 6,927.47 12,072.53 36.46 |400.00 14,207.16 3,551.79
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,000.00 1,938.66 7,009.51 192,990.49 3.50 |181,050.00 75,474.23 41.69
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 165,980.00 6,840,274.71-960,358.17 794,378.17-578.60 |3.00-767,944.20 **********
01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 6,840,274.71-960,358.17 794,378.17-578.60 |3.00-767,944.20 **********
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:45:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,073,118.00- 2,036,559.00- 2,036,559.00- 2,036,559.00- 50.00 |3,750,197.00-1,875,098.50- 50.00
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 375.00- 5,835.00-5,835.00 |5,350.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 55,702.00-5,836.76- 33,474.51- 22,227.49- 60.10 |56,402.00-56,543.09- 100.25
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,141,598.00- 95,271.06- 641,661.83- 499,936.17- 56.21 |1,058,170.00-710,287.07- 67.12
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 883,000.00- 57,822.97- 387,573.90- 495,426.10- 43.89 |823,061.00-433,947.47- 52.72
4001 REVENUES 6,153,418.00-2,195,864.79-3,105,104.24-3,048,313.76-50.46 |5,687,830.00-3,081,226.13-54.17
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,520,813.00 227,193.05 2,063,485.14 1,457,327.86 58.61 |3,403,854.00 2,125,068.42 62.43
6210 SUPPLIES 922,131.00 65,704.37 329,560.82 592,570.18 35.74 |795,292.00 576,369.27 72.47
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 20.97 4,099.03 .51 |4,500.00 1,982.01 44.04
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,703,002.00 180,550.48 972,100.74 730,901.26 57.08 |1,543,904.00 1,121,464.86 72.64
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 15,352.00 1,602.83 13,749.17 10.44 |19,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,165,418.00 473,447.90 3,366,770.50 2,798,647.50 54.61 |5,766,550.00 3,824,884.56 66.33
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00-
8100 INTEREST |1,600.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 12,000.00-100.00- 4,115.00-7,885.00- 34.29 |11,100.00-4,877.00- 43.94
8200 MISC REVENUE |4,238.89-
8001 OTHER INCOME 12,000.00-100.00-4,115.00-7,885.00-34.29 |87,700.00-9,115.89-10.39
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 5,238.94 58.33
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 6.98 6.98-|57.02
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 2,400.89 7,311.88 7,311.88-|10,436.09
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2,400.89 7,318.86 7,318.86-|8,981.00 15,732.05 175.17
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,720,116.00-264,870.12 264,870.12-|1.00 750,274.59 *********
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 1,720,116.00-264,870.12 264,870.12-|1.00 750,274.59 *********
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
100 GENERAL
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,970,275.00- 7,051,493.31- 7,051,493.31- 7,918,781.69- 47.10 |14,107,179.00-7,134,840.22- 50.58
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00- 22,602.50- 22,602.50- 22,602.50- 50.00 |45,205.00-22,602.50- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 111.60-385.45-385.45 |167.31-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 49,815.10- 35,184.90- 58.61 |85,000.00-49,707.51- 58.48
4001 REVENUES 15,100,480.00-7,081,290.74-7,124,296.36-7,976,183.64-47.18 |14,237,384.00-7,207,317.54-50.62
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES |52.50
6001 EXPENDITURES |52.50
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,542,855.00- 219,075.82- 1,533,530.74- 1,009,324.26- 60.31 |2,471,711.00-1,490,821.57- 60.32
8100 INTEREST 350,000.00-76,285.95 426,285.95- 21.80- |325,000.00-86,604.42 26.65-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 500.00 500.00 500.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,892,855.00-218,575.82-1,456,744.79-1,436,110.21-50.36 |2,796,711.00-1,404,217.15-50.21
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 17,813,335.00-7,299,866.56-8,581,041.15-9,232,293.85-48.17 |16,854,095.00-8,611,482.19-51.09
100 GENERAL 17,813,335.00-7,299,866.56-8,581,041.15-9,232,293.85-48.17 |16,854,095.00-8,611,482.19-51.09
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 5
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
110 ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 215,500.00-3,550.00- 160,643.33- 54,856.67- 74.54 |178,000.00-177,820.82- 99.90
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-6,000.00- 6,000.00-2,000.00- 75.00 |8,000.00-4,000.00- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 97.00-97.00 |
4001 REVENUES 223,500.00-9,550.00-166,740.33-56,759.67-74.60 |186,000.00-181,820.82-97.75
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 531,500.00 22,572.28 301,846.75 229,653.25 56.79 |511,250.00 357,895.09 70.00
6210 SUPPLIES 3,700.00 1,263.33 1,949.91 1,750.09 52.70 |4,350.00 2,827.84 65.01
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,635.00 26,319.44 215,551.63 240,083.37 47.31 |518,727.00 223,810.10 43.15
6001 EXPENDITURES 990,835.00 50,155.05 519,348.29 471,486.71 52.42 |1,034,327.00 584,533.03 56.51
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 140.00-307.50-307.50 |30.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 140.00-307.50-307.50 |30.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES .71 .71-|8.25
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 4.86 4.86-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 5.57 5.57-|8.25
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 767,335.00 40,465.05 352,306.03 415,028.97 45.91 |848,327.00 402,690.46 47.47
110 ADMINISTRATION 767,335.00 40,465.05 352,306.03 415,028.97 45.91 |848,327.00 402,690.46 47.47
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 6
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 FINANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 50,000.00-4,026.50- 23,807.25- 26,192.75- 47.61 |50,000.00-23,455.50- 46.91
4001 REVENUES 50,000.00-4,026.50-23,807.25-26,192.75-47.61 |50,000.00-23,455.50-46.91
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 999,200.00 41,786.56 567,819.18 431,380.82 56.83 |951,407.00 646,863.17 67.99
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 57.18 1,426.67 2,798.33 33.77 |4,000.00 2,394.67 59.87
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 162,555.00 18,534.40 85,785.93 76,769.07 52.77 |167,356.00 104,205.24 62.27
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,165,980.00 60,378.14 655,031.78 510,948.22 56.18 |1,122,763.00 753,463.08 67.11
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 2,800.00- 3,225.00-3,225.00 |5,450.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE |281.71-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,800.00-3,225.00-3,225.00 |5,731.71-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 24.41 475.59 4.88 |150.00 61,258.82 *********
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 13.80 22.97 477.03 4.59 |300.00 2.96 .99
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 13.80 47.38 952.62 4.74 |450.00 61,261.78 *********
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,116,980.00 53,565.44 628,046.91 488,933.09 56.23 |1,073,213.00 785,537.65 73.19
120 FINANCE 1,116,980.00 53,565.44 628,046.91 488,933.09 56.23 |1,073,213.00 785,537.65 73.19
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 7
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
130 HUMAN RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 9,000.00-5,461.00-3,539.00- 60.68 |9,000.00-3,142.00- 34.91
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30.00-30.00-30.00 |
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-30.00-5,491.00-3,509.00-61.01 |9,000.00-3,142.00-34.91
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 481,000.00 24,008.35 279,760.27 201,239.73 58.16 |459,624.00 271,417.63 59.05
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 306.59 1,331.19 668.81 66.56 |2,000.00 633.23 31.66
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 3,198.10 68,829.97 91,720.03 42.87 |168,050.00 80,757.34 48.06
6001 EXPENDITURES 643,550.00 27,513.04 349,921.43 293,628.57 54.37 |629,674.00 352,808.20 56.03
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 634,550.00 27,483.04 344,430.43 290,119.57 54.28 |620,674.00 349,666.20 56.34
