Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009/09/29 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session
AGENDA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 5:00 p.m. Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue Groundbreaking Celebration 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 12, 2009 2. 6:35 p.m. Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420 (Dakota Avenue So. to Louisiana Avenue So.) 3. 7:00 p.m. Recycling Contract – Eureka Recycling 4. 7:45 p.m. Convention and Visitors Bureau 5. 8:45 p.m. City Facilities Energy Audit 6. 9:15 p.m. 2009 City Manager Performance Evaluation 7. 9:25 p.m. Communications (Verbal) Written Reports 8. August 2009 Monthly Financial Report 9. Hardship Special Assessment Deferral – Income Guideline Revision 10. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes 11. Fiber Network Policy 12. Sign Ordinance Amendment for Electronic Signs 13. MSC Renovation Project Update 9:35 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: September 29, 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 – October 12, 2009. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and the City Manager meet to set the agenda for the study session on October 12, 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, October 12, 2009. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for October 12, 2009 Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Monday, October 12, 2009 – 6:00 p.m. “The Bee Way”West End Public Art Ribbon Cutting Tentative Discussion Items Study Session, Monday, October 12, 2009 - 6:30 p.m. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Budget/CIP Workshop – Admin. /Finance (2 hrs 15 min) The intent of this meeting is to focus on the City’s proposed 5 year capital plan and related Long Range Financial Management Plan, fees, status on progress made on General/Park and Recreation Fund budgets and a review of the information received from the community feedback tool. 3. 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 Monthly Financial Report (September 2009) – Finance End of Meeting: 9:00 p.m. Meeting Date: September 29, 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: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420 (Dakota Avenue So. to Louisiana Avenue So.). RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report and discussion is to update the Council on the planning and project development activities associated with this project. At this time it is proposed the City Council approve the final plans and authorize execution of a cooperative construction agreement with Hennepin County on October 5. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have any concerns regarding the project specifics, funding and/or the timing associated with this construction. BACKGROUND: History In 2002, the Hennepin County Transportation Department began the process of developing plans for the reconstruction of Excelsior Boulevard from Xenwood Avenue (Highway 100) west to Louisiana Avenue. The purpose of the project is to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, improve capacity for vehicles, restore the pavement to an adequate condition, and add streetscaping/landscaping to create a more attractive pedestrian environment. As part of the plan development process, several meetings were held with residents, businesses, Council, and staff. This process eventually led to approval of the preliminary layout by the City Council in May of 2005. The layout approved was based on of the input and suggestions received from all of the stakeholders throughout that process. The Hennepin County Transportation Department has completed the final plans for the next phase of the Excelsior Boulevard improvements (Phase 5 - Dakota Avenue to Louisiana Avenue – see attached layout). Similar to the last phase completed in 2008, the final phase from Dakota Avenue to Louisiana Avenue will continue with a similar reconstruction, including streetscaping enhancements, water main replacement and storm sewer improvements, including a portion along Dakota Avenue north of Excelsior Boulevard. This phase also includes replacement of the bridge over Minnehaha Creek. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420 During the project development of the previous phase (Xenwood to Dakota Avenue), a special service district was established to provide for the maintenance activities required for the upkeep of the streetscape elements. The district includes the area from Xenwood to Louisiana Avenue. The project was originally scheduled to commence construction in the spring of 2009 but was delayed to the spring of 2010 by Hennepin County to better accommodate their regional bridge construction program schedule (influenced by the Interstate 35W bridge collapse). Recent Activities A public informational meeting was held on June 24, 2009 in the City’s Council Chambers. Over 2100 invitations were sent to residents and business owners in the Brookside, Creekside, Meadowbrook, Brooklawns and Elmwood Neighborhoods. The purpose of the meeting was to present final plans of the project, discuss impacts during construction, and gather final input and comments from the public. Turnout at the meeting was light with only ten people attending (see attached attendance list). Staff from both the City and Hennepin County presented information on the project and answered questions for those attending. Staff has received two written comments about the project since the meeting. Both comments expressed concerns regarding loss of access at Dakota Avenue and to the homes along the south side of Excelsior Blvd. west of Colorado Avenue due to the planned roadway median. Hennepin County has completed the final plans. Mn/DOT has reviewed the plans and provided comments for minor corrections. The city has assisted in the preparation of the plans for the streetscaping work and water main work through use of our consultants. The plans and specifications are ready for bidding pending all necessary agency approvals by November this year. Construction is scheduled to commence in April 2010. Hennepin County has determined that Excelsior Boulevard will need to be closed for possibly three (3) months to remove and replace the Minnehaha Creek Bridge. Hennepin County is planning for the road closure to begin at the onset of the project in mid-April of 2010. During the Excelsior Boulevard closure, the official detour route will direct regional traffic around the project area via Hwy 169, I-394 and Hwy 100. With the TH 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange project underway, the Excelsior Blvd closure will complicate local traffic patterns. TH 7 will remain open at all times during the interchange construction; however there will be periods of temporary lanes closures or reduced travel lanes on TH 7. During the construction of these two projects, local traffic will seek alternate east-west routes based on driver needs. Likely alternates include TH 7 and Minnetonka Blvd. To aid travelers in our area, the three agencies involved with these two projects, Mn/DOT, Hennepin County and the City, will provide increased media reports during the on-going construction. Mn/DOT has assigned a Public Affairs Coordinator to the interchange project. Mn/DOT will provide reports and project updates through their website and various media outlets including television news, radio and newspaper. Hennepin County has similar plans. City staff will coordinate with both agencies to provide additional information to St. Louis Park residents using the city website, Park TV, Park Perspective, local cable television and other local media outlets. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420 Next Steps At the October 5, 2009 City Council meeting, staff intends to request Council approval of the final plans along with approval of a cooperative construction agreement with Hennepin County for this project. Project Schedule The following project schedule has been proposed by Hennepin County. Study Session Update to Council September 29, 2009 Council Approval of Final Plans and Construction Agreement October 5, 2009 Hennepin County Board Approvals and Mn/DOT Approvals September to November 2009 Advertise for Bids November/December 2009 Bid Opening December, 2009 Award Construction Contract February, 2010 Commence Construction April, 2010 Project Completion October 10, 2010 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The total estimated cost of the project is $5,064,000.00 with the city’s share estimated at $1,764,000.00. The City’s share of the construction cost is due primarily to the streetscape work and the replacement of a large trunk watermain. Approximately one-third of the City’s share of streetscape costs will be funded from Hennepin County Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP) funds. City funding sources include HRA Levy Funds, Utility Funds, and Methodist Hospital for 50% of the cost of a new signal at their Excelsior Blvd entrance. A breakdown of the project expenditures and funding is as follows: Expenditures Construction $4,210,000.00 Right of Way $500,000.00 Preliminary Engineering/Admin $55,000.00 Construction Engineering/Admin $100,000.00 Consultant Engineering (Streetscape and Water Main plans) $89,000.00 Contingencies for the City (10% of City’s construction share) $111,000.00 Total $5,065,000.00 Funding Sources Hennepin County Funds $3,300,000.00 HRA Levy Funds $1,330,000.00 Utility Funds $360,000.00 Methodist Hospital (Developer’s Agreement for signal costs) $75,000.00 Total $5,065,000.00 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420 VISION CONSIDERATION: The improvement considers the Vision Elements under Transportation that supports a transportation system that is safe for its users and neighbors, supports pedestrian and bicycle travel, and strives to be simple, convenient, safe, and inexpensive for everyone. Attachments: June 24th Open House Attendance Sheet Project Layout Project Schedule Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Scott Brink, City Engineer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420Page 5 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420Page 6 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420Page 7 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420 Page 8 PROJECT SCHEDULE SP 27-603-43; 3/0405 - Bridge Replacement at Minnehaha Creek SP 27-603-50; 3/0410 - Road Reconstruction from W. of Louisiana Ave. to Colorado Ave. September 29, 2009 _________________________________________________________________________________ 3/9745, 3/0405, 3/0410 May 2004 3/9745, 3/0405, 3/0410 – Preliminary Design Process Begins May 2005 Council Preliminary Layout Approval 3/9745 – E. of Dakota to Xenwood roadway reconstruction 3/0410 – Louisiana Ave. to Dakota Ave. roadway reconstruction 3/0405 – Bridge replacement at Minnehaha Creek November 2006 3/9745 – Council approval of final plan and agreement (3/9745) April 2007 3/9745 – Construction Begins May 2007 3/0405, 3/0410 – Final Design Process Begins December 2008 3/9745 – Completed _________________________________________________________________________________ 3/0405, 3/0410 June 24, 2009 Public Informational Open House September 29, 2009 City Council – Work Session for Project Review October 5, 2009 City Council – Final Plan & Agreement Approval December 2009 Bid Opening February 2010 Contract Award March 2010 Preconstruction Meeting (Construction Division Lead) April 2010 Construction Start (or sooner) Mid-April to Mid-July Roadway closure for 3 months Detour traffic via TH169 – I-394 – TH100 October 10, 2010 Project Completion Date Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 2) Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420 Page 9 Meeting Date: September 29, 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: Recycling Contract – Eureka Recycling. RECOMMENDED ACTION: To discuss economic events affecting recycling commodity markets and the short and long term impacts to our recycling contractor (Eureka Recycling) and the City. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is it in the City’s best interest to amend the revenue sharing provisions of the current recycling collection contract with Eureka Recycling? Does the City Council wish to have staff negotiate a contract amendment with Eureka for Council consideration? BACKGROUND: Due to the low recycling commodity prices being experienced, Eureka Recycling has approached St. Louis Park, as well as their other contract cities (Roseville, Maplewood, St. Paul, Lauderdale, and Arden Hills) and requested we amend the revenue sharing portion of our contract. What follows is background information on this matter. History Contract On October 1, 2008 the City entered into a 5-year contract with Eureka Recycling for recycling collection. The City chose Eureka Recycling for several reasons including their mission to educate residents on reducing waste, their commitment to improving environmental stewardship, additional materials they would collect, their competitive price, and their willingness to share revenue from the sale of recyclable materials. Current Market Conditions This past years economic events have affected the recycling markets in serious ways, which has resulted in a significant revenue decrease for the City and Eureka Recycling. The value of recycled commodities dropped by as much as 60% earlier this year and volumes of materials being collected have also decreased. Lately, the value of recycled commodities has begun to rebound. Attached is an article Waste Age (August, 2009) discussing the drop in recycling commodities prices and China’s impact on the market. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Recycling Contract – Eureka Recycling Impact to Eureka Recycling Eureka Recycling has informed us they have taken the following actions to address recent challenges associated with the low commodity prices: in December 2008 they reduced staff, temporarily reduced employee wages and benefits by between 5-30%, restructured current operating loans, and essentially depleted their reserves. Eureka Recycling also stated that while revenue and costs are nearly balanced at the current time, that they do not believe they can sustain further losses should the market take another downward turn. Eureka Recycling’s Request Due to the low recycling commodity prices Eureka Recycling has approached St. Louis Park, as well as their other contract cities (Roseville, Maplewood, St. Paul, Lauderdale, and Arden Hills) and requested we amend the revenue sharing portion of our contract. For St. Louis Park the proposed contract changes would increase processing costs for both paper and containers as well as add other less profitable materials being recycled, such as glass, to revenue sharing formula. When commodity prices are low, such as the past 8 months, these changes will not only decrease revenue sharing proceeds but would require the City to pay Eureka Recycling an additional amount to reimburse them for decreased revenues. By Eureka’s calculations, extending the prices for the past 8 months would have meant that the City would have owed Eureka Recycling an additional $55,000 for the year. These changes would create the potential for cost to increase beyond $55,000 annually, should the markets drop even more significantly in the future. Questions to Consider and Understand 1. Do we understand the problem (short term and long term)? 