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 634,550.00 27,483.04 344,430.43 290,119.57 54.28 |620,674.00 349,666.20 56.34
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 8
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 12,000.00-1,560.00- 7,725.00-4,275.00- 64.38 |12,000.00-7,300.00- 60.83
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 585,000.00- 46,665.90- 294,323.87- 290,676.13- 50.31 |572,675.00-291,558.09- 50.91
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |14,862.42-
4001 REVENUES 597,000.00-48,225.90-302,048.87-294,951.13-50.59 |584,675.00-313,720.51-53.66
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,047,000.00 38,384.42 583,789.95 463,210.05 55.76 |1,019,147.00 812,217.36 79.70
6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 38.00 434.47 2,565.53 14.48 |3,000.00 406.05 13.54
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,750.00 5,134.42 13,701.50 43,048.50 24.14 |57,750.00 7,622.61 13.20
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,107,750.00 43,556.84 597,925.92 509,824.08 53.98 |1,080,897.00 820,246.02 75.89
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 510,750.00 4,669.06-295,877.05 214,872.95 57.93 |496,222.00 506,525.51 102.08
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 510,750.00 4,669.06-295,877.05 214,872.95 57.93 |496,222.00 506,525.51 102.08
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 9
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 8,200.00-8,200.00-|8,200.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,250.00- 10,000.00-5,000.00- 66.67 |15,000.00-10,000.00- 66.67
4001 REVENUES 23,200.00-1,250.00-10,000.00-13,200.00-43.10 |23,200.00-10,000.00-43.10
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 534,000.00 27,733.04 305,093.23 228,906.77 57.13 |510,784.00 296,693.11 58.09
6210 SUPPLIES 105,500.00 7,346.88 20,125.69 85,374.31 19.08 |109,500.00 46,067.91 42.07
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 4,917.61 21,082.39 18.91 |31,000.00 3,230.10 10.42
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 537,942.00 30,987.06 241,399.96 296,542.04 44.87 |536,642.00 254,356.61 47.40
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,203,442.00 66,066.98 571,536.49 631,905.51 47.49 |1,187,926.00 600,347.73 50.54
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 37.02 37.02-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 37.69 203.10 203.10-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 37.69 240.12 240.12-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,180,242.00 64,854.67 561,776.61 618,465.39 47.60 |1,164,726.00 590,347.73 50.69
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,180,242.00 64,854.67 561,776.61 618,465.39 47.60 |1,164,726.00 590,347.73 50.69
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 10
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,277.42-1,277.42 |
4001 REVENUES 1,277.42-1,277.42 |
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 575,000.00 26,580.37 338,026.71 236,973.29 58.79 |566,679.00 402,578.48 71.04
6210 SUPPLIES 30,800.00 4,283.93 11,218.79 19,581.21 36.42 |31,200.00 15,121.98 48.47
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,931.46 2,931.46-|2,300.00 1,914.16 83.22
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 877,970.00 54,155.22 420,606.87 457,363.13 47.91 |860,660.00 425,326.69 49.42
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,483,770.00 85,019.52 772,783.83 710,986.17 52.08 |1,460,839.00 844,941.31 57.84
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 47.13 72.98 72.98-|34.57
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 47.13 72.98 72.98-|34.57
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,483,770.00 85,066.65 771,579.39 712,190.61 52.00 |1,460,839.00 844,975.88 57.84
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,483,770.00 85,066.65 771,579.39 712,190.61 52.00 |1,460,839.00 844,975.88 57.84
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 11
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,000.00-3,000.00-|
4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-3,000.00-|
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 184,980.00 7,577.68 95,522.51 89,457.49 51.64 |173,932.00 50,909.77 29.27
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 104,245.00 28,145.35 100,882.39 3,362.61 96.77 |113,850.00 94,154.21 82.70
6001 EXPENDITURES 289,225.00 35,723.03 196,404.90 92,820.10 67.91 |287,782.00 145,063.98 50.41
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 16.49 16.49 16.49-|15.03
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 16.49 16.49 16.49-|15.03
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 286,225.00 35,739.52 196,421.39 89,803.61 68.62 |287,782.00 145,079.01 50.41
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 286,225.00 35,739.52 196,421.39 89,803.61 68.62 |287,782.00 145,079.01 50.41
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 12
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
160 POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS |20.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 25,119.07- 187,349.90- 116,150.10- 61.73 |302,600.00-162,980.59- 53.86
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 809,009.00- 38,861.41- 190,911.17- 618,097.83- 23.60 |882,160.00-328,999.22- 37.29
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-5,751.75- 52,648.52- 57,051.48- 47.99 |110,300.00-41,929.48- 38.01
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 5,169.67- 36,370.47- 36,370.47 |
4001 REVENUES 1,222,209.00-74,901.90-467,280.06-754,928.94-38.23 |1,295,060.00-533,929.29-41.23
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,572,294.00 322,110.49 3,756,302.05 2,815,991.95 57.15 |6,185,321.00 3,614,805.07 58.44
6210 SUPPLIES 150,900.00 5,657.60 48,661.19 102,238.81 32.25 |155,300.00 54,754.29 35.26
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 35,775.00 41.19 13,153.64 22,621.36 36.77 |33,550.00 5,913.13 17.62
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 547,053.00 35,745.31 244,998.13 302,054.87 44.79 |552,343.00 233,759.49 42.32
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,306,022.00 363,554.59 4,063,115.01 3,242,906.99 55.61 |6,926,514.00 3,909,231.98 56.44
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-494.61- 3,449.80-1,449.80 172.49 |2,000.00-163.34- 8.17
8100 INTEREST 2.61-2.61 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00-494.61-3,452.41-1,452.41 172.62 |2,000.00-163.34-8.17
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 18.62 76.39 423.61 15.28 |100.00 129.44 129.44
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 18.62 76.39 923.61 7.64 |600.00 129.44 21.57
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,082,813.00 288,176.70 3,592,458.93 2,490,354.07 59.06 |5,630,054.00 3,375,268.79 59.95
160 POLICE 6,082,813.00 288,176.70 3,592,458.93 2,490,354.07 59.06 |5,630,054.00 3,375,268.79 59.95
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 13
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,500.00 3,829.88 44,394.15 32,105.85 58.03 |73,127.00 43,326.48 59.25
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |1,100.00 31.73 2.88
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 75.00 4,743.96 3,961.04 54.50 |9,756.00 4,925.41 50.49
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,055.00 3,904.88 49,138.11 36,916.89 57.10 |83,983.00 48,283.62 57.49
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 3,904.88 49,138.11 49,138.11-|48,283.62
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 3,904.88 49,138.11 49,138.11-|48,283.62
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 14
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 50,000.00-4,876.44- 24,796.34- 25,203.66- 49.59 |55,000.00-24,968.53- 45.40
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-5,712.53- 5,712.53- 294,287.47-1.90 |332,000.00-33,660.00- 10.14
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-476.00- 14,128.00- 10,128.00 353.20 |4,000.00-4,992.50- 124.81
4001 REVENUES 354,000.00-11,064.97-44,636.87-309,363.13-12.61 |391,000.00-63,621.03-16.27
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,815,680.00 133,225.78 1,574,972.73 1,240,707.27 55.94 |2,712,378.00 1,521,176.36 56.08
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 2,816.51 22,499.53 49,310.47 31.33 |93,648.00 53,100.32 56.70
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 1,790.93 3,209.07 35.82 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 224,183.00 18,015.14 93,091.27 131,091.73 41.52 |223,092.00 96,668.65 43.33
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,116,673.00 154,057.43 1,692,354.46 1,424,318.54 54.30 |3,029,118.00 1,670,945.33 55.16
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 10,020.00- 10,020.00- 10,020.00 |100.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 10,020.00-10,020.00-10,020.00 |100.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,762,673.00 132,972.46 1,637,697.59 1,124,975.41 59.28 |2,638,118.00 1,607,224.30 60.92
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,762,673.00 132,972.46 1,637,697.59 1,124,975.41 59.28 |2,638,118.00 1,607,224.30 60.92
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 15
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,162,500.00- 403,886.40- 1,753,996.68- 408,503.32- 81.11 |2,392,615.00-2,096,286.08- 87.61
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |445.65-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 92.00- 2,179.11-2,179.11 |800.00-735.00- 91.88
4001 REVENUES 2,162,500.00-403,978.40-1,756,175.79-406,324.21-81.21 |2,393,415.00-2,097,466.73-87.63
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,941,500.00 94,180.31 1,075,504.35 865,995.65 55.40 |1,771,747.00 1,040,473.51 58.73
6210 SUPPLIES 22,300.00 1,429.92 7,418.52 14,881.48 33.27 |11,500.00 7,857.56 68.33
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 71,627.00 5,624.27 25,647.55 45,979.45 35.81 |69,627.00 42,209.86 60.62
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,035,427.00 101,234.50 1,108,570.42 926,856.58 54.46 |1,852,874.00 1,090,540.93 58.86
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS |225.60-
8001 OTHER INCOME |225.60-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 19.90 19.90 19.90-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,785.03 6,508.94 11,491.06 36.16 |13,999.89
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,804.93 6,528.84 11,471.16 36.27 |13,999.89
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 109,073.00-300,938.97-641,076.53-532,003.53 587.75 |540,541.00-993,151.51-183.73
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 109,073.00-300,938.97-641,076.53-532,003.53 587.75 |540,541.00-993,151.51-183.73
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 16
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 826,500.00 45,785.43 516,691.31 309,808.69 62.52 |793,133.00 446,532.22 56.30
6210 SUPPLIES 4,500.00 1,280.65 2,501.69 1,998.31 55.59 |4,500.00 1,261.48 28.03
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 22,950.00 719.00 6,344.21 16,605.79 27.64 |33,450.00 18,234.68 54.51
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 11.49 11.49-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,950.00 47,785.08 525,548.70 329,401.30 61.47 |832,583.00 466,028.38 55.97
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21.74 21.74-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 21.74 21.74-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,950.00 47,785.08 525,570.44 329,379.56 61.47 |832,583.00 466,028.38 55.97
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,950.00 47,785.08 525,570.44 329,379.56 61.47 |832,583.00 466,028.38 55.97
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 17
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-2,420.00- 47,650.00- 27,350.00- 63.53 |75,000.00-57,900.00- 77.20
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 436,000.00-150.00-400.00- 435,600.00-.09 |330,000.00-975.00- .30
4001 REVENUES 511,000.00-2,570.00-48,050.00-462,950.00-9.40 |405,000.00-58,875.00-14.54
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 844,000.00 39,635.40 426,039.42 417,960.58 50.48 |690,511.00 416,121.77 60.26
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 188.45 1,828.12 5,221.88 25.93 |7,000.00 3,283.87 46.91
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 695.00 1,305.00 34.75 |2,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 1,587.61 23,662.29 47,087.71 33.44 |85,671.00 21,808.81 25.46
6001 EXPENDITURES 923,800.00 41,411.46 452,224.83 471,575.17 48.95 |785,182.00 441,214.45 56.19
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |25.27
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |25.27
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 412,800.00 38,841.46 404,174.83 8,625.17 97.91 |380,182.00 382,364.72 100.57
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 412,800.00 38,841.46 404,174.83 8,625.17 97.91 |380,182.00 382,364.72 100.57
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 18
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 60.00-450.00-450.00 |100.00-30.00- 30.00
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 500.00-500.00-|400.00-683.00- 170.75
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 490,000.00- 226,689.50- 455,022.50- 34,977.50- 92.86 |450,000.00-440,862.40- 97.97
4001 REVENUES 490,500.00-226,749.50-455,472.50-35,027.50-92.86 |450,500.00-441,575.40-98.02
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,217,000.00 60,759.32 720,834.69 496,165.31 59.23 |1,219,515.00 716,160.12 58.72
6210 SUPPLIES 374,500.00 24,962.03 180,485.43 194,014.57 48.19 |331,000.00 243,049.61 73.43
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |755.34
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 894,300.00 87,373.08 377,059.50 517,240.50 42.16 |861,898.00 350,195.98 40.63
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 91.02 91.02-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,485,800.00 173,094.43 1,278,470.64 1,207,329.36 51.43 |2,412,413.00 1,310,161.05 54.31
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,995,300.00 53,655.07-822,998.14 1,172,301.86 41.25 |1,961,913.00 868,585.65 44.27
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 1,995,300.00 53,655.07-822,998.14 1,172,301.86 41.25 |1,961,913.00 868,585.65 44.27
01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 6,840,274.71-960,358.17 794,378.17-578.60 |3.00-767,944.20 **********
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 19
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,073,118.00- 2,036,559.00- 2,036,559.00- 2,036,559.00- 50.00 |3,750,197.00-1,875,098.50- 50.00
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-22,351.00- 22,351.00- 50.00 |44,702.00-22,351.00- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 259,298.00-2,115.13- 175,951.55- 83,346.45- 67.86 |242,070.00-152,618.85- 63.05
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-2,231.50- 10,837.80- 23,162.20- 31.88 |19,600.00-6,886.72- 35.14
4001 REVENUES 4,411,118.00-2,040,905.63-2,245,699.35-2,165,418.65-50.91 |4,056,569.00-2,056,955.07-50.71
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 729,162.00 46,605.48 434,326.46 294,835.54 59.57 |711,222.00 447,143.20 62.87
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 5,861.18 23,580.03 35,870.97 39.66 |66,892.00 26,897.42 40.21
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 502,597.00 40,756.63 340,119.16 162,477.84 67.67 |472,585.00 364,708.03 77.17
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,291,210.00 93,223.29 798,025.65 493,184.35 61.80 |1,250,699.00 838,748.65 67.06
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |1,600.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 14,000.00-1,500.00- 12,500.00- 10.71 |13,100.00-3,000.00- 22.90
8200 MISC REVENUE |4,238.89-
8001 OTHER INCOME 14,000.00-1,500.00-12,500.00-10.71 |14,700.00-7,238.89-49.24
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 3.79 3.79-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 2,349.14 7,073.01 7,073.01-|10,064.37
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2,349.14 7,076.80 7,076.80-|10,064.37
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,133,908.00-1,945,333.20-1,442,096.90-1,691,811.10-46.02 |2,820,570.00-1,215,380.94-43.09
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,133,908.00-1,945,333.20-1,442,096.90-1,691,811.10-46.02 |2,820,570.00-1,215,380.94-43.09
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 20
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
22Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
201 RECREATION CENTER
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 679,000.00- 84,591.49- 381,513.10- 297,486.90- 56.19 |645,500.00-428,039.44- 66.31