2. What is Eureka Recycling asking of the City (proposal)? 3. Is it in the best interests of the City to amend this contract? To help the Council better understand these issues and help you be able to answer these questions, staff has asked Eureka Recycling representatives to attend the Study Session and speak directly to the Council about these issues and their proposal to amend the recycling collection contract. Other Issues of Note Contract Language Provisions When this contract was awarded in March of 2008, it was the City’s belief that we would for pay recycling collection and share in revenues. The base cost of the recycling contract was approximately $409,000 in year one and $459,000 in year five less any revenue sharing provisions. At worst, we expected to pay for collection and not receive revenues in down markets. However, contract provisions require the City to reimburse Eureka Recycling when agreed upon contractual processing costs exceed recycling commodity revenues. At the time the contract was being prepared it was not envisioned by the City, by Eureka Recycling or by other’s in the recycling industry that commodities would all drop at the same time so precipitously, such as occurred in 2009. While overall revenue sharing is still positive and the market has rebounded slightly, there is the potential for the City to owe additional funds to Eureka Recycling in the future. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Subject: Recycling Contract – Eureka Recycling Contract Dispute Aside from the question over whether the City should consider Eureka’s request to amend the recycling contract due to poor economic conditions, there is disagreement with Eureka Recycling over contract language regarding how revenue sharing or losses are currently calculated. The City Attorney has been actively involved in discussions to resolve this. This disagreement will need to be resolved whether the contract is amended or not. Under either party’s interpretation, Eureka Recycling would still owe the City revenue sharing. Next Steps Should the Council decide that amending this contract is worthy of consideration, staff will work with Eureka Recycling to develop contract change options with related cost implications for the Council to consider at a future Study Session. Schedule Listed below is a tentative schedule of possible next steps: Study Session for Council to understand the market problem and determine if problem warrants contract renegotiation consideration September 29 Study Session to discuss contract amendment options and cost implications (if necessary) October 12 or 26 Council Meeting to consider and approve contract amendment (if necessary) October 19 or November 2 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Financial implications will be discussed at a future Study Session meeting. VISION CONSIDERATION: The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the City Council: 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. Focus areas: • Continue to maintain a viable and economically feasible recycling program. • Working in areas such as…environmental innovations. Attachments: Article from Waste Age (August 2009) Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 29, 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: Convention and Visitors Bureau. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests direction from the City Council as to whether to proceed with the exploration of forming a convention and visitors bureau (CVB) in St. Louis Park. To assist with the discussion and answer questions, TwinWest Chamber of Commerce President Bruce Nustad, City Attorney Tom Scott and a representative of a local CVB will be in attendance. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to direct staff to explore the viability of a Convention and Visitors Bureau for St. Louis Park and the creation of a lodging tax, as allowed by law, to support that entity? BACKGROUND: The community visioning processes undertaken in 1995 and 2006 have been major catalysts for change that have resulted in community transforming projects and initiatives being undertaken. Examples are almost too numerous to count and include such things as Excelsior and Grand, the West End and other major economic development/redevelopment projects, as will as initiatives such as Children First, arts and culture activities, marketing and branding, and programs to insure the public and privately owned infrastructure needs in our community are addressed. A common thread that has run through all of these initiatives is the idea of insuring that St. Louis Park is viewed as a desirable place to live, raise a family and do business and, as a result, compete well in the market place of other communities in the metro area. This in turn helps insure that St. Louis Park is very viable economically and is a good place to invest or reinvest. As another means to grow the economic vitality of the community and all that it has to offer, staff has been investigating the possibly of creating a CVB to further promote St. Louis Park within the Twin Cities region and beyond. A CVB would be supported by implementing a lodging tax as allowed by state law. As noted above, there is no doubt that St. Louis Park is a great place to experience all the Twin Cities have to offer – shopping, community festivals, regional trails, restaurants, recreational and medical facilities, proximity to downtown Minneapolis and the airport, large office complexes and employers, and excellent transit options (including the upcoming SWLRT project) -- all of which would be of interest to travelers or visitors. The creation of a CVB would allow St. Louis Park to more actively and intentionally promote the community to travelers and visitors, along with prospective businesses and residents, for leisure, business or convention purposes. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Subject: Convention and Visitors Bureau Minnesota Statute Section 469.190 (attached) allows a city to “impose a tax of up to three percent on the gross receipts from the furnishing for consideration of lodging at a hotel, motel, rooming house, tourist court, or resort, other than the renting of leasing of it for a continuous period of 30 days or more”. Ninety-five percent of the gross proceeds from any tax imposed must be used to fund a local convention or tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city or town as a tourist or convention center. With 843 beds currently available in the City and over 1,100 projected in the near future, the estimated revenue which could be generated is estimated at approximately $800,000 annually (see attached Estimated Lodging Tax Revenue). If City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation to continue exploration into the formation of a CVB, staff would propose that it involve collaboration with the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce for partnership and/or support during the exploration process. Several communities in the Twin Cities metro area have developed successful convention and visitors bureaus; some with a focus on their community, others promoting the business and convention industry. A listing of those communities with convention and visitor bureaus is attached. NEXT STEPS: If the City Council directs staff to explore the viability of a Convention and Visitors Bureau for St. Louis Park, an important next step would be to specifically identify the mission or role of a Convention and Visitors Bureau for St. Louis Park and the direction on how the revenues generated would be utilized. In addition, of utmost importance is communication and partnership with the City’s lodging establishments. If City Council directs staff to pursue this exploration, communication to our lodging establishments would need to be done in a timely manner. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None immediately, but over time the potential exists for increased tax base and indirect financial benefits. A convention and visitors bureau could undertake promotional efforts for which there might not otherwise be any funding available. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. This was a significant part of the 1995 Vision Process through the community connections vision area and was reaffirmed even more strongly in 2006. Attachments: Minnesota Statutes Section 469.190 Estimated Lodging Tax Revenue Listing of Metro Convention and Visitor Bureaus Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant Reviewed by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008 469.190 469.190 LOCAL LODGING TAX. Subdivision 1.Authorization.Notwithstanding section 477A.016 or any other law, a statutory or home rule charter city may by ordinance, and a town may by the affirmative vote of the electors at the annual town meeting, or at a special town meeting, impose a tax of up to three percent on the gross receipts from the furnishing for consideration of lodging at a hotel, motel, rooming house, tourist court, or resort, other than the renting or leasing of it for a continuous period of 30 days or more. A statutory or home rule charter city may by ordinance impose the tax authorized under this subdivision on the camping site receipts of a municipal campground. Subd. 2.Existing taxes.No statutory or home rule charter city or town may impose a tax under this section upon transient lodging that, when combined with any tax authorized by special law or enacted prior to 1972, exceeds a rate of three percent. Subd. 3.Disposition of proceeds.Ninety-five percent of the gross proceeds from any tax imposed under subdivision 1 shall be used by the statutory or home rule charter city or town to fund a local convention or tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city or town as a tourist or convention center. This subdivision shall not apply to any statutory or home rule charter city or town that has a lodging tax authorized by special law or enacted prior to 1972 at the time of enactment of this section. Subd. 4.Unorganized territories.A county board acting as a town board with respect to an unorganized territory may impose a lodging tax within the unorganized territory according to this section if it determines by resolution that imposition of the tax is in the public interest. Subd. 5.Reverse referendum.If the county board passes a resolution under subdivision 4 to impose the tax, the resolution must be published for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the unorganized territory, together with a notice fixing a date for a public hearing on the proposed tax. The hearing must be held not less than two weeks nor more than four weeks after the first publication of the notice. After the public hearing, the county board may determine to take no further action, or may adopt a resolution authorizing the tax as originally proposed or approving a lesser rate of tax. The resolution must be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the unorganized territory. The voters of the unorganized territory may request a referendum on the proposed tax by filing a petition with the county auditor within 30 days after the resolution is published. The petition must be signed by voters who reside in the unorganized territory. The number of signatures must equal at least five percent of the number of persons voting in the unorganized territory in the last general election. If such a petition is timely filed, the resolution is not effective until it has been submitted to the voters residing in the unorganized territory at a Copyright © 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 4) Subject: Convention and Visitors Bureau Page 3 2 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008 469.190 general or special election and a majority of votes cast on the question of approving the resolution are in the affirmative. The commissioner of revenue shall prepare a suggested form of question to be presented at the referendum. Subd. 6.Joint powers agreements.Any statutory or home rule charter city, town, or county when the county board is acting as a town board with respect to an unorganized territory, may enter into a joint exercise of powers agreement pursuant to section 471.59 for the purpose of imposing the tax and disposing of its proceeds pursuant to this section. Subd. 7.Collection.The statutory or home rule charter city may agree with the commissioner of revenue that a tax imposed pursuant to this section shall be collected by the commissioner together with the tax imposed by chapter 297A, and subject to the same interest, penalties, and other rules and that its proceeds, less the cost of collection, shall be remitted to the city. History:1987 c 291 s 191; 1989 c 277 art 1 s 30; 1Sp1989 c 1 art 8 s 1-3; 1990 c 604 art 6 s 6-8 Copyright © 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 4) Subject: Convention and Visitors Bureau Page 4 Estimated Lodging Tax Revenue City of St. Louis Park Current Hotels Rooms Est. Ave Daily Room Rate Double Tree 298 Minneapolis Marriott West 171 Spring Hill Suites 126 Towne Place Suites 106 Homewood Suites 118 Lakeland Inn 24 Metropoint Marriott (projected) 162 (currently scheduled for Planning Commission 10/7/09) Duke Hotel (projected)125 (to be developed per agreement with Duke Realty) Total Current Rooms 1,130 95.00$ Current Assumptions:Rooms Annual Revenue 3% Tax City Share Ave. Occupancy: 68%768.4 $26,644,270 $799,328.10 $39,966.41 Rooms x Average Daily Rate x 365 days = Annual Revenue Annual Projected Revenue x 3% tax Tax x 5% = city share of revenue collected Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 4) Subject: Convention and Visitors Bureau Page 5 LOCAL METRO TOURISM ORGANIZATIONS Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce (www.applevalleychamber.com) Bloomington Convention & Visitors Bureau/Destination Bloomington (www.bloomingtonmn.org) Burnsville Convention & Visitors Bureau (www.burnsvillemn.com) Capitol Connections (www.capitolconnections.com) Eagan Convention & Visitors Bureau (www.eaganmn.com) Explore White Bear Lake (www.explorewhitebear.org) Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce (www.ilovestillwater.com) Hastings Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau (www.hastingsmn.org) Inver Grove Heights CVB (www.visitigh.com) Lakeville Convention & Visitors Bureau (www.visitlakeville.org) Meet Minneapolis – Official Convention & Visitors Bureau (www.minneapolis.org) Richfield Visitors Association (www.visitrichfield.com) Roseville Visitors Association (www.visitroseville.com) Saint Paul Rivercentre Convention & Visitors Authority (www.visitsaintpaul.com) Shakopee CBV (www.shakopee.org) Visit Minneapolis North (www.visitminneapolisnorth.com) Waconia Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau (www.destinationwaconia.org) Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 4) Subject: Convention and Visitors Bureau Page 6 Meeting Date: September 29, 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: City Facilities Energy Audit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is seeking confirmation from the City Council regarding the phased implementation of energy conserving improvements to City facilities through the City’s capital planning process. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council want to proceed with energy saving improvements recommended for City facilities? BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Vision Strategic Directions – 18 Month Guide on March 19, 2007. A key focus area identified was “Expanding Energy Efficiencies in City Operations”. The Expanding Energy Efficiencies Committee (EEEC) comprised of John Altepeter, Scott Anderson, Mark Hanson, Mark Oestreich, Craig Panning, Cary Smith, Lisa Songle, and Brian Hoffman, evaluated work which the City had already completed and also considered options for moving forward. In May of 2008 the committee recommended hiring a consultant to perform a comprehensive energy audit of City facilities. The goal was to establish a performance baseline and develop a plan of possible energy improvements at each facility and utility infrastructure. The City Council agreed with this approach. It should be noted the City has a history of implementing environmental initiatives and programs. Many aspects of conserving energy usage have already been completed. Attachment A was prepared for use in the audit and provides a summary of significant improvements already completed. Several consulting firms were interviewed to complete the audit and McKinstry was selected based on their technical ability and proposed audit cost. Additionally, McKinstry had the capability of offering the City a complete energy improvement construction package that they could design and install if desired. McKinstry is a traditional “fee for service” consulting firm that also embraces “performance contracting” and the alternative funding process that has been established by the State of Minnesota in MN Statute 471.345. This statute allows companies to perform energy audits, identify energy saving projects, perform design, hire sub-contractors, and manage the installation of projects as a fee consultant, thereby avoiding the normally required bid process for construction. A condition of this Statute is that the total project cost must have less then a twenty year payback in energy savings. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit With the MSC improvement project in process and both Fire Stations planned for replacement, McKinstry was directed to complete the energy evaluation on the following facilities and infrastructure: • City Hall - 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard (approximately 38,000 square feet) • Police Station - 3015 Raleigh Avenue (approximately 26,000 square feet) • Rec Center - 3700 Monterey Drive (approximately 99,000 square feet) • Westwood Nature Center - 8300 West Franklin (approximately 4,000 square feet) • Lift Stations and Well Houses/Water Treatment Plants • Street and Signal Lighting In addition to the facilities identified above for inclusion in the audit, the HVAC system at City Hall was requested to be evaluated for air distribution, temperature control, and operation. The completed employee climate study identified the air quality and temperature variations in City Hall as a significant concern. McKinstry utilized their internal designers and some specialty contractors to test and evaluate the buildings and systems. The consultant worked with the EEEC on a regular basis over several months to develop the energy audit process, participate in the field evaluations, and the creation of the final report. Discussion during these meetings revealed that many energy improvements with quick payback have already been completed by the City - an example being Public Works replacement of well pumps. This was good news for us, but created more of a challenge for McKinstry to develop an attractive overall package to present for construction after the audit was completed. DISCUSSION: Audit Results – The final St. Louis Park Energy Conservation Project report from McKinstry is a sizable document of detailed information on file with the City Clerk for your review. A summary of recommended improvements is provided in the FIM matrix (Attachment B). Twenty-four projects were identified for possible inclusion in a project that would have an initial cost of approximately $1.7 million. Some utility rebates would be available and the reduced annual energy cost savings, using a simple payback calculation, would eventually result in recovering this amount. As previously discussed, part of McKinstry’s business model is to provide a turnkey project for a single price with a combined payback of under twenty years. They will also guarantee project annual energy (unit) savings provided they are retained under a separate contract to perform annual evaluations of energy usage. Saving energy and reducing our carbon footprint was inherent in the Vision direction. Also important is remaining good stewards of the publics funds. During review of the McKinstry proposal, the EEEC questioned the value of such a significant financial investment at this time and considered options to implement the identified shorter payback improvements at a lower initial cost. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit When comparing some specific line item costs McKinstry proposed for the project against our cost to hire a contractor directly and perform the same work, savings of about 25% were identified. McKinstry indicated that they do add overhead, profit, and contingency onto sub-contractors cost when preparing their proposals. Completion of the Detailed Engineering Study (audit) performed by McKinstry obligates the City to pay a consulting fee of $24,500 for their service if a contract for construction services is not entered into within 60-days. The fee for this audit was substantially less than from other consultants submitting a proposal. This fee would be waived if McKinstry is hired to implement their energy savings plan. Next Steps – The EEEC has reviewed the audit results and discussed a cost effective plan with employee groups and department directors to proceed with implementing energy saving improvements without entering into a construction contract with McKinstry. Most of the projects listed on the matrix are smart to do items and can be accomplished by integrating them into regular operations and our Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Being awarded an Energy and Efficiency Block Grant (EECBG) of $198,300 in September 2009 will provide a good start to implementing identified projects. This comes from an application submitted in June, 2009, identifying two projects from the audit report that result in favorable paybacks through annual utility savings: the installation of LED lights in traffic/pedestrian signals (approximately $143,529); and interior lighting retrofits for the Police Station (approximately $54,771). The amounts were based on quotes received directly by the City. The CIP being prepared for 2010 and beyond includes the identified improvements from the audit that provide real environmental and cost savings. Most of these projects will be accomplished though hiring contractors for the lighting and mechanical work. Other projects for controlling air infiltration and insulation are planned to be performed directly by staff. While the matrix (Attachment B) provides a general overview of each project, further explanation of some items may be helpful in understanding recommended actions: • East Ice Rink HVAC improvements – The dehumidification unit has reached life expectancy and this will be a necessary equipment replacement that provides energy savings. • Temperature controls at Westwood, Police, and Recreation Center – These function well and would not provide significant savings justifying replacement. The City Hall system is the exception with currant operational problems. • Lighting improvements in all identified buildings – Generally consists of installing more efficient fluorescent bulbs and ballasts in existing fixtures or to replace inefficient metal halide lamps. Lighting improvements for the Police station will occur first with the grant proceeds. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit • Building envelope improvements in all buildings – Reducing air infiltration through relatively simple methods of sealing openings and caulking to reduce infiltration. These will be completed by Facility Maintenance staff as part of building maintenance. • Ice rink reflective ceiling – This is a membrane that can be installed inside below the ceiling or on the roof deck when the roofing membrane and insulation is replaced at the end of life cycle. Waiting several years until normal roof replacement is preferred to eliminate aesthetic and damage concerns inside the rink and provide the energy savings at a lower cost. • Water conservation in all buildings – The realized cost savings from replacing plumbing fixtures before the end of their life cycle is small. All new and replaced fixtures will utilize low flow technology. Greater water conservation may be achieved by reviewing our irrigation practices. • Salt delivery system at the Police Department – Water softener salt bags are currently carried upstairs by the Hennepin County S.T.S. crew providing service to the City. A hose delivery system would not reduce our energy costs or provide costs savings. • LED parking lot lights at City Hall – As part of the exterior repair and renovation project being completed, the exterior building wall lights needed to be replaced. The planned installation of LED lights mounted along the building roof edge was expanded to include replacement of the parking lot lights. This will keep the color quality of the campus lighting consistent (LED produces a more bluish white light) and reduce energy usage. Additional energy conserving ideas identified though the audit process included: • Renewable energy projects including photovoltaic (solar) and wind - These technologies have a very high cost and therefore long payback. While the benefits of renewable energy include reducing the carbon footprint and the use of fossil fuels, the typically 20-40+ year payback eliminates them from the performance contracting model McKinstry uses. The City may want to consider investing in one of these technologies as an education project or part of another construction project. Ground source heat recovery (i.e. geo-thermal) is a very viable option for new construction and can have a payback in as little as five-seven years, especially if land is available for a lower cost horizontal piping system. This concept is planned to be investigated further when designing both new Fire Stations. • LED street lighting - This lighting technology for commercial applications is really just developing. While the energy savings can be substantial, the number of quality fixture units ensuring longevity is small and cost remains very high. Additional poles may also be needed when converting due to limited light dispersion of current fixtures. LED designs are constantly improving and they may be the standard at some time in the future. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Energy improvement projects have an initial capital cost that will result in relatively lower annual operating costs though reduced energy usage. Expenditures will be kept to a minimum through the use of direct contracting and the use of staff resources when possible. Additional grant funds may also become available. The CIP is being prepared for discussion and will include the recommended projects. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship by increasing environmental consciousness and responsibilities in all areas of City business. Attachments: Attachment A –City Energy Improvements Attachment B – FIM Matrix Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Attachment A City Energy Improvements The City has a history of making energy improvements. Several completed include: Recreation Center • Insulated exterior walls of original building • Insulated Freon piping of West Arena refrigeration plant • Upgraded boiler with electronic controls and variable drive motor • Installed soft start motors on East Arena refrigeration plant • Changed fluorescent lighting in original building from T12 to T8 with electronic ballast • Installed dimmable fluorescent lighting in banquet room • Installed VFD’s on ventilation and air handling units • Converted both ice arenas from metal halide lighting systems to compact fluorescent lighting systems • Painted ceiling in both arenas white for maximum light reflectivity • Installed generator to minimize electrical energy unit cost • Re-insulated building water heater • Installed light motion sensors in locker rooms and larger restroom areas Water Treatment Plant Operations • Conducted an energy load management study and implemented the following: 1) Capacitors installed on wells 2) Time of day operations at Water Treatment Plant 16 – Peak Control Rate lower kilowatt rate charged by NSP throughout the year for Water Treatment Plant 16 operations. • Conducted energy management study • Installed 7 ASD (Adjustable Speed Drives) on Well and HSP motors in the following: 1) Wells SLP 4, 8, 10, 2) HSP 1, 2, 7, 10, 3) ASD converts AC to DC allowing operator to operate motor at a lower pumping rate • Implemented a system energy management plan setting limits on kilowatt usage. • Installed new roof on Water Treatment Plants 1, 4, 6, 8 and 10 with additional insulation • Replaced incandescent high watt light bulbs in WTP with fluorescent fixtures • Replaced well access panels with insulated panels Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit Page 6 • Installed ASD on well SLP11, SLP 16, HSP 13, HSP 16 • Installed emergency generators at WTP 1 & 4 resulting in lower kilowatt rate throughout the year, provides average day usage in the event of a city-wide power outage, lowering total energy costs by 10%. Streets • Changed streetlights & some traffic lights to be energy efficient. Facilities • Upgraded lighting devices to more efficient types • Replaced large electric motors with updated and more efficient models • Installed variable frequency drives on large electric motors where possible • Converted air conditioner compressor units to multi-stage scroll type compressors and integrated digital control units • Increased roof deck insulation to increase R-values • Installed timers on modified digital control to only operate HVAC units (heating and air conditioning) when staff is present • Replaced elevator hydraulic pump, the old unit had a very high AMP draw at startup which caused our “peak” demand numbers to be high thus our rate reflected this. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit Page 7 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit Page 8 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit Page 9 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit Page 10 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 5) Subject: City Facilities Energy Audit Page 11 Meeting Date: September 29, 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: 2009 City Manager Performance Evaluation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests feedback from Council on the approach to be used for the annual performance evaluation for the City Manager. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What is the Council’s desired approach for the City Manager’s 2009 annual performance evaluation? BACKGROUND: The employment agreement between the City and the City Manager states “that the City may conduct an annual review of the Manager’s performance.” The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide feedback to the City Manager on performance so that he can strive for continuous performance improvement based on City Council expectations. Over the years, Council has used different methods to provide performance feedback to the City Manager. These methods ranged from completing the process “in-house” with assistance of staff, to utilizing outside consultants. In 2008, we hired consultant Roger Hokanson and used the Checkpoint 360 degree competency feedback system. In the recent years we have also contracted with Larry Bakken, Jean Morrison, and Bob Wittman. Any of these methods could be used again and it comes down to whether the City Council would like to bring someone in from the outside to facilitate the process or undertake the process in-house. Once direction is provided staff can then undertake the steps necessary to arrange for the evaluation. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Using in-house staff to facilitate the City Manager’s evaluation will not have additional costs since our staffing is covered in the current budget. If Council desires to hire a consultant, costs would be applied to the Human Resources budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 29, 2009 Agenda Item #: 7 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Communications (Verbal). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Not Applicable. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. BACKGROUND: At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the purpose of information sharing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: None Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 29, 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: August, 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 August, actual revenues and expenditures should generally not exceed about 67% of the annual budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 61% and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 65%. Both of these figures are not only below the general expected level, but they are also below last year’s comparable figures of 63% and 75% respectively. Significant variances from the budget are highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion of reasons for the variance. General Fund Revenues: • General Fund property tax revenues are slightly below 50% because of delinquent taxes. Staff believes this revenue source may potentially fall short of the 99% that we have generally collected in prior years because of increasing delinquencies county-wide and the increase in commercial tax court petitions which have the ability to reduce taxes retroactively. • License and permit revenues are at $2,170,353 – 86% of the annual budget – which bodes well for the rest of the year. Staff will continue to watch for any slowdown in the coming months. • While interest earnings are unallocated at this point, it is likely that this source of income will be down significantly, probably about $150,000 below budget, with short term rates staying below 1%. • 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 September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Expenditures: • Communications & Marketing service charges are at about 97% for the year, but this reflects the full cost of the combined Park & Recreation 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 are shown in the Park and Recreation 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 later in the year. Expenditures: • Recreation Center supplies expenditures are at 85% of budget because most of the pool supplies and concessions have been purchased by this time of the year. • Environmental services expenditures are at 96% primarily because the number of trees is down a bit this year, but the diameter of the trees being removed due to disease are larger making the cost more. The Repairs and Maintenance expenditures, where the direct removal charges are identified, are over budget by 50%. This issue has been addressed in the 2010 budget through an addition of $100,000 in budgeted expenditures for tree removals bringing the total up to $173,000. 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 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:30:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 14,970,275.00-7,208,993.31- 7,761,281.69- 48.16 |14,107,179.00-7,134,840.22- 50.58 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,515,000.00- 175,091.55- 2,170,352.90- 344,647.10- 86.30 |2,712,715.00-2,854,500.49- 105.23 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 312,000.00- 24,668.00- 218,017.90- 93,982.10- 69.88 |311,000.00-191,456.71- 61.56 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,647,214.00- 27,898.83- 702,147.53- 945,066.47- 42.63 |1,709,365.00-876,407.17- 51.27 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,201,900.00- 53,498.36- 448,199.42- 753,700.58- 37.29 |1,084,975.00-389,678.63- 35.92 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-8,358.52- 104,574.09-4,574.09 104.57 |100,000.00-68,354.17- 68.35 4001 REVENUES 20,746,389.00-289,515.26-10,852,285.15-9,894,103.85-52.31 |20,025,234.00-11,515,237.39-57.50 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,646,154.00 668,796.15 11,966,468.80 6,679,685.20 64.18 |17,638,555.00 11,548,676.28 65.47 6210 SUPPLIES 781,135.00 135,230.31 435,111.51 346,023.49 55.70 |758,098.00 518,634.43 68.41 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 70,775.00 1,836.17 25,324.81 45,450.19 35.78 |71,350.00 14,628.42 20.50 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,195,215.00 194,550.07 2,116,866.72 2,078,348.28 50.46 |4,258,872.00 2,242,579.42 52.66 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 91.02 91.02-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 23,693,279.00 1,000,412.70 14,543,862.86 9,149,416.14 61.38 |22,726,875.00 14,324,518.55 63.03 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,628,910.00- 219,075.82- 1,752,606.56- 876,303.44- 66.67 |2,555,694.00-1,703,796.08- 66.67 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-500.00- 3,949.80-1,949.80 197.49 |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 4,520.00-4,520.00 |100.00- 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 125.00- 3,350.00-3,350.00 |5,625.00- 8200 MISC RECEIPTS 307.50-307.50 |537.31- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,980,910.00-219,700.82-1,688,450.52-1,292,459.48-56.64 |2,882,694.00-1,623,617.31-56.32 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES .71 .71-|8.25 8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,000.00 81.33 180,918.67 .04 |180,650.00 61,260.92 33.91 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,989.48 8,916.95 10,083.05 46.93 |400.00 18,312.67 4,578.17 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,000.00 1,989.48 8,998.99 191,001.01 4.50 |181,050.00 79,581.84 43.96 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 165,980.00 493,186.10 2,012,126.18 1,846,146.18-1,212.27 |3.00-1,265,245.69 ********** 01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 493,186.10 2,012,126.18 1,846,146.18-1,212.27 |3.00-1,265,245.69 ********** Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 3 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:30:53R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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- 50.00 |3,750,197.00-1,875,098.50- 50.00 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 425.00- 6,260.00-6,260.00 |5,700.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 55,702.00-4,350.22- 37,824.73- 17,877.27- 67.91 |56,402.00-57,935.21- 102.72 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,141,598.00- 172,630.26- 809,466.99- 332,131.01- 70.91 |1,058,170.00-846,676.00- 80.01 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 883,000.00- 70,990.78- 455,519.57- 427,480.43- 51.59 |823,061.00-526,764.86- 64.00 4001 REVENUES 6,153,418.00-248,396.26-3,345,630.29-2,807,787.71-54.37 |5,687,830.00-3,312,174.57-58.23 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,520,813.00 164,316.36 2,380,485.85 1,140,327.15 67.61 |3,403,854.00 2,392,546.87 70.29 6210 SUPPLIES 922,131.00 58,306.79 503,761.26 418,369.74 54.63 |795,292.00 680,132.50 85.52 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 1,703,002.00 172,729.46 1,144,830.20 558,171.80 67.22 |1,543,904.00 1,275,326.09 82.60 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 15,352.00 1,602.83 13,749.17 10.44 |19,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 6,165,418.00 395,352.61 4,030,701.11 2,134,716.89 65.38 |5,766,550.00 4,349,987.47 75.43 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00- 8100 INTEREST |1,600.00- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 12,000.00-94.00- 4,209.00-7,791.00- 35.08 |11,100.00-4,877.00- 43.94 8200 MISC REVENUE |30,084.89- 8001 OTHER INCOME 12,000.00-94.00-4,209.00-7,791.00-35.08 |87,700.00-34,961.89-39.87 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 5,987.36 66.67 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 1.38 8.36 8.36-|64.89 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 2,298.85 9,610.73 9,610.73-|12,847.81 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2,300.23 9,619.09 9,619.09-|8,981.00 18,900.06 210.44 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 149,162.58 690,480.91 690,480.91-|1.00 1,021,751.07 ********* 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 149,162.58 690,480.91 690,480.91-|1.00 1,021,751.07 ********* Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 4 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 14,970,275.00-7,208,993.31- 7,761,281.69- 48.16 |14,107,179.00-7,134,840.22- 50.58 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-22,602.50- 22,602.50- 50.00 |45,205.00-22,602.50- 50.00 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 378.89-378.89 |218.04- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 56,898.43- 28,101.57- 66.94 |85,000.00-56,790.84- 66.81 4001 REVENUES 15,100,480.00-7,083.33-7,288,873.13-7,811,606.87-48.27 |14,237,384.00-7,214,451.60-50.67 6001 EXPENDITURES 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES |52.50 6001 EXPENDITURES |52.50 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,628,910.00- 219,075.82- 1,752,606.56- 876,303.44- 66.67 |2,555,694.00-1,703,796.08- 66.67 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-| 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,978,910.00-219,075.82-1,675,820.61-1,303,089.39-56.26 |2,880,694.00-1,617,191.66-56.14 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 17,899,390.00-226,159.15-8,964,693.74-8,934,696.26-50.08 |16,938,078.00-8,831,590.76-52.14 100 GENERAL 17,899,390.00-226,159.15-8,964,693.74-8,934,696.26-50.08 |16,938,078.00-8,831,590.76-52.14 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 5 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 215,500.00-4,625.33- 165,268.66- 50,231.34- 76.69 |178,000.00-178,820.82- 100.46 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-6,000.00-2,000.00- 75.00 |8,000.00-4,000.00- 50.00 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 97.00-97.00 | 4001 REVENUES 223,500.00-4,625.33-171,365.66-52,134.34-76.67 |186,000.00-182,820.82-98.29 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 531,500.00 15,536.07 340,777.98 190,722.02 64.12 |511,250.00 344,302.50 67.35 6210 SUPPLIES 3,700.00 131.38 2,081.29 1,618.71 56.25 |4,350.00 4,265.53 98.06 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,635.00 22,143.40 237,695.03 217,939.97 52.17 |518,727.00 262,858.38 50.67 6001 EXPENDITURES 990,835.00 37,810.85 580,554.30 410,280.70 58.59 |1,034,327.00 611,426.41 59.11 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE 307.50-307.50 |30.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 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 33,185.52 408,886.71 358,448.29 53.29 |848,327.00 428,583.84 50.52 110 ADMINISTRATION 767,335.00 33,185.52 408,886.71 358,448.29 53.29 |848,327.00 428,583.84 50.52 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 6 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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- 27,833.75- 22,166.25- 55.67 |50,000.00-23,455.50- 46.91 4001 REVENUES 50,000.00-4,026.50-27,833.75-22,166.25-55.67 |50,000.00-23,455.50-46.91 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 999,200.00 27,863.01 640,696.83 358,503.17 64.12 |951,407.00 582,958.28 61.27 6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 847.17 2,273.84 1,951.16 53.82 |4,000.00 2,649.03 66.23 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 162,555.00 9,578.03 95,363.96 67,191.04 58.67 |167,356.00 113,210.47 67.65 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,165,980.00 38,288.21 738,334.63 427,645.37 63.32 |1,122,763.00 698,817.78 62.24 8001 OTHER INCOME 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 125.00- 3,350.00-3,350.00 |5,625.00- 8200 MISC REVENUE |281.71- 8001 OTHER INCOME 125.00-3,350.00-3,350.00 |5,906.71- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 24.41 475.59 4.88 |150.00 61,260.92 ********* 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 22.97 477.03 4.59 |300.00 2.96 .99 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 47.38 952.62 4.74 |450.00 61,263.88 ********* 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,116,980.00 34,136.71 707,198.26 409,781.74 63.31 |1,073,213.00 730,719.45 68.09 120 FINANCE 1,116,980.00 34,136.71 707,198.26 409,781.74 63.31 |1,073,213.00 730,719.45 68.09 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 7 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 9,000.00-3,500.00 1,961.00-7,039.00- 21.79 |9,000.00-3,142.00- 34.91 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30.00-30.00 | 4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-3,500.00 1,991.00-7,009.00-22.12 |9,000.00-3,142.00-34.91 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 481,000.00 18,414.46 316,822.44 164,177.56 65.87 |459,624.00 306,857.20 66.76 6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 118.30 1,449.49 550.51 72.47 |2,000.00 678.28 33.91 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 4,319.45 73,149.42 87,400.58 45.56 |168,050.00 89,699.10 