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 722,000.00- 43,264.88- 286,585.44- 435,414.56- 39.69 |691,200.00-342,859.48- 49.60
4001 REVENUES 1,401,000.00-127,856.37-668,098.54-732,901.46-47.69 |1,336,700.00-770,898.92-57.67
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 792,467.00 71,360.59 470,959.23 321,507.77 59.43 |765,999.00 476,985.66 62.27
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 43,003.41 128,127.54 42,222.46 75.21 |167,100.00 124,338.81 74.41
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 491,950.00 43,356.32 231,508.93 260,441.07 47.06 |413,284.00 261,601.71 63.30
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |12,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,454,767.00 157,720.32 830,595.70 624,171.30 57.09 |1,358,383.00 862,926.18 63.53
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 3.19 3.19-|2.28
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 3.19 3.19-|2.28
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 53,767.00 29,863.95 162,500.35 108,733.35-302.23 |21,683.00 92,029.54 424.43
201 RECREATION CENTER 53,767.00 29,863.95 162,500.35 108,733.35-302.23 |21,683.00 92,029.54 424.43
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 21
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
23Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
202 PARK MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 375.00- 5,835.00-5,835.00 |5,350.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,700.00-130.00 130.00 10,830.00-1.21- |8,700.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 26,000.00-4,238.17- 26,164.22-164.22 100.63 |11,600.00-25,457.33- 219.46
4001 REVENUES 36,700.00-4,483.17-31,869.22-4,830.78-86.84 |20,300.00-30,807.33-151.76
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 986,400.00 54,336.61 563,304.64 423,095.36 57.11 |961,356.00 603,781.81 62.81
6210 SUPPLIES 93,555.00 9,628.78 54,116.47 39,438.53 57.84 |88,700.00 54,212.91 61.12
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,000.00 1,982.01 49.55
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 369,510.00 38,854.12 182,107.47 187,402.53 49.28 |316,462.00 214,518.21 67.79
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,460,585.00 102,819.51 799,528.58 661,056.42 54.74 |1,377,518.00 874,494.94 63.48
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,423,885.00 98,336.34 767,659.36 656,225.64 53.91 |1,357,218.00 843,687.61 62.16
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,423,885.00 98,336.34 767,659.36 656,225.64 53.91 |1,357,218.00 843,687.61 62.16
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 22
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
24Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
203 WESTWOOD HILLS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 82,600.00-3,582.40- 64,110.29- 18,489.71- 77.62 |80,150.00-58,604.15- 73.12
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 177.00-177.00 |25.00-
4001 REVENUES 82,600.00-3,282.40-64,287.29-18,312.71-77.83 |80,150.00-58,629.15-73.15
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 420,586.00 24,327.74 249,932.11 170,653.89 59.42 |404,679.00 236,363.50 58.41
6210 SUPPLIES 26,700.00 3,421.18 10,279.38 16,420.62 38.50 |22,650.00 10,111.47 44.64
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 44,500.00 2,167.79 16,251.08 28,248.92 36.52 |39,349.00 18,724.84 47.59
6001 EXPENDITURES 491,786.00 29,916.71 276,462.57 215,323.43 56.22 |466,678.00 265,199.81 56.83
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 100.00-815.00-815.00 |1,877.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-815.00-815.00 |1,877.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 37.40 224.52 224.52-|339.90
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 37.40 224.52 224.52-|339.90
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 409,186.00 26,571.71 211,584.80 197,601.20 51.71 |386,528.00 205,033.56 53.04
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 409,186.00 26,571.71 211,584.80 197,601.20 51.71 |386,528.00 205,033.56 53.04
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 23
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
25Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
204 ENVIRONMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |29,500.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 110,000.00-5,112.04- 20,216.89- 89,783.11- 18.38 |81,750.00-51,665.89- 63.20
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,318.00-1,318.00 |
4001 REVENUES 110,000.00-5,112.04-21,534.89-88,465.11-19.58 |81,750.00-81,165.89-99.29
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,898.00 6,116.63 60,887.56 48,010.44 55.91 |99,297.00 84,897.03 85.50
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 63.16- 12,014.99 7,410.01 61.85 |17,900.00 8,804.60 49.19
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 158,470.00 48,225.86 128,033.90 30,436.10 80.79 |171,285.00 146,514.02 85.54
6001 EXPENDITURES 286,793.00 54,279.33 200,936.45 85,856.55 70.06 |288,982.00 240,215.65 83.12
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 1,800.00-3,800.00 90.00- |2,000.00
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 1,800.00-3,800.00 90.00-|2,000.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 178,793.00 49,167.29 177,601.56 1,191.44 99.33 |209,232.00 159,049.76 76.02
204 ENVIRONMENT 178,793.00 49,167.29 177,601.56 1,191.44 99.33 |209,232.00 159,049.76 76.02
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 24
8/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:47:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
26Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20097/31/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 11,000.00-5,836.76- 11,123.51-123.51 101.12 |11,700.00-4,692.09- 40.10
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |19,358.74-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 62,491.44- 38,508.56- 61.87 |100,661.00-58,718.94- 58.33
4001 REVENUES 112,000.00-14,225.18-73,614.95-38,385.05-65.73 |112,361.00-82,769.77-73.66
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,300.00 24,446.00 284,075.14 199,224.86 58.78 |461,301.00 275,897.22 59.81
6210 SUPPLIES 552,650.00 3,852.98 101,442.41 451,207.59 18.36 |432,050.00 352,004.06 81.47
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 20.97 20.97-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 135,975.00 7,189.76 74,080.20 61,894.80 54.48 |130,939.00 115,398.05 88.13
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 8,352.00 1,602.83 6,749.17 19.19 |
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,180,277.00 35,488.74 461,221.55 719,055.45 39.08 |1,024,290.00 743,299.33 72.57
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |75,000.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 5,238.94 58.33
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |54.74
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 14.35 14.35 14.35-|31.82
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 14.35 14.35 14.35-|8,981.00 5,325.50 59.30
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,068,277.00 21,277.91 387,620.95 680,656.05 36.28 |845,910.00 665,855.06 78.71
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,068,277.00 21,277.91 387,620.95 680,656.05 36.28 |845,910.00 665,855.06 78.71
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 1,720,116.00-264,870.12 264,870.12-|1.00 750,274.59 *********
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: July, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 25
Meeting Date: August 24, 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:
Change Order Approval – Procedure Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. The report is to update the Council on the existing procedure and
information on the recommendation to update our Change Order approval process.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is updating the dollar limit for the administrative approval of change orders acceptable to Council?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council passed a resolution in 1987 (attached) allowing the City Manager to approve all
change orders to contracts up to $25,000 with conditions. Staff reviewed this document and is
recommending an update to the policy to allow the City Manager to make approvals of change
orders up to $100,000, with conditions.
City Charter: As you are aware, our City Charter states that the City Manager is the chief
purchasing agent of the City and is allowed to approve and execute contracts in compliance with
State Law. Over the past year, we updated our internal procedures/policy to be in compliance with
State Law, allowing the City Manager to approve general purchasing up to $100,000. Staff follows
State Law for bidding and other purchasing regulations.
New Level Recommended: Staff has been working with the City Attorney to review this issue and
changes to this procedure. After review of legal requirements, policy and regulations, we were able
to prepare an update to our change order approval procedure and limits. We will be recommending
that the level of administrative approval of change orders also be increased to a cumulative maximum
of $100,000 with conditions. The attached resolution outlines the new level of approval of change
orders and the conditions.
Questions regarding this report can be addressed by the Deputy City Manager. If acceptable to
Council, we plan to bring this resolution to a future Council meeting for approval as a consent item.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Updating the change order procedure and administrative approval level is in accordance with City
Charter and State Law.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Change Order Approval – Procedure Update
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution Adopting Change Order Policy
Resolution No. 87-122 Related to Change Orders
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Change Order Approval – Procedure Update
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING CHANGE ORDER POLICY
WHEREAS, to expedite the approval of change orders that are within the City Manager’s
purchasing authority, it is in the best interest of the City to update a Change Order Approval process;
and
WHEREAS, the City approved Resolution 87-122, by Council on September 8, 1987
authorizing the City Manager to administratively approve change orders with limitations; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with City Charter, the City Manager is the chief purchasing agent
of the City. The Charter also states that City contracts must be made in compliance with State Law;
and,
WHEREAS, State Law has increased the level of purchasing limits and the City Council is
interested in increasing the level allowed for the City Manager to administratively approve change
orders with limitations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota to rescind Resolution 87-122 and adopt the following policy:
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to update the procedure to process change orders to
construction and public improvement contracts.
2. DEFINITIONS
Change Order: A written amendment to a construction or public improvement
contract that is within the scope of the original contract.
Supplemental Agreement: A written amendment to a construction or public
improvement contract changing the scope of the original contract.
3. BACKGROUND
Change orders in construction contracts are common place. The design process cannot
economically provide sufficient detail to completely identify all items of construction
work. There is no ‘typical’ change order amount; however, there are generally accepted
percentages (as compared to the total construction contract amount).
Change orders are the result of the following conditions:
• Owner Requested: Work desired that was not clearly called for in the original
contract documents and could result in adding to or removing from a project or
contract.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Subject: Change Order Approval – Procedure Update
• Changed Condition – Foreseen Conditions: Work involving existing conditions or
construction that was not clearly shown or identified in the original contract
documents that directly affect construction work methods, material/labor costs or
time.
• Changed Condition – Unforeseen Conditions: Work that could not have been
reasonably identified by the designer in the initial design phase.
• Code Change: Construction codes have changed since the design was completed.
• Design Deficiency – Added Value: Work that would have resulted in a higher bid
price had the design detail or drawing been correct in the contract documents.
• Design Deficiency – No Added Value: Work that clearly results from a design
deficiency, error, or omission, but would not have resulted in an increased bid price
if the contract documents were correct.
4. PROCEDURE
Change orders require the following approval:
• Upon verification that appropriate and prudent funding is available and/or
appropriate reductions in the contract are in the best interest of the City, the City
Manager or designee may approve change orders under $100,000. The City
Manager may not approve change orders for a contract that cumulatively exceeds
$100,000. The City Manager may not approve supplemental agreements and;
• May not issue change orders which materially change the scope of the contract,
including additional projects, and;
• The City Manager or designee shall report time extensions to the City Council; and
• City Council approval is required for all other change orders and for all supplemental
agreements.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council ___________ 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Change Order Approval – Procedure Update Page 5
Meeting Date: August 24, 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:
Semi Annual Housing Programs Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. This report is being provided for the Councils review. Please let staff know of any
questions or comments you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
The Housing Summit of 2003-05 resulted in the recommendation that staff provide policy makers a
semi-annual report of housing programs and activity. Most notable for 2009 is the impact of
current economic conditions on housing activity. Just over 20 large single family homes are
undergoing expansions; and, five permits were issued for new single family home construction so far
in 2009. No permits for any other new residential construction (condos, townhomes, apartments)
were issued in the first half of the year, although the permit for the Elipse’s 132 unit apartments were
issued in early July. This being said, residents have continued to invest in remodeling and general
maintenance of their homes, at a level consistent with past activity.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Housing Programs meet St. Louis Park’s Vision commitment to provide a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock and to incorporate and provide incentives for “green” building design.
Attachments: 2009 First Half – Housing Report and Housing Matrix
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
2009 First Half - City of St. Louis Park Housing Programs Report
The purpose of this report is to apprise City policy makers of 2009 housing program activity
including the Move Up in the Park” activity. The Housing Matrix has also been updated with 2009
activity.
1. MOVE UP IN THE PARK ACTIVITY SUMMARY
The comprehensive package of City sponsored services and loans resulted from the Housing Summit
and Vision’s focus of facilitating and promoting the expansion of existing homes as the most
effective tool to achieve more family sized homes in the city. The Move Up in the Park program
successfully kicked off in 2005. A synergy between the marketing of the “Move up in the Park”
programs and services, with strong remodeling interest, resulted in a peak in residential additions in
2007. In 2008 the amount of loan activity for expansions began to decline while the basic
remodeling loans were consistent with 2007. The impact of the volatile housing and credit market
began to show in the last half of 2008 and continues into 2009. In 2009 we are seeing fewer large
home expansion and major remodeling projects. The effects of the severe storm in 2008 are seen in
the large number of roofing and siding permits issued in 2008 and 2009.
Impact of Recession on Residential Remodeling
Despite the current recession residents continue to invest in their homes. With the exception of a
decrease in major expansions and hail damage repair, residents are continuing to remodel and invest
in general maintenance. While the city’s move up loans and architectural design service are not
being used as much as in past years, the remodeling advisor service, Home Remodeling Fair and
Tour remain strong.
An evaluation of this year’s use of home improvement loans and services; residential remodeling
permit valuations and the numbers and types of permits issued substantiate that the general
maintenance, roofing and siding activity in St. Louis Park remains strong.
• Permit Types
Based on the types of permits being issued this year, it becomes apparent that home addition
activity has slowed dramatically while major remodels and general maintenance are on pace with
previous years. 2008 stands out as a unique year of extremely high activity due to the Memorial
Day hail storm. The re-roof and re-siding activity in 2009 is above that of 2005-07, and is a
carry over from the 2008 hail storm.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
Remodeling Permit Types 2005 through 1st Half 2009
Remodeling Permit Type 2005 2006 2007 2008
1st Half
2009
Addition Residential 55 86 102 89 21
Major Remodels 45 50 50 46 21
Alteration Residential
(general maintenance) 471 517 785 797 394
Reroof Only 202 216 355 4828 528
Reside Only 85 66 84 573 228
• Building Permit Activity 2005 Through 1st Half 2009
Residential permit activity measures remodeling activity that includes more than the city
incented projects. The 2009 activity measured by valuations shows continued investment by
residents as illustrated in the following chart, with year to date valuations on pace to exceed
valuations in 2005, 06 and 07, although not reaching the unusually high activity of 2008.
Permitted Residential Remodeling Improvements: 2005 through 1st Half 2009
Residential Remodeling Permit Valuation by
Year
$22,500,000
$12,781,301$13,900,000
$15,200,000
$68,495,908
$0
$40,000,000
$80,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 1st Half
2009
Year$ Amount
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
• Home Improvement Services
The use of remodeling advisor visits is above pace from 2008 while the use of the architectural
design service has dramatically slowed as illustrated in the following chart. Both the Home
Remodeling Fair and Tour attracted more residents than ever before – an average of 475
residents visited each of the six tour homes, and fair attendance exceeded 2,000.
Move Up Services 2005-2009
68
102
62 48
12
221
157
179
130
81
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1st
HalfNumber of VisitsArchitect Services Remodeling Advisor
• Loans
The following chart shows the decline in discount and move up loans the first half of 2009.
This could reflect owners’ hesitancy or inability to borrow money during uncertain economic
times. Residents must have incomes of $110,680 or less for 4 person household to qualify for
out loans.
Move Up Loans 2005-2009
7
27 27 18
6
76
88
50 55
20
0
25
50
75
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1st
Half
YearNumber of LoansMove up loans Discount loans
Move Up Activity Loan and Service Costs 2005-2009
Generally, for every dollar the city has invested in move-up and discount loans, services and
administrative costs residents have been investing five dollars. Loan activity in 2009, has been
consistent with this pattern and the city has expended $162,500, which has generated $977,670
worth of private improvement. The following table shows program costs from 2005 through the
first half of 2009.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 5
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
Table: Move Up Services and Costs 2005 through 1st Half 2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 – 1st
Half
Service # City
Cost
# City
Cost
# City
Cost
# City
Cost
# City
Cost
Move Up
Transformation
Loan (Revolving
Loan Pool) 7 $182,806 27 $591,264 27 $620,000 18 $330,937
6 $130,250
Discount Loans 76 $45,636 88 $186,205 50 $74,000 55 $114,129 20 $19,014
Architectural
Design Service 68 $15,300 102 $22,950 62 $12,400 49 $11,025
12 $2,700
Remodeling
Advisor 221 $28,730 157 $20,410 179 $23,270 130 $16,900
81 $10,530
MOVE UP IN THE PARK PROGRAMS & LOANS DESCRIPTIONS
• Move – Up Transformation Loan
The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median
area income ($100,680 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides
deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost. Loan repayment at 0%
interest is deferred until the home is sold - if the resident remains in the home for 30 years, the
loan will be forgiven. This in effect establishes a revolving loan pool which will continue to fund
future expansions.
This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the
project to selecting contractors.
o Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost
must exceed $35,000.
o The maximum loan amount is $25,000.
o The City has established a revolving loan pool, administered by a third party.
o The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower.
• Architectural Design Service
This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming
remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions.
Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the American
Institute of Architects and local architects. All homeowners considering renovations would be
eligible for this service regardless of income, however to ensure committed participants, residents
make a $25 co-pay. Resident surveys not only provided ideas to refine the program, but
indicated a high level of satisfaction with the service.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 6
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
• Remodeling/Rehab Advisor
The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or
value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction
process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys
indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City
contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service.
• Discount Loan Program
This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on
the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) home improvement loans. The MHFA’s
Community Fix-up Fund is restricted to Minnesota residents residing in cities that elect to
participate in the program. Residents with incomes of $67,120 or less qualify for a greater
discount than those with incomes of $96,500 or less. Eligible improvements include most home
improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools and spas. The City’s
Housing Rehabilitation Fund is the funding source for the discount loan program, and CEE is
the loan administrator.
St. Louis Park implemented the discounting of MHFA loans in late 1999 as a pilot project.
Successful marketing efforts have led the City to be third among all Minnesota cities to use the
MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis and St. Paul.
• Home Remodeling Tour
The 5th annual Home Remodeling Tour of five recently remodeled homes and one new “green
certified home” proved very popular with an average 475 residents visiting each of the six tour
homes. The Tour’s goal is to provide residents hands-on examples of remodeling and expansion
projects of typical St. Louis Park housing, to motivate and encourage residents to enlarge and
enhance their homes.
• Annual Home Remodeling Fair
The cities and community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and
Golden Valley co-sponsored the 2009 Fair. The 2009 Fair had a “green theme” and over 2,500
residents from the four cities attended the one day event, with over half of the attendees living in
St. Louis Park. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors
and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related
to remodeling. The fair is now a self-sustaining event where vendor registration fees more than
cover the costs of the event.
• Pilot Green Remodeling Program
The green remodeling program helps residents remodel green by providing technical and
financial assistance. We use Minnesota GreenStar®, a green building standard and certification
program that promotes healthy, high performance homes. It provides standards for designing
and building better homes and promotes a healthier environment.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 7
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
Technical Assistance. Participating residents are offered the following technical services: Green
Remodeling Advisor, Green Remodeling & Sustainable Landscape Workshops and Home
Performance Analysis. Five workshops have been held, twelve green remodeling advisor visits
have been conducted and four home performance analyses have been conducted.
Financial incentives include a city match of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy
efficient furnaces, water heaters and air conditioners. Reduced interest rate loans for “certified”
green remodeling projects are available to homeowners of any income level. So far, no residents
have used the green discount loan and twelve residents have received rebates for energy efficient
furnaces, water heaters and air conditioners.
The city is partnering with MN Housing, MN Pollution Control Agency, MN GreenStar and
CEE on this pilot program. The program is not being used by residents as anticipated, and staffs
from the partners are working to refine the pilot.
• Vacant Public Land
Homes have been constructed on the parcels at 4515 and 4525 West 42nd Street and a certified
green home on the 2600 Natchez Ave parcel is complete. Construction will begin at 2715
Monterey Ave in 2009. The softened housing and lending markets have had an impact on
building homes on the Edgebrook Drive, Louisiana Ave and Wood Lane parcels where the
bidders have withdrawn their bids.
2. OTHER HOUSING PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Other city housing activity is below:
• Live Where You Work
The Live Where You Work Homebuyer Assistance Program began in spring 2009. The goal is
to promote home ownership within the City among employees of St. Louis Park businesses.
The program provides homebuyer assistance to eligible employees in the form of a deferred loan
that aid the employee in purchasing a home in the city. The city will provide a cash deferred
loan of $2,500 to an eligible employee. An additional $1,000 would be provided to empoyees
purchasing vacant lender owned foreclosed properties. Employers are invited to contribute a
matching or lesser amount to the City’s contribution. The deferred loan will be forgiven after 3
years if the employee continues to work for the employer and meets other qualification
requirements.
The City is partnering with CEE to assist employees in applying for a deferred loan. CEE is a
non-profit organization that has partnered with the City on a number of housing programs and
City initiatives. The City is also partnering with five participating banks, the Associated Bank,
Bremer Bank, Citizens Independent Bank, UsBank Home Mortgage and Wells Fargo to offer
considerable choice in 1st mortgage options. Lenders that are approved lenders to administer
Minnesota Housing Finance Agencg mortgage loans are also eligible. To date three participants
have used this program and one application is in process.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 8
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
• Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The Wolfe Lake Association HIA (130 units) finished
construction in 2009, completing $1,268,000 worth of common area improvements.
Construction at the Westmoreland Hills Association HIA (72 units) of $1,026,000
improvements is scheduled for completion in August 2009. Sunset Ridge Condominium
Association anticipates requesting a public hearing by the Council in early fall 2009. The HIA
statute was scheduled to expire in June 2009, and has been extended by the State Legislature.
.
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
2009 activity completed as of June 2009 includes activities that were funded with 2008 Grant
Year funds. Projects included improvements to the SLP Housing Authority homes,
improvements to Community Involvement Program’s properties, Wayside’s treatment facility,
and the single family low-income homeowner’s emergency repair and loan programs.
The city was awarded a special CDBG allocation of $100,000 in 2009 to assist with
improvements at Aquila Park. The Council will be considering accepting bids for this project at
the August 24th meeting, and work would begin shortly after. An additional $120,000 of
CDBG stimulus funds has been allocated to Project for Pride in Living to make energy
improvements at the Louisiana Court Apartments.
• Housing Trust Affordable Homeownership. The Housing Trust purchased two homes so far
in 2009, one of which was a vacant foreclosed home. The closing with buyers, both residents of
St. Louis Park are scheduled for August and September.
• Foreclosures. The city has established an active Foreclosure Work Group that continues to
monitor foreclosures and address vacant house situations on a case-by-case basis. St. Louis Park
has been experiencing a relatively low level of foreclosures. As in 2008, the story of 2009 is the
impact associated with foreclosures/lender mediated sales is modest. We had 133 sheriff sale
actions in 2008 and 31 sheriff sales through the end of June this year – that’s a good thing. It
appears that most of the problem mortgages of the recent past are moving out of the market.
The current activity for new mortgages is very tight as most lenders are much more conservative
than in past years.
Chart: Single Family Home Foreclosures by Year
St. Louis Park Single Family Home Foreclosures by Year
133
31
76 87
0
50
100
150
2006 2007 2008 1st Half
2009
YearNumber of Foreclosures
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 9
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY
The St. Louis Park Housing Authority activity is outlined in the tables below:
Table St. Louis Park Housing Authority Assisted Housing Programs
Public Housing
Public Housing Total
Units
1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy
2009
Hamilton House 108 108 99.6%
Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 97.7%
Louisiana Court,
Metropolitan Housing
Opportunity (MHOP)
Units
12
12
100%
Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3
Total 157
Rental Assistance
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
(HUD Approved)
Units Utilization YTD
2009
Tenant-Based 209 100%
Tenant-Based Portability Units* 69 Avg./month
Project-Based: 45
Wayside House 20 100%
Excelsior & Grand 18 100%
Vail Place 7 100%
Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 38
Perspectives Inc. 11 100%
Community Involvement Program (CIP) –
Scattered Site Homes
11
100%
CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 100%
Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 100%
Total 361
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 10
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
Waiting Lists
Assisted Housing Waiting List as of June 2009
Public Housing 1-BR 1-BR
Handicap
2-BR 3-BR 3-BR
Handica
p
4-BR 5-BR Total
342 52 110 140 34 32 39 749
Section 8 1170
Excelsior &
Grand
97
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 11
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
Housing Matrix: Housing Types, Numbers & Percentages
1 st Half 2009
In 2005 the Council approved housing goals that evolved from the 2003-05 Housing Summit. One
of resulting strategies was to develop a matrix of existing housing types including detached/attached,
owner/rental, family/senior, and affordable/market rate and goals. The matrix is to be a guide to
evaluate future housing development proposals. The attached matrix is updated semi-annually and
presented to the City Council, Housing Authority and Planning Commission. It shows at a glance
the numbers and percentages of: housing types, tenure (owner or rental), affordable units, senior
designated units and large single family homes.
While the matrix provides a snapshot of housing each year, it is helpful to take a further analysis by
showing changes in housing units since we began tracking in such detail, specifically the large single
family homes and affordable housing.
• June 2009. In the first half of 2009 five permits were issued for new single family homes and no
permits were issued for condominiums, townhomes or apartments.
Large Single Family Homes
The chart below illustrates the number of large homes that have been added to the City’s housing
stock since we began tracking data in 2005. In the first half of 2009, five new large homes have been
added and 21 existing homes are being significantly expanded. The number of “teardowns” has
slowed in 2009. There was one in 2005, three in both 2006 & 2007; eleven in 2008, and two in
2009.
Chart. Large homes added through expansions and new construction
Large Single Family Homes Added
5 4 9 13 5
57
86
102 89
21
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1st half
YearNumber
New Single Family Lg Homes Major Expansions
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 12
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
The new homes and expansions noted above have resulted in an increase of large homes within the
city. Since 2005, over 385 large homes have been added to the City’s housing stock: 45 of these
through new construction and 341 through significant expansions. The following chart illustrates
this change.
Chart. Large Homes 2005 through First Half 2009
Number Large Single Family Homes
1243
914 1004
1115
1217
500
1000
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 1st Half
2009
YearNumber
Affordable Housing Units
No new affordable housing units have been added to the city housing stock in 2009. Over time the
number of affordable housing units is a moving target based on the following variables:
• estimated market values of owner occupied homes increase, or decrease based on market;
• the affordable market rate rental units are undercounted. They are based upon owners’
responses to the SLPHA’s Annual Rental Survey. Approximately 50% of the owners respond
to the survey and disclose their rents, and every year different owners respond, so the data is
incomplete.
• The Met Council establishes annual affordable guidelines for rental and ownership based on
percentages of the annual median area income and a households’ percentage of income
devoted to housing. The guideline dropped from $214,800 in 2008 to $206,900 in 2009.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 13
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
Chart. Total Affordable Housing Units by Year
Total Affordable Housing Units by Year
1066 1,068 1,068
2459 2639 1621 1,231 1,231
3806
950 3306 5547 5532
102010200
5000
10000
2003 2005 2006 2008 1st Half
2009
YearNumberSubsidized Units Rental Owner Occupied
Despite the fact that the housing stock has not significantly changed over the past six years, the
number of affordable units has fluctuated significantly as illustrated in the chart, especially related to
owner occupied units. The dramatic downturn in the housing market beginning in 2006 resulted in
a dramatic increase in the affordability of homes in St. Louis Park through 2006-08. However in
2009 there are actually 15 fewer affordable single family homes, based on 2009 affordability
guideline of $206,800. The variation in the number of affordable market rate rental units over time
is due primarily to the reporting techniques previously noted, where the rental owners voluntarily
respond to the SLPHA’s Rental Study.
The most basic of affordable housing, subsidized housing, is not subject to the same fluctuations and
the number of subsidized units has not changed significantly since 2003. The only additional units
of subsidized housing added to the City since 2003 have been a percentage of the senior coop units
at Aquila Commons and four owner occupied homes established through the Housing Land Trust.
The SLPHA owns and manages 147 of the total 1,068 subsidized units, approximately 15% of the
units. In addition to the SLPHA units, the HA oversees administration of 12 MHOP public
housing units at Louisiana Court. The HA manages the Section 8 voucher programs that provides
vouchers to between 268 and 363 renters. Since the vouchers are rental assistance they are not
considered in the unit count, yet they do provide affordable housing for low income renters.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 14
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
Housing Goals - City of St. Louis Park
Vision St. Louis Park
Based on the visioning process undertaken in 2006, Housing was one of the four Strategic
Directions adopted by the City Council - “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-
maintained and diverse housing stock”. Specific focus areas identified were:
• Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes.
• Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics.
• Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city.
In addition to the housing focus, encouraging “green remodeling” is one of the focus areas of
another 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”.
Housing Summit 2003-2005
As a means to educate, revisit and consider any necessary changes to St. Louis Park’s current housing
policies, strategies and goals, a series of meetings were held between the City Council, Planning
Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board, County Commissioner and a business
representative regarding the status of housing in St. Louis Park. The discussions that were held at
these meetings and subsequent changes made to the City’s goals, policies and strategies reflect what
is best for the collective good of the entire St. Louis Park community.
The meetings provided an opportunity to:
• Review the status of housing in St. Louis Park (rental and owner occupied),
• Examine historical, current and future housing trends in the city, and metro, state
• Evaluate current and future community needs using 2000 Census data/other available info.
• Examine the effectiveness of current policy/strategies in meeting the community’s needs,
• Allow the Planning Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board and Business
Community to provide input to the City Council.
Process
All members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Authority, School Board, the
Hennepin County Commissioner, and a business representative attended an initial meeting to
review general statistical and housing data. A Steering Committee met 6 times to examine specific
housing topics and report back to the entire group at “check-in/progress” meetings. The 4 check-
in/progress review meetings provided an opportunity to review findings and discuss possible policy
changes/initiatives with the entire group. The public input process included conducting a Housing
Survey, a Moving Survey and ten focus groups with resident groups to garner input regarding
housing issues and response to drafted goals. The public input was presented at a final meeting of
the entire group along with a review of the recommended changes to the City’s current housing
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 15
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
policies and goals. The City Council considered and approved housing goals at the March 7, 2005
Council Meeting.
City of St. Louis Park Housing Goals
The Housing Summit resulted in a set of Housing Goals that were approved by the City Council in
April 2005. The goals reflect the city’s housing policy and will serve as guides to direct officials,
staff, and advisory boards now and into the future.
Housing Production
• Promote & facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both
today and in the future
• The City should establish target numbers of units by housing types needed to ensure life
cycle housing options, with housing types disbursed throughout the city.
• The City acknowledges that there is demand for different types and sizes of housing units,
but due to limitations of available space and other resources, all demands cannot be fully
satisfied. At the present time, the greatest deficit and need is for the creation and
maintenance of detached, owner-occupied single family housing which are large enough to
accommodate families. City housing efforts and resources should primarily address this
need.
Housing Condition and Preservation
• Ensure housing is safe and well maintained.
• Preserve and enhance housing quality through proactive promotional and educational
activities and housing programs related to home rehab, code, and design and safety issues.
Owner / Rental Ratio
• The ratio of owner/rental housing should be approximately 60% owner occupied and 40%
rental.
• Explore traditional and non-traditional owner occupied housing options such as, but not
limited to: row houses, courtyard housing, alternative housing, cluster housing, hi-rises, 3-
story homes, multi-generational housing, etc.
Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 16
Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs Report
Affordable, Workforce and Supportive Housing
• Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of
affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Future affordability goals with
the Met Council should be negotiated to reflect the average percentages for other first ring
suburbs in Hennepin County.
Note: In 2004, the City’s negotiated goal for housing affordability with the Met
Council was that 60-77% of the city’s owner occupied homes should be affordable for
households with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income and that 37-41%
of the city’s rental homes should be affordable for households with incomes at or below
50% of the area median income.
• Mixed income units should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any
one area of the City or any one development.
Large Homes for Families
• Promote and facilitate expansion of existing homes through remodeling which adds more
bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities.
• Promote and facilitate construction of large family-size homes with more bedrooms and
more bathrooms, (e.g. minimum 3+ bedrooms and 2+ bathrooms, 2+ car garage and
additional amenities such as den/fourth bedroom or porch or superior architecture) suitable
for families with children.
Senior Housing
• Promote and facilitate more housing options for seniors.
Land Use
• Planning Goals:
o Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals.
o Promote higher density housing near transit corridors & employment
centers.
o Encourage housing density in commercial mixed use districts.
• Explore and, if appropriate promote ordinances to allow development of non-traditional
housing types and increased density in single family neighborhood that is compatible
with surrounding neighborhood.
• Explore and promote reclassification of non-residential properties and designate for
housing and other purposes.
St. Louis Park Housing Types, Numbers and PercentagesHOUSING MATRIXJune 30, 2009Housing TypeUnits added 1/1/09 - 6/30/09# Units % Units # UnitsSingle Family Detached11,571 50% 33,121Duplex424 2% 048Condos and townhomes 3313 14% 02,363Apartments 7746 33% 01,231COOPs121 1% 0Total23,175 100% 3 14,349 62% 8826 38% 1,243 5% 6,763 29% 1068 5% 942 4% Data source: SLP Community Development, Multiple Residential Developments 1998-2007 and SLP Assessing. Percentages are based on the percentage of the total number of all housing units.0Large Family Homes, Affordable and Senior Housing0Large Family Home - 1,500 sq ft., 3+Bedrooms, 2+ Bath & 2+ Car Garage#1,243Senior Designated00Housing UnitsAffordable Subsidized (includes 1010 rental & 120 owner occupied units)Owner Occupied Rental0##Affordable Market Rate (includes rental & 5,603 owner occupied units)4442683687746Housing Production by Typeowner occupied (homesteaded)#975#4911,1271562945Affordable Owner Occupied Housing is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% MAI ($64,000 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. For 2009 affordable ownership value is defined at $206,800 or less - this is signficantly less than the 2009 affordable home value of $214,900. Based on the 2009 data, the number of affordable single family units decreased by 15 units. 441218361060Affordable Rental Housing is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% MAI ($41,950 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. Monthly rent of $910, or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is considered affordable. (2009 data). The number of reported affordable rental units increased by over 600 units in 2008, due to stagnant rents. 008/20/2009Meeting of August 24, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Semi Annual Housing Programs ReportPage 17