53.38 6001 EXPENDITURES 643,550.00 22,852.21 391,421.35 252,128.65 60.82 |629,674.00 397,234.58 63.09 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 634,550.00 26,352.21 389,430.35 245,119.65 61.37 |620,674.00 394,092.58 63.49 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 634,550.00 26,352.21 389,430.35 245,119.65 61.37 |620,674.00 394,092.58 63.49 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 8 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 12,000.00-1,964.25- 9,689.25-2,310.75- 80.74 |12,000.00-8,505.00- 70.88 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 585,000.00- 45,228.86- 339,552.73- 245,447.27- 58.04 |572,675.00-295,199.73- 51.55 4001 REVENUES 597,000.00-47,193.11-349,241.98-247,758.02-58.50 |584,675.00-303,704.73-51.94 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,047,000.00 22,094.09 658,198.45 388,801.55 62.87 |1,019,147.00 661,562.93 64.91 6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 52.01 486.48 2,513.52 16.22 |3,000.00 449.50 14.98 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,750.00 2,049.78- 11,651.72 45,098.28 20.53 |57,750.00 8,929.78 15.46 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,107,750.00 20,096.32 670,336.65 437,413.35 60.51 |1,080,897.00 670,942.21 62.07 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 510,750.00 27,096.79-321,094.67 189,655.33 62.87 |496,222.00 367,237.48 74.01 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 510,750.00 27,096.79-321,094.67 189,655.33 62.87 |496,222.00 367,237.48 74.01 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 9 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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- 11,250.00-3,750.00- 75.00 |15,000.00-11,563.33- 77.09 4001 REVENUES 23,200.00-1,250.00-11,250.00-11,950.00-48.49 |23,200.00-11,563.33-49.84 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 534,000.00 20,888.13 346,371.82 187,628.18 64.86 |510,784.00 335,658.57 65.71 6210 SUPPLIES 105,500.00 7,130.01 27,255.70 78,244.30 25.83 |109,500.00 49,638.29 45.33 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 4,917.61 21,082.39 18.91 |31,000.00 4,422.04 14.26 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 537,942.00 22,562.46 263,962.42 273,979.58 49.07 |536,642.00 277,885.20 51.78 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,203,442.00 50,580.60 642,507.55 560,934.45 53.39 |1,187,926.00 667,604.10 56.20 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 37.02 37.02-| 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 203.10 203.10-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 240.12 240.12-| 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,180,242.00 49,330.60 631,497.67 548,744.33 53.51 |1,164,726.00 656,040.77 56.33 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,180,242.00 49,330.60 631,497.67 548,744.33 53.51 |1,164,726.00 656,040.77 56.33 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 10 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 20,815.75 381,577.66 193,422.34 66.36 |566,679.00 432,132.41 76.26 6210 SUPPLIES 30,800.00 1,368.70 12,587.49 18,212.51 40.87 |31,200.00 17,743.80 56.87 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 67,135.70 487,742.57 390,227.43 55.55 |860,660.00 487,831.88 56.68 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,483,770.00 89,320.15 884,839.18 598,930.82 59.63 |1,460,839.00 939,622.25 64.32 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 72.98 72.98-|34.57 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 72.98 72.98-|34.57 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,483,770.00 89,320.15 883,634.74 600,135.26 59.55 |1,460,839.00 939,656.82 64.32 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,483,770.00 89,320.15 883,634.74 600,135.26 59.55 |1,460,839.00 939,656.82 64.32 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 11 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 4,728.76 105,008.31 79,971.69 56.77 |173,932.00 57,641.34 33.14 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 104,245.00 335.73 101,218.12 3,026.88 97.10 |113,850.00 102,358.41 89.91 6001 EXPENDITURES 289,225.00 5,064.49 206,226.43 82,998.57 71.30 |287,782.00 159,999.75 55.60 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 16.49 16.49-|16.18 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 16.49 16.49-|16.18 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 286,225.00 5,064.49 206,242.92 79,982.08 72.06 |287,782.00 160,015.93 55.60 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 286,225.00 5,064.49 206,242.92 79,982.08 72.06 |287,782.00 160,015.93 55.60 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 12 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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- 24,668.00- 212,017.90- 91,482.10- 69.86 |302,600.00-186,773.71- 61.72 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 809,009.00- 27,898.83- 218,810.00- 590,199.00- 27.05 |882,160.00-378,836.62- 42.94 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-7,131.00- 59,779.52- 49,920.48- 54.49 |110,300.00-56,086.36- 50.85 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 36,370.47- 36,370.47 | 4001 REVENUES 1,222,209.00-59,697.83-526,977.89-695,231.11-43.12 |1,295,060.00-621,716.69-48.01 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,572,294.00 244,097.06 4,243,839.41 2,328,454.59 64.57 |6,185,321.00 4,088,098.19 66.09 6210 SUPPLIES 150,900.00 353.62 49,014.81 101,885.19 32.48 |155,300.00 58,368.03 37.58 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 35,775.00 1,836.17 14,989.81 20,785.19 41.90 |33,550.00 7,536.88 22.46 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 547,053.00 22,696.87 267,695.00 279,358.00 48.93 |552,343.00 258,400.49 46.78 6001 EXPENDITURES 7,306,022.00 268,983.72 4,575,539.03 2,730,482.97 62.63 |6,926,514.00 4,412,403.59 63.70 8001 OTHER INCOME 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-500.00- 3,949.80-1,949.80 197.49 |2,000.00-163.34- 8.17 8100 INTEREST 2.61-2.61 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00-500.00-3,952.41-1,952.41 197.62 |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 18.60 94.99 405.01 19.00 |100.00 148.19 148.19 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 18.60 94.99 905.01 9.50 |600.00 148.19 24.70 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,082,813.00 208,804.49 4,044,703.72 2,038,109.28 66.49 |5,630,054.00 3,790,671.75 67.33 160 POLICE 6,082,813.00 208,804.49 4,044,703.72 2,038,109.28 66.49 |5,630,054.00 3,790,671.75 67.33 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 13 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 2,946.06 50,286.27 26,213.73 65.73 |73,127.00 48,943.40 66.93 6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |1,100.00 31.73 2.88 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 4,743.96 3,961.04 54.50 |9,756.00 5,089.75 52.17 6001 EXPENDITURES 86,055.00 2,946.06 55,030.23 31,024.77 63.95 |83,983.00 54,064.88 64.38 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,055.00 2,946.06 55,030.23 31,024.77 63.95 |83,983.00 54,064.88 64.38 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,055.00 2,946.06 55,030.23 31,024.77 63.95 |83,983.00 54,064.88 64.38 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 14 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 50,000.00-2,932.43- 27,728.77- 22,271.23- 55.46 |55,000.00-28,601.52- 52.00 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-5,712.53- 294,287.47-1.90 |332,000.00-33,660.00- 10.14 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-455.00- 14,583.00- 10,583.00 364.58 |4,000.00-9,725.00- 243.13 4001 REVENUES 354,000.00-3,387.43-48,024.30-305,975.70-13.57 |391,000.00-71,986.52-18.41 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,815,680.00 107,303.35 1,780,227.61 1,035,452.39 63.23 |2,712,378.00 1,720,221.86 63.42 6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 2,969.62 25,469.15 46,340.85 35.47 |93,648.00 60,548.59 64.66 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 1,790.93 3,209.07 35.82 | 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 224,183.00 13,393.90 106,485.17 117,697.83 47.50 |223,092.00 116,211.11 52.09 6001 EXPENDITURES 3,116,673.00 123,666.87 1,913,972.86 1,202,700.14 61.41 |3,029,118.00 1,896,981.56 62.62 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 5,020.00-5,020.00 |100.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 5,020.00-5,020.00 |100.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,762,673.00 120,279.44 1,860,928.56 901,744.44 67.36 |2,638,118.00 1,824,895.04 69.17 165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,762,673.00 120,279.44 1,860,928.56 901,744.44 67.36 |2,638,118.00 1,824,895.04 69.17 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 15 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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- 163,219.54- 1,917,216.22- 245,283.78- 88.66 |2,392,615.00-2,573,523.15- 107.56 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |445.65- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 7.00- 2,186.11-2,186.11 |800.00-777.00- 97.13 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 25.19-25.19-25.19 | 4001 REVENUES 2,162,500.00-163,251.73-1,919,427.52-243,072.48-88.76 |2,393,415.00-2,574,745.80-107.58 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,941,500.00 71,516.27 1,217,405.45 724,094.55 62.70 |1,771,747.00 1,179,451.17 66.57 6210 SUPPLIES 22,300.00 811.15 8,229.67 14,070.33 36.90 |11,500.00 9,978.79 86.77 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 71,627.00 6,051.36 31,698.91 39,928.09 44.26 |69,627.00 55,869.39 80.24 6001 EXPENDITURES 2,035,427.00 78,378.78 1,257,334.03 778,092.97 61.77 |1,852,874.00 1,245,299.35 67.21 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC RECEIPTS |225.60- 8001 OTHER INCOME |225.60- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 19.90 19.90-| 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,970.88 8,479.82 9,520.18 47.11 |18,085.50 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,970.88 8,499.72 9,500.28 47.22 |18,085.50 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 109,073.00-82,902.07-653,593.77-544,520.77 599.23 |540,541.00-1,311,586.55-242.64 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 109,073.00-82,902.07-653,593.77-544,520.77 599.23 |540,541.00-1,311,586.55-242.64 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 16 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 34,923.69 586,858.18 239,641.82 71.01 |793,133.00 507,707.08 64.01 6210 SUPPLIES 4,500.00 976.97 3,478.66 1,021.34 77.30 |4,500.00 1,317.45 29.28 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,500.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 22,950.00 183.33 6,539.03 16,410.97 28.49 |33,450.00 19,913.31 59.53 6001 EXPENDITURES 854,950.00 36,083.99 596,875.87 258,074.13 69.81 |832,583.00 528,937.84 63.53 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 36,083.99 596,897.61 258,052.39 69.82 |832,583.00 528,937.84 63.53 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,950.00 36,083.99 596,897.61 258,052.39 69.82 |832,583.00 528,937.84 63.53 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 17 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 75,000.00-2,170.00- 49,820.00- 25,180.00- 66.43 |75,000.00-65,000.00- 86.67 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 436,000.00-150.00-550.00- 435,450.00-.13 |330,000.00-1,075.00- .33 4001 REVENUES 511,000.00-2,320.00-50,370.00-460,630.00-9.86 |405,000.00-66,075.00-16.31 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 844,000.00 31,175.70 486,645.89 357,354.11 57.66 |690,511.00 476,249.67 68.97 6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 599.17 2,427.29 4,622.71 34.43 |7,000.00 3,914.37 55.92 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 695.00 1,305.00 34.75 |2,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 9,111.27 32,773.56 37,976.44 46.32 |85,671.00 23,077.16 26.94 6001 EXPENDITURES 923,800.00 40,886.14 522,541.74 401,258.26 56.56 |785,182.00 503,241.20 64.09 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 38,566.14 472,171.74 59,371.74-114.38 |380,182.00 437,191.47 115.00 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 412,800.00 38,566.14 472,171.74 59,371.74-114.38 |380,182.00 437,191.47 115.00 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 18 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 180.00-630.00-630.00 |100.00-30.00- 30.00 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 500.00-500.00-|400.00-683.00- 170.75 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 490,000.00-455,022.50- 34,977.50- 92.86 |450,000.00-440,862.40- 97.97 4001 REVENUES 490,500.00-180.00-455,652.50-34,847.50-92.90 |450,500.00-441,575.40-98.02 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,217,000.00 46,493.75 811,752.50 405,247.50 66.70 |1,219,515.00 806,891.68 66.16 6210 SUPPLIES 374,500.00 119,872.21 300,357.64 74,142.36 80.20 |331,000.00 309,051.04 93.37 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |755.34 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 894,300.00 19,088.35 396,147.85 498,152.15 44.30 |861,898.00 421,192.49 48.87 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 91.02 91.02-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 2,485,800.00 185,454.31 1,508,349.01 977,450.99 60.68 |2,412,413.00 1,537,890.55 63.75 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,995,300.00 185,274.31 1,052,696.51 942,603.49 52.76 |1,961,913.00 1,096,315.15 55.88 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 1,995,300.00 185,274.31 1,052,696.51 942,603.49 52.76 |1,961,913.00 1,096,315.15 55.88 01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 493,186.10 2,012,126.18 1,846,146.18-1,212.27 |3.00-1,265,245.69 ********** Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 19 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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- 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- 37,239.50- 213,191.05- 46,106.95- 82.22 |242,070.00-160,586.95- 66.34 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-4,984.90- 15,822.70- 18,177.30- 46.54 |19,600.00-10,543.22- 53.79 4001 REVENUES 4,411,118.00-42,224.40-2,287,923.75-2,123,194.25-51.87 |4,056,569.00-2,068,579.67-50.99 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 729,162.00 28,867.51 487,657.02 241,504.98 66.88 |711,222.00 501,750.94 70.55 6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 1,571.00 25,151.03 34,299.97 42.31 |66,892.00 28,238.31 42.21 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 502,597.00 18,072.17 358,191.33 144,405.67 71.27 |472,585.00 395,416.32 83.67 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,291,210.00 48,510.68 870,999.38 420,210.62 67.46 |1,250,699.00 925,405.57 73.99 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 |30,084.89- 8001 OTHER INCOME 14,000.00-1,500.00-12,500.00-10.71 |14,700.00-33,084.89-225.07 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 3.79 3.79-| 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 2,253.50 9,326.51 9,326.51-|12,455.62 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2,253.50 9,330.30 9,330.30-|12,455.62 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,133,908.00-8,539.78 1,409,094.07-1,724,813.93-44.96 |2,820,570.00-1,163,803.37-41.26 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,133,908.00-8,539.78 1,409,094.07-1,724,813.93-44.96 |2,820,570.00-1,163,803.37-41.26 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 20 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 22Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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- 88,459.16- 465,147.16- 213,852.84- 68.50 |645,500.00-529,425.35- 82.02 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 722,000.00- 52,687.46- 336,227.79- 385,772.21- 46.57 |691,200.00-415,954.80- 60.18 4001 REVENUES 1,401,000.00-141,146.62-801,374.95-599,625.05-57.20 |1,336,700.00-945,380.15-70.72 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 792,467.00 54,322.33 570,752.45 221,714.55 72.02 |765,999.00 552,824.17 72.17 6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 15,963.56 144,091.10 26,258.90 84.59 |167,100.00 142,999.01 85.58 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 491,950.00 48,334.48 279,843.41 212,106.59 56.88 |413,284.00 298,017.71 72.11 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |12,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,454,767.00 118,620.37 994,686.96 460,080.04 68.37 |1,358,383.00 993,840.89 73.16 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 1.38 4.57 4.57-|2.28 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1.38 4.57 4.57-|2.28 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 53,767.00 22,524.87-193,316.58 139,549.58-359.55 |21,683.00 48,463.02 223.51 201 RECREATION CENTER 53,767.00 22,524.87-193,316.58 139,549.58-359.55 |21,683.00 48,463.02 223.51 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 21 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 23Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 425.00- 6,260.00-6,260.00 |5,700.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,700.00-130.00 10,830.00-1.21- |8,700.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 26,000.00-4,930.00- 31,094.22-5,094.22 119.59 |11,600.00-33,104.48- 285.38 4001 REVENUES 36,700.00-5,355.00-37,224.22-524.22 101.43 |20,300.00-38,804.48-191.16 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 986,400.00 41,287.42 646,311.88 340,088.12 65.52 |961,356.00 683,770.12 71.13 6210 SUPPLIES 93,555.00 7,701.82 61,818.29 31,736.71 66.08 |88,700.00 64,939.56 73.21 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 24,445.45 206,552.92 162,957.08 55.90 |316,462.00 245,658.38 77.63 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,460,585.00 73,434.69 914,683.09 545,901.91 62.62 |1,377,518.00 996,350.07 72.33 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,423,885.00 68,079.69 877,458.87 546,426.13 61.62 |1,357,218.00 957,545.59 70.55 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,423,885.00 68,079.69 877,458.87 546,426.13 61.62 |1,357,218.00 957,545.59 70.55 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 22 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 24Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 82,600.00-4,957.10- 69,067.39- 13,532.61- 83.62 |80,150.00-62,029.10- 77.39 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 177.00-177.00 |55.00- 4001 REVENUES 82,600.00-4,957.10-69,244.39-13,355.61-83.83 |80,150.00-62,084.10-77.46 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 420,586.00 18,524.59 284,643.25 135,942.75 67.68 |404,679.00 270,719.23 66.90 6210 SUPPLIES 26,700.00 1,869.76 12,149.14 14,550.86 45.50 |22,650.00 12,438.79 54.92 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 44,500.00 5,721.41 21,972.49 22,527.51 49.38 |39,349.00 23,969.95 60.92 6001 EXPENDITURES 491,786.00 26,115.76 318,764.88 173,021.12 64.82 |466,678.00 307,127.97 65.81 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 94.00-909.00-909.00 |1,877.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 94.00-909.00-909.00 |1,877.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 59.70 284.22 284.22-|360.37 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 59.70 284.22 284.22-|360.37 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 409,186.00 21,124.36 248,895.71 160,290.29 60.83 |386,528.00 243,527.24 63.00 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 409,186.00 21,124.36 248,895.71 160,290.29 60.83 |386,528.00 243,527.24 63.00 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 23 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 25Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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- 41,974.50- 62,191.39- 47,808.61- 56.54 |81,750.00-75,275.86- 92.08 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,318.00-1,318.00 | 4001 REVENUES 110,000.00-41,974.50-63,509.39-46,490.61-57.74 |81,750.00-104,775.86-128.17 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,898.00 3,159.33 70,802.77 38,095.23 65.02 |99,297.00 72,823.43 73.34 6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 997.78 13,012.77 6,412.23 66.99 |17,900.00 11,533.97 64.44 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |500.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 158,470.00 64,554.13 192,588.03 34,118.03- 121.53 |171,285.00 188,182.98 109.87 6001 EXPENDITURES 286,793.00 68,711.24 276,403.57 10,389.43 96.38 |288,982.00 272,540.38 94.31 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 26,736.74 211,094.18 32,301.18-118.07 |209,232.00 167,764.52 80.18 204 ENVIRONMENT 178,793.00 26,736.74 211,094.18 32,301.18-118.07 |209,232.00 167,764.52 80.18 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 24 9/21/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:32:57R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 26Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2009 20098/31/2009 <==========================================>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 11,000.00-4,350.22- 15,473.73-4,473.73 140.67 |11,700.00-6,084.21- 52.00 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |19,358.74- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 70,879.86- 30,120.14- 70.18 |100,661.00-67,107.36- 66.67 4001 REVENUES 112,000.00-12,738.64-86,353.59-25,646.41-77.10 |112,361.00-92,550.31-82.37 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,300.00 18,155.18 320,318.48 162,981.52 66.28 |461,301.00 310,658.98 67.34 6210 SUPPLIES 552,650.00 30,202.87 247,538.93 305,111.07 44.79 |432,050.00 419,982.86 97.21 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 20.97 20.97-| 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 135,975.00 11,601.82 85,682.02 50,292.98 63.01 |130,939.00 124,080.75 94.76 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 8,352.00 1,602.83 6,749.17 19.19 | 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,180,277.00 59,959.87 655,163.23 525,113.77 55.51 |1,024,290.00 854,722.59 83.45 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME |75,000.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 5,987.36 66.67 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |62.61 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 14.35-|31.82 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 14.35-|8,981.00 6,081.79 67.72 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,068,277.00 47,206.88 568,809.64 499,467.36 53.25 |845,910.00 768,254.07 90.82 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,068,277.00 47,206.88 568,809.64 499,467.36 53.25 |845,910.00 768,254.07 90.82 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 149,162.58 690,480.91 690,480.91-|1.00 1,021,751.07 ********* Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 8) Subject: August, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 25 Meeting Date: September 29, 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: Hardship Special Assessment Deferral – Income Guideline Revision. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is requested. This report is being provided for informational purposes. Staff proposes to bring this matter to the City Council for formal consideration at an upcoming meeting. Please let staff know if you have questions, comments or concerns. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the income guideline of the special assessment deferral be lowered from 80% of the median area income (MAI) to 50% of the MAI? The deferral allows special assessment fees to be deferred. The deferral is currently available to senior (65 years and older) and disabled residents with incomes at or below 80% of the MAI, or $44,800 annually for a one person household. The income level for a one person household at 50% MAI is $29,350. BACKGROUND: Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provides for the deferment of special assessments and specifies the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments. The City of St Louis Park determined that the deferral of special assessments for certain persons under hardship guidelines was in the public interest and passed resolution number 5376 in 1975. This resolution was amended in 1980 to update the income level guidelines for which the hardship would be determined. In 2005, the resolution was amended to include persons with permanent and total disabilities, and the income limit was set to match the Section 8 income guideline of 80% of the median area income. This deferral is only applicable to the aforementioned criteria and being a homesteaded property. In 2008, this tool was used to defer the Housing Improvement Area (HIA) fee for six of the seventy- two residents at the Westmoreland Hills Owners Association. It is anticipated this tool could be used for eligible residents at Sunset Ridge Condominiums if an HIA is established. Why Change? The pending Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA has sparked renewed interest in this tool to assist residents, and has brought to staff attention discrepancies in income guidelines for city programs to assist low income homeowners. Therefore, staff recommends that the income level for this deferment be consistent with income guidelines for the city’s other tools to assist low-income single family homeowners. The city’s low-income deferred loans, emergency repair grants and Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Subject: Hardship Special Assessment Deferral – Income Guideline Revision assistance for diseased tree removal all use an income guideline of 50% or less of the MAI. In 2009, the income for a one person a household is $29,350, and the income for a two person household is $33,550. Potential Impact Sunset Ridge Association conducted a survey of their 240 homeowners to determine how many residents might be eligible for a deferment. The received sixty-seven responses with twelve owners indicating they may qualify for deferment of the HIA fee at the 50% MAI level. The Process To be considered for a deferral, residents must complete a City of St Louis Park application and submit income or disability information for review by city community development or finance staff. Upon approval, the form must be notarized and sent to Hennepin County along with all of the usual certification information, thereby serving as the official record of the deferment. The deferment, which will include interest, will remain on the property until the following: 1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible 2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided 3. The property should lose its homestead status or 4. If for any reason the city determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment NEXT STEPS: Unless staff hears otherwise, this matter will be brought to a formal council meeting for considerations. If the council approves change, the amended income limit would be implemented immediately, and would apply to applications for special hardship deferments if the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association HIA is approved. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Use of this tool for special assessments has only been used minimally and has had little impact on the City’s finances. It is anticipated this tool will be used to assist low income seniors and permanently disabled residents with potential HIA fees; lowering the income guideline to 50% of the MAI will restrict this tool to seniors and disabled persons most at need. With the pending Sunset Ridge Association HIA, there may be more than twelve residents requesting the deferment. The financial impact of 12 residents, with an average fee of $18,500, means that repayment of approximately $222,000 will be deferred until one or more of the payment criteria listed above is triggered. Staff has analyzed the fund and anticipates the project fund can absorb these potential deferrals if the project is approved by the City Council. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 3 Subject: Hardship Special Assessment Deferral – Income Guideline Revision VISION CONSIDERATION: This tool assists low income single family owners to remain in their homes, and is consistent with the Vision commitment to provide a well maintained and diverse housing stock and affordable single- family home ownership throughout the city. Attachments: Proposed Resolution November 2005 staff report Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Assistant Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 4 Subject: Hardship Special Assessment Deferral – Income Guideline Revision RESOLUTION NO: 09-___ RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 05-151 RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS & DISABLED CITIZENS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provide for the deferment of special assessments and specify the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of St Louis Park adopted Resolution Number 5376 on October 6, 1975 and under that provision applicants were deemed eligible for deferment when total household income was $8,000.00 or less, the person was 65 years of age or older, and owned homestead property and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 6595 on July 7, 1980 establishing the new eligibility requirement for income to be at $10,500.00 or less. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 05-151 on November 7, 2005 establishing the eligibility requirement for income is 80% of the median household income by household size as indicated on the Section 8 income and poverty guidelines; and the provision for eligibility is extended to persons with permanent and total disability as stated in State Statute 435.193. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St Louis Park that the eligibility requirement for income is 50% of the median household income by household size as indicated on the HUD Assisted Housing Income Limits. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council on___________ City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 5 Subject: Hardship Special Assessment Deferral – Income Guideline Revision November 7, 2005 Council Report 4d Motion to adopt the Resolution for hardship special assessment deferral for senior citizens & disabled citizens Background: Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provides for the deferment of special assessment and specifies the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments. The City of St Louis Park determined that the deferral of special assessments for certain persons under hardship guidelines was in the public interest’s and passed resolution number 5376 in 1975. This resolution was amended in 1980 to update the income level guidelines for which the hardship would be determined. This deferral program is included as an option to our delinquent customers as part of the certification letter that is distributed in October of each year notifying customers of the intent to certify the delinquent amount outstanding to their property taxes. Although the city has had recent inquiries about the deferral program, actual requests to participate in the program have been very minimal, if any, over the past 20+ years. The Process: To be considered for a deferral, the customer must complete a City of St Louis Park application. Once the application is received and eligibility is approved, a form that Hennepin County requires will be sent to the customer for signature. This form must be notarized and sent back to the City of St Louis Park. This form will then be sent to Hennepin County and serve as official record of the deferment. The deferment, which will include interest, will remain on the property until the following: 1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible 2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided 3. The property should lose its homestead status or 4. If for any reason the city determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment Summary: Attached is the resolution amending resolution 6595. Previous resolutions have only identified persons 65 years of age or older as qualified applicants. It is recommended that the provision is extended to persons with permanent or total disability as stated in the State Statute 435.193. In addition, staff recommends that the income guidelines included within the resolution are based on section 8 income limits & poverty guidelines. It is further recommended that it is stated in the resolution these guidelines are 80% of the median household income by household size. By establishing these income guidelines, it will eliminate the need to amend this resolution due to inflationary factors from year to year. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 6 Subject: Hardship Special Assessment Deferral – Income Guideline Revision For year 2005, the following table indicates the guidelines for 80% of the median household income. Household size Income 1 person $40,600 2 person $46,400 3 person $52,200 4 person $58,000 5 person $62,650 6 person $67,300 7 person $71,900 8 person $76,550 Recommendation: This action will update statute references, modify the qualification parameters of the stated income levels, and extend the provision to persons with permanent and total disability. It is recommended that Council adopt resolution to amend resolution number 6595 to update statute references, modify qualification parameters, and extend the provision to persons with permanent and total disability within the hardship special assessment deferral program Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director Reviewed by: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 7 Subject: Hardship Special Assessment Deferral – Income Guideline Revision RESOLUTION NO: 05-151 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6595 RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS & DISABLED CITIZENS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provide for the deferment of special assessments and specify the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of St Louis Park adopted Resolution Number 5376 on October 6, 1975 and under that provision applicants were deemed eligible for deferment when total household income was $8,000.00 or less, the person was 65 years of age or older, and owned homestead property and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 6595 on July 7, 1980 establishing the new eligibility requirement for income to be at $10,500.00 or less. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St Louis Park that the eligibility requirement for income is 80% of the median household income by household size as indicated on the Section 8 income and poverty guidelines; and BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision for eligibility is extended to persons with permanent and total disability as stated in State Statute 435.193. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 29, 2009 Agenda Item #: 10 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary. If further discussion is needed, this item can be scheduled for discussion at an upcoming Study Session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to make the proposed land use changes when adopting the city’s updated Comprehensive Plan in December? BACKGROUND: Over the past year and one-half the city has been working on updating the Comprehensive Plan. The Council has been updated on several occasions and reviewed the proposed land use map changes in February of this year. The land use designation changes would be adopted with the overall Comprehensive Plan. The intent of this report is to identify and review the proposed changes and update the Council of the process undertaken to inform property owners of the proposed changes. Business Park Category One outcome of the plan update is to create a new land use category “Business Park” and change some land use designations to this category. The Business Park land use category is intended to: Create significant employment centers Encourage a diverse mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs Apply to larger sites that can be redeveloped to provide a diversity of jobs, higher development densities and jobs per acre, Compel high quality site and architectural design Increase tax revenues for the community Typical uses allowed would include: Office, Office-showroom-warehousing, Research and development services, Light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly, Some service uses may be allowed as supporting uses for the primary office and light industrial uses of the employment center. Outdoor storage and heavy manufacturing would not be allowed. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes Summary of Proposed Land Use Changes (Please see attached maps) Proposed changes are in the areas surrounding the future light rail stations at Beltline, Wooddale and Louisiana. Most of the proposed changes are to designate the property for Business Park. Process with Property Owners On June 25, 2009, Staff met with several of the owners of property proposed for the new Business Park designation. We explained the concept and it was well received, as it gives more flexibility in land use and better meets the current market needs. Several owners thanked the city for being proactive in this approach. Another meeting with all of the property owners is scheduled for October. At this meeting, we will review the proposed change in more detail. Staff also hopes to discuss an outline of ideas for a new Business Park zoning district. The intent will be to inform the property owners and have some discussion on the parameters and standards for the zoning district. It is expected that this zoning district will require additional discussion. The intent is to process it through Planning Commission and City Council during the first quarter of next year. Beltline Station Area Proposed Change Beltline Industrial Park Ind to Business Park SE of Beltline and rail Ind to Mixed Use Office Building site Ind to Office Wooddale/Elmwood Area (consistent with Elmwood Plan) NW of Wooddale and rail MX to right-of-way NE of Wooddale and rail Ind to Office and Business Park Alabama and 36th (Pecheney Plastics) Ind to Medium Density Residential Along 36th Street Ind to Mixed Use Burlington Coat Factory Commercial to Office Louisiana Area SW corner of Hwy 7 and Louisiana Commercial to Office South & west of Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ind to Business Park SE of Hwy 7 and Louisiana (city owned) Commercial to Civic Along Louisiana – Hwy 7 to Methodist Ind to Business Park Flame Metals Ind to Business Park SE of Louisiana and rail Ind to Mixed Use MSC Ind to Civic E side of Meadowbrook & Excelsior Ind to Business Park Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This process has been planned and budgeted for through the Development Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. Attachments: 2009 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 2030 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Area Maps with Proposed Land Use Changes (3) Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes Page 4 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes Page 5 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes Page 6 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes Page 7 Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 10) Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes Page 8 Meeting Date: September 29, 2009 Agenda Item #: 11 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Fiber Network Policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. This report is being provided as background information in preparation for a more extensive discussion at the study session on October 26. In the meantime staff plans to solicit input from the Telecommunications Advisory Commission at its October 8 meeting. That said, prior to October 26 staff requests that Council express any major thoughts, concerns, or questions on the issues and opportunities identified in this report. BACKGROUND: As the wi-fi project was coming to a conclusion, Council requested that staff prepare some policy points around both the potential use of existing City-owned fiber optic capacity and related ordinances requiring installation of fiber capabilities in construction. Now that the wi-fi project clean-up has essentially ended, it seemed like the right time to start addressing these questions. The jointly owned fiber network was installed beginning in 1997 following collaborative planning by the City, Schools, and LOGIS. Major segments of the network were completed in 1998 by the Schools and in 2005 by the City and LOGIS. Incremental additions were made to connect certain sites, plus an additional 8 miles received as part of the wi-fi project legal settlement. The existing fiber network includes about 26 miles of infrastructure. Different network segments have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit only without fiber strands. These conduit only segments were generally installed during road construction projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with appropriate capacities to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are known. Installation of fiber conduit when a road is open is relatively inexpensive. The City and Schools are meeting many high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice, data, and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8 years for an asset that should last 20 or more years. Other City / School needs remain (use of fiber for video) while some future uses cannot be anticipated. However, fiber is anticipated to have a real future based on its demonstrated performance. We need to and will reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as spare strands. One question that arises is what to do with the remaining capacity. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 11) Page 2 Subject: Fiber Network Policy LONG-TERM POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Over time, the City Council and Telecommunications Advisory Commission have asked about the future use of the existing and growing fiber optic network. In addition, questions have been raised about whether the City should consider playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property owners to install some portion of fiber optic capabilities during new construction or major remodeling. There are several longer-term policy questions surrounding the fiber optic network whose owners include the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park ISD #283, and Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS). Here are some major ones: • What does the City Council wish to do with remaining fiber capacity (e.g., expand, expand as needed, expand only with other construction, sell ownership, lease capacity, nothing)? • How do we maximize both City operational and public benefits of our fiber assets? • Who could manage any expanded (public) use (e.g., leasing agreements, Internet Service Provider role, break-even or revenue generator, and other business models)? • What broader regulatory role (if any) should the City play (e.g., requirement or incentive to include fiber in new construction or major remodeling; legal requirements in leasing fiber)? Staff suggests that as part of the October 26 discussion the policy questions above would be informed by answering such questions as: • Does availability of high speed Internet service still matter as an important policy question for City Council? • What can we learn about what Comcast, Qwest, and others are doing to provide and grow high speed Internet services in St. Louis Park? • What are other cities doing with respect to their fiber network infrastructure? • What are other cities doing with respect to broader regulatory roles for requiring fiber facilities as part of private development? Staff will provide some but not all options regarding most of the questions above on October 26. One question for Council will be whether staff should engage outside expertise that can help to more fully answer these questions, given limited staff resources focused on other projects. SHORT-TERM OPPORTUNITY: In the ideal sequence, the City would have answers to all of the questions above prior to entertaining possible projects. Opportunity often trumps the ideal sequence. The City has been approached by seven private sector firms in the last year interested in various relationships for use (primarily leasing) of part of the fiber network. Staff has provided information, and most of these entities have not followed up with more detailed proposals. Staff has also not been able to articulate a City policy regarding other uses of fiber as the recent focus has been on clean-up activities from the wi-fi project. Staff and Council have only now had time to begin to consider the policy matter. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 11) Page 3 Subject: Fiber Network Policy Having said that, staff has been approached and received more concrete requests from one firm, LocaLoop MAX. LocaLoop MAX is a new firm that is interested in providing Wi-MAX wireless service in St. Louis Park. Here are some of the major business points of this firm’s proposal as they relate to the City of St. Louis Park: • LocaLoop plans to install a Wi-MAX network that covers most of the City. They intend to market this service on a retail basis and it would provide wireless Internet service. • LocaLoop wishes to lease City Assets (water towers, fiber strands). • LocaLoop wants to pilot its service. Most of its pilot users would be residential. Eventually, they would like to incorporate a few City staff pilot users for their mobile Wi-MAX service. • LocaLoop claims its pilot project will lead to a full-blown citywide service. In fact, current plans call for early installation of equipment to eventually provide citywide service. • There is nothing new about wireless providers leasing space on City water towers. The City has a policy governing such use. The same is not true for the fiber network. • If the City is interested in leasing fiber strands, the City ultimately needs a fiber conduit / strand use policy. There is limited capacity both on water towers and in the fiber network. Thus, a similar policy to govern fair use of the fiber resources may well apply. • The City has apportioned its fiber strands (currently used, reserved for future City use, available for other purposes) • “Available for Other Purposes” would reflect fiber strands potentially usable by lessees under a limited-time agreement. Typical leases are in the 3 – 5 year range. • LocaLoop has recommended that they build extensions of fiber to the water towers according to City specifications and then turn over ownership of same to the City. This holds potential value. • The City would be responsible for maintenance and repairs of the fiber extensions, but the City has been responsible for same for the rest of the fiber network since 2004. • The City’s role would be limited to leasing fiber assets. The relationship would be similar to leasing water tower assets to wireless providers, as is currently done. In summary, the short-term opportunity is for the City to continue to pursue the mechanics of leasing capacity (fiber strands) within its fiber optic network in a way that (1) preserves capacity for current and future City needs and (2) provides fair access, based on limited capacity, to other potential lessees of fiber capacity. The water tower leasing policy is an excellent model and starting point, but there is more to learn about leasing fiber. This could ultimately involve some legal and consulting time as well. The question is whether Council has any reservations at this point that suggest staff should not continue to gather information on this opportunity in preparation for the October 26 study session. NEXT STEPS: Staff plans to return to Council on October 26 for a fuller discussion on both long-term and short-term information presented above. Staff respectfully requests Council members to (1) add any long-term policy questions that are not listed above and (2) let staff know if they have any major concerns with continued pursuit of the short-term opportunity described above. It is Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 11) Page 4 Subject: Fiber Network Policy important to have Council’s initial feedback on the short-term opportunity so staff can inform LocaLoop MAX of whether Council is open to leasing of fiber assets as it affects their business plan. In any case, no decisions or agreements on the part of the City would be made prior to the October 26 meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated replacement value of the existing fiber network exceeds $1.5 million. This is a significant asset and part of the City’s infrastructure. Current financial policy questions center on whether it makes sense to expand and / or derive revenue from this asset. Future financial policy questions will revolve around its replacement. Other financial impacts relate to any potential requirements to incorporate fiber optic infrastructure in private construction. More information on this will be provided as part of the October 26 study session. VISION CONSIDERATION: Depending on what is actually done with the fiber resources, this could support St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well connected community. Attachments: None Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 29, 2009 Agenda Item #: 12 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Sign Ordinance Amendment for Electronic Signs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is providing this report as information to the City Council. Please let staff know if you desire to discuss this further at a study session. Otherwise, staff will proceed with creating specific zoning regulations for electronic signs and process it through the Planning Commission and Council for formal consideration. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the city adopt ordinances to regulate the use of electronic signs? BACKGROUND: Electronic sign technology is constantly changing, thereby making available to property owners new methods of displaying information and graphics, including various ways to create multiple color displays, video streamlining, and electronic special effects. While the new technology presents more efficient and effective methods of advertising for commercial and industrial land owners, if left unregulated, electronic signs can be a nuisance and distracting to motorists and residents. In reviewing the existing ordinance staff reviewed the size and use of existing electronic signs in St. Louis Park, MnDOT recommendations, sign industry recommendations, and ordinances and research conducted by other cities. Staff also worked very closely with the City Attorney regarding issues pertaining to non-conformities, applicability to billboards, freedom of speech and miscellaneous issues typically encountered with proposed ordinance amendments. On August 19, 2009, in a study session, the Planning Commission reviewed the existing zoning ordinance pertaining to signs and the attached draft amendment. The conclusion was that existing regulations do not adequately address electronic signs, and that the proposed amendment would address potential nuisances and safety concerns raised by electronic signs. The Commission reviewed several aspects of the draft ordinance. The majority of the discussion focused on the minimum amount of time a message must be displayed before switching to another message. The majority of the commission agreed to stay with the three second minimum display as proposed by staff, while one commissioner proposed a longer period of one minute. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 12) Page 2 Subject: Sign Ordinance Amendment for Electronic Signs Current Zoning Regulations: The city zoning ordinance doesn’t prohibit electronic signs, however, it regulates a level of technology consistent with reader boards that are limited to one color, and creating a perceived motion of scrolling or flashing only. Existing regulations allow electronic signage; however, it doesn’t adequately control them to ensure that there are not distracting or dangerous to motorists or residents. The existing language needs to be clarified and strengthened to address current technology. Proposed Changes to Zoning Ordinance: Issues that would be addressed by a proposed amendment include: • Create an electronic sign definition that encompasses all manner of current and anticipated technology. Our current definition and standards for “changing signs” are really designed to address mechanically moving signs and flashing lights, not digitally controlled technology. • Expanding the prohibited sign list so that all aspects of perceived and actual movement are controlled. Messages would be required to be static, and to instantaneously change from one message. Special effects such as scrolling, fading, spinning, exploding, etc would not be allowed. • Updating the brightness standards so that electronic signs will not exceed the brightness levels of a standard back lit sign during the day and night. Adjustment in brightness are automatically made by built in daylight/night time sensors. • Adding a performance section for electronic signs that outlines the limitations for them. • Establish maximum size limits for electronic signs. Staff is considering a maximum of 20 square feet in residential districts and a maximum of 40 square feet in all other districts. • Require the performance standards to be applied retroactively to all existing electronic signs. The City cannot require the size of existing electronic signs to come into compliance with newly adopted regulations, however, the City can require the manner in which the sign is used to comply with the new ordinance. For example, if an existing sign is changing messages every two seconds, and the new ordinance requires a message to be displayed for at least three seconds, then the existing sign will have to comply with the new three second rule. • Frequency of message change. The performance standards need to include a requirement that a message be displayed for a minimum time. When considering a minimum time limit, the City needs to consider many issues including safety and nuisance impacts and the interests of the sign owner has in conveying a message. Staff is considering three seconds after reviewing data from MNDOT, the sign industry and other cities. Staff also conducted a survey of existing signs in St. Louis Park, noting their size, length of time the message is displayed, use of animation (scrolling, flashing etc.) and the zoning district in which the sign is located. The resulting data was assembled in the attached spreadsheet. Staff is recommending three seconds because o There are no records of car accidents or other safety concerns attributed to a three second display. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 12) Page 3 Subject: Sign Ordinance Amendment for Electronic Signs o There are no records of complaints received when messages are displayed for three or more seconds. The City has received complaints when messages are displayed less than three seconds. o Three seconds provides sufficient time for a message that requires two screens to be seen by typical motorists traveling the speed limit. • The non-conforming sign section of the ordinance would be clarified to specifically state electronic signs are not allowed on billboards. NEXT STEPS: Unless staff should hear otherwise from the City Council, staff will move forward by notifying all property owners currently utilizing electronic signage of the proposed changes, and invite them to review the draft electronic sign rules with staff. After sufficient notice and comment period, staff will present the draft and comments received to the Planning Commission at a public hearing (tentatively scheduled for November), followed by a first and second hearing before the City Council. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: Table of existing electronic signs in St. Louis Park Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Sign Location Zoning District Height Width Sign faceNumber of sign facesDisplay Color% of allowed sign areachange Frequency AAA C-2 5' 10' 50sf 2 Red100/500=20%2 secondsAARCEEIP4' 10' 40sf 2 Multi Color80/250=32%Scrolling & flashingLenoxR-28" 5' 3.5sf 2 Redn/a*1 secondSLP Evangelical Free R-22' 7' 14' 2 Redn/a*2 secondsTimothy Lutheran R-2 2'8" 4' 11sf 2 Redn/a*2 secondsDistinctive Dentistry C-2 2' 10' 20sf 1 Red20/200=10%2 secondsAlaska EateryC-215" 8'4" 10.5sf 2 Red21/300=7%2 secondsAssociated Bank O4' 18' 72sf 1 Red72/500=14%1-2 seconds & scrollingBenilde SMR-13' 6' 18sf 2 Redn/a*3 seconds & scrollingWolfe Lake Business Center C-2 1' 5' 5sf 4 Red20/300=6.7%1/2 seconds & scrollingTCF BankC-218" 5' 7.5sf 3 Red22.5/300=7.5%3 secondsHoliday (Mtka Blvd) C-2 18" 4' 6sf 2 Red12/250=4.8%StationaryMarathon (Mtka Blvd) (2 signs per face)C-18" 8" 4' 4'2.7sf, 2.7sf2 Red10.8/150=7.5%StationaryMobile (Excelsior) (2 signs per face)C-218" 12"4' 32" 6sf, 2.7sf2 Red17.4/250=6.9%StationarySA (Excelsior) C-2 14" 3' 3.5sf 2 Red7/200=3.5%StationaryHoliday (Hwy 7) C-23.5' 7' 24.5sf 2 Red49/200=24.5%StationaryJewish Community Center R-16" 7' 3.5sf 1 Redn/a*1 second & scrollingKnollwood LiquorC-22' 8' 16sf 1 Red16/250=6.4%Illegible* Sign ordinance does not have a maximum sign area. All regulations for signs for this use pertain to maximum sign face.Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No. 12) Subject: Sign Ordinance Amendment for Electronic SignsPage 4 Meeting Date: September 29, 2009 Agenda Item #: 13 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: MSC Renovation Project Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. This report is intended to provide an update on the project. BACKGROUND: Council awarded the contract for the project to Jorgenson Construction on July 6, 2009. Actual construction started shortly thereafter. At this time, the project is proceeding approximately on schedule. DISCUSSION: At the start of the project three priorities were established in order to be ready for winter operations by Public Works and Parks. Priorities were the relocation of the salt storage building, installation of a new fuel island, and completion of the first lift of asphalt on the lots. As of now, these priorities are on schedule to be achieved. At this time, the contractor is working on the updates to the existing building and anticipates delivery of the precast wall panels by approximately mid-October. This will significantly change the appearance of the site. As has been discussed at length, soil conditions are proving to be a challenge on this project. Excavations for the salt storage building revealed unexpected asphalt leeching and the soil had to be land-filled. Pond excavation revealed large amounts of miscellaneous debris that is required to be sorted and properly disposed of. Sub-cutting for the new parking lots in the northeast corner of the property revealed petroleum impacted soils. To insure the City deals with these issues properly, an environmental consultant has been hired. The city’s environmental consultant, AECOM, is working on options to resolve the soil issues as economically as feasible. At this point, we have incurred approximately $175,000 in costs related to this issue and it is anticipated that there will be additional costs as remedies are determined. As noted previously to the City Council, staff is working closely with Hennepin County staff on grant opportunities to assist in the cost of addressing the soil challenges. Meeting of September 29, 2009 (Item No.13) Page 2 Subject: MSC Renovation Project Update The change order for value engineering options (cost savings) is nearing completion. It is anticipated this, along with the first of the routine change orders, will be completed for Council consideration at the October 5th meeting. It is staff’s intention to keep Council updated and aware of progress and issues as this project progresses. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you might have. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendent Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager