HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/10/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
OCTOBER 12, 2009
Mayor Jacobs Absent
6:00 p.m. The Bee Way West End Ribbon Cutting Celebration
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 19 and October 26, 2009
2. 6:35 p.m. SWLRT Update
3. 7:05 p.m. 2010 Budget, 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)/Long Range Financial
Management Plan (LRFMP), Community Feedback, Fees and Administrative
Penalties
4. 9:05 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
5. Surface Water Management Plan Update
6. MN GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project
9:15 p.m. Adjourn
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: October 12, 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 19 and October 26, 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the special study session on October 19 and the
regular study session on October 26, 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 special study session
on Monday, October 19 and the regular study session on October 26, 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for October 19 and 26, 2009
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Special Meetings
Monday, October 19, 2009 - 6 p.m. (75 minutes)
Joint City Council and School Board Dinner and Meeting (Council Chambers, City Hall). The
School Board and Superintendent wish to present and discuss the facilities study undertaken and
next steps.
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, October 26, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Fiber Technology Updates – IR (45 minutes)
As a follow-up from the staff report sent to Council on September 29, 2009, staff and
consultant will discuss fiber technology in more detail with the Council. Does availability of
high speed Internet service still matter as an important policy question for City Council?
3. 3924 Excelsior Boulevard Purchase Agreement Update – Community Development (20
minutes)
Staff will provide an update to Council on the purchase agreement for 3024 Excelsior
Boulevard, including the environmental review. Does the Council wish to proceed with the
purchase agreement for this property?
4. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policies – Community Development (30 minutes)
The Metropolitan Council has completed their review of city’s draft comprehensive plan.
Staff would like to review the Met Council’s comments and the transportation policies
section with the City Council. Does the Council want to direct staff to make any changes to
the draft comprehensive plan prior to the adoption of the plan later in 2009?
5. Enterprise Funds Budget Review – Finance (45 minutes)
Staff will review the Enterprise Funds and the city’s 5-year CIP as it relates to the proposed
2010 budget. Does the Council want to direct staff to make any changes prior to the
adoption of the budget in December?
6. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
Monthly Financial Report (September 2009) – Finance
Quarter Investment Report (July – August 2009) – Finance
Property Foreclosure Workgroup Update – Administrative Services
End of Meeting: 9:05 p.m.
Meeting Date: October 12, 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:
Southwest LRT.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action proposed at this time. The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss the Southwest
LRT (SWLRT) timeline and upcoming actions with the City Council. SWLRT Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC) representative Jim Brimeyer has been invited to attend the Study Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Action by the SWLRT PAC on a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) route is expected on October
14, 2009. Does the City Council wish to provide additional direction on the position of the City?
BACKGROUND:
The SWLRT Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process is reaching the next step
toward selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) route for LRT. The Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) voted to accept the consultants (HDR) recommendation that LRT Route 3A
(Kenilworth Corridor) be identified as the preliminary LPA. The TAC made its recommendation
contingent on identifying impacts, mitigation requirements and mitigation funding to address the
potential of rerouting freight rail which is expected to be necessary for the LRT 3A route to be
implemented. A copy of the TAC’s full recommendation is attached.
On September 17th a public hearing was held on the routing options; two joint meetings of the
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and TAC were also held.
The meetings provided an opportunity for dialogue between the three advisory committees; and,
specifically an opportunity for the PAC and CAC to ask questions and better understand the TAC’s
recommendation.
NEXT STEPS:
The next step in the process is for the PAC to make a recommendation regarding a preferred LPA;
this consideration is scheduled for October 14, 2009. Jim Brimeyer is the City’s representative on
the PAC; Council Member Sanger is the alternate. The PAC’s recommendation will be directed to
the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority for its consideration, which will be forwarded to the
Metropolitan Council with a request to amend the Transportation Policy Plan for the Twin Cities
Area.
The project will proceed as a Metropolitan Council project forward from that point, and it will
undertake the next steps of Preliminary Engineering and Final EIS. To fund these next steps, a
Federal “New Starts” application will be filed next fall with the Federal Transit Administration.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Southwest LRT
These steps will take approximately two years, construction will take three to four years, and the
expected earliest timeline for the line to be operational is 2015-2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No new financial considerations at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: SWTAC LPA Recommendation
Map of Route Alternatives
SW Transitway Anticipated Timeline
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Southwest LRT
Page 3
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Southwest LRT
Page 4
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Southwest LRT Page 5
Meeting Date: October 12, 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:
2010 Budget, 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)/Long Range Financial Management Plan
(LRFMP), Community Feedback, Fees and Administrative Penalties.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested or required at this time. This study session discussion is a continued
discussion on the 2010 budget and capital plan.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• What are the initial reactions of the City Council to the 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) and the related funding projections in the Long Range Financial Management Plan?
• How would the City Council like to utilize the community feedback on the budget?
• Is City Council interested in receiving more detailed program information on possible new
fees and/or administrative fines?
• As we move forward, what other information would the City Council like to receive
regarding the 2010 budget?
BACKGROUND:
Over the past year Council has had continued discussions regarding the 2010 budget. On
September 8, 2009 the City Council adopted a resolution and set the general property tax levy, with
a maximum increase of $650,000 over 2009. The City Council also adopted a preliminary HRA
levy for infrastructure purposes. These amounts will be included in notices mailed by Hennepin
County to taxpayers in mid-November. Final action on the 2010 budget and tax levy will not occur
until December. The final levy adopted by the City Council can not be more than what was
preliminarily certified in September.
As we move ahead to finalize the 2010 budget, we need Council direction on the policy
considerations listed above. This report is to assist the discussion in those areas.
Current Budget Status Update
An updated “Budget Problem” worksheet for the General and Park and Recreation Funds is attached
for your review which shows:
• A 2.98% or $650,000 increase from the 2009 adopted levy to the current 2010 Preliminary
Levy.
• $500,000 of the levy increase being directed to the General Fund and the remaining
$150,000 being applied to the Capital Replacement Fund
• An initial gap in the General/Park and Recreation Fund budgets of $1.8 million.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)
To move from a gap of $1.8 million to a balanced budget in 2010 we have been following the
strategy adopted by Council last June as follows:
A. 2010 Wage Freeze
B. Staff Reductions
C. Increased Revenues/Fees
D. Selective Line Item Reductions
E. Modest Levy Increase
We have made significant progress in closing the $1.8 million gap. After working on the 5 areas
noted above, a budget gap of approximately $387,000 remains at this time. We continue to work
on the plan to close the gap which will be done through finalizing our work primarily in areas A and
B above. We plan to bring a final recommended 2010 budget to the Council in November.
Capital Improvement Plan
The next five years are potentially the most significant construction period the City of St. Louis Park
has experienced. This is evident with three major City building projects and two very large
interchange projects scheduled during this period. In addition, continued investment in the regular
cycle of street reconstruction projects, utility infrastructure improvements, and replacement of
existing vehicles and equipment is occurring. Therefore, it is vital that careful planning continues to
occur thereby maintaining financial stability while undertaking these projects.
Attached are documents which provide a preliminary snapshot of the 2010 – 2014 CIP based on
information provided from relevant departments. These documents summarize the CIP in three
separate ways – CIP Funding Source Summary, CIP Projects by Funding Source and CIP Projects
by Category and Department. Based on Council direction, staff will revise the documents as needed
to meet the goals of the City.
The CIP has been balanced by year and project and shows a total of approximately $100,400,000 in
planned investment in the community’s assets over the next five years. Non-City resources such as
federal, state and county government and Municipal State Aid (MSA) are providing over $38.6
million toward this cost (NOTE – not all of these dollars have been committed by these entities).
Therefore, resources that the city has direct control over will require an investment of approximately
$61.7 million over the next 5 years.
What is important to note is what is not included in the proposed 2010 - 2014 Capital
Improvement Plan at this time. These include:
• A civic/community center (Vision item).
• Expansion of the current sidewalk and trail system (Vision item).
• Expansion of the city’s network of streets and utility systems (other than interchange
projects).
• Improvements at the intersection of Highway 100 East Frontage Road and Parkwoods Road
(identified by Councilmember Sanger).
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)
These items have not been included in the plan either because more information or study is needed
or direction is required of the City Council
Staff is interested in initial reactions from Council regarding the CIP.
Other: Major Transportation Projects
The Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project is included in the 2010 – 2014 CIP with
final project approvals expected in the spring of 2011 and a construction start shortly thereafter
(pending funding being secured). The total cost of this project is expected to be at least
$18,000,000 and could possibly approach $28,000,000 depending on the eventual design approved
by the City Council. The City has obtained a grant for $7,630,000 in federal funds and has to
provide matching funds of $2,200,000. Staff feels the balance of the funding for this project will
need to come from the state or federal governments and has been actively applying for state and
federal grants this year.
The new Mn/DOT State Transportation Plan downgrades the proposed Highway 100
Reconstruction Project from an improvement project to a preservation project; the intent being to
minimize the project and its cost. In particular, it was communicated in 2008 that the following
major changes were being considered for this project:
1. the project will be shortened at the north end to end at about W26th Street,
2. the underpass relocation option (to the W25 ½ Street area) will be eliminated from the
project,
3. the exit ramp at W25 ½ Street will remain open.
As a result, it was felt that project costs could be reduced by approximately 50 percent. It now
appears the project schedule has been revised to provide for a late 2015 bid letting with 2016
construction. It is possible local costs associated with this project will be $3,000,000 or more.
Staff desires to discuss with the City Council the approach being used by MnDOT for Hwy 100 and
determine what actions the City might want to take in response to these changes.
Long Range Financial Management Plan
Throughout the year, staff has brought to Council updated versions of the Long Range Financial
Management Plan (LRFMP). Based on various assumptions, this plan provides a picture of the
City’s financial status projected out to 2018. As a result of the updated information presented in the
Capital Improvement Plan, staff is presenting a new iteration of the LRFMP as an attachment for
review. It includes all relevant CIP funds and funding sources to present a more complete picture of
the state of the City’s resources. It does not include a discussion on any enterprise funds as those
will be discussed at the October 26th Study Session. In addition to the attached worksheets, a brief
narrative synopsis of each fund or funding source related to our CIP and its relative long-term
health, if applicable, is provided below.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)
City Funds
Cable Television Fund
This fund was created to account for all revenues received from franchise fees and expenditures
related to regulation of the privately owned cable television company. In addition, this fund
produces and broadcasts all local cable television programming. Currently, and projected into the
future, this fund has a steady stream of dedicated revenues from franchise fees and fairly steady
expenditures for operating and capital needs.
Projected Sustainability – Based on the assumptions used this fund is sustainable with a projected
fund balance of $1,500,000 in 2021.
Police and Fire Pension Fund
This fund accounts for the funds received by the City for previous overpayments into the state run
pension program for fire and police. These funds must be used for non-benefit related fire or police
purposes such as capital needs. The Police and Fire Pension Fund is a non-renewable fund that
generates revenue through interest earnings and incurs costs through capital expenditures and
transfers out. This fund will be spent down significantly for large projects such as the construction
of the new fire stations and the 800 MHz radio replacements for approximately $3,000,000 and
$2,000,000, respectively.
Projected Sustainability – Sustainable with projected fund balance of $1,075,000 in 2018.
HRA Levy
The HRA Levy Fund is used for infrastructure construction in redeveloping areas. The significant
sources of revenue for the fund are from the HRA Levy itself and interest earnings. Expenditures are
incurred through appropriations driven by the CIP for various projects such as the Highway 7 and
Louisiana Interchange.
Projected Sustainability – Sustainable with projected fund balance of $10,700,000 in 2018
(assumes levy continues).
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
This fund accounts for the resources and expenditures required for the acquisition and construction
of capital improvements which will provide a direct and significant indirect benefit to individual
property owners. The significant sources of revenues for this fund are from special assessment
repayments and interest income. Expenditures are incurred for capital outlay and transfers out
related to capital needs. This fund will transfer approximately $4.5 million for Municipal Service
Center construction costs in 2010.
Projected Sustainability – Sustainable with projected fund balance of $3,200,000 in 2018.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)
Park Improvement Fund
The Park Improvement Fund accounts for the financing of land acquisition and development for
park purposes. Significant revenues are from property taxes, park dedication fees, and interest
earnings. Major expenditures are for capital outlay for park projects and tree replacements.
Projected Sustainability – Sustainable with projected fund balance of $1,100,000 in 2018.
Pavement Management Fund
This fund accounts for the financing of street rehabilitation. Revenues are provided by franchise
fees, property tax dollars and interest income. Expenditures are incurred from the systematic
rehabilitation of pavement zones throughout the city. This fund runs into a projected deficit
balance in 2016 without any changes in projected revenues or expenditures. One option to avoid
this deficit is a franchise fee increase which Council discussed at the September 14, 2009 Study
Session. This could generate up to an estimated $274,000 per year which would eliminate the
deficit in the Pavement Management Fund.
Projected Sustainability – Possible sustainability based on City Council direction. Currently,
projected to have a ($1,070,000) deficit in 2018, but with $274,000 franchise fee infusion per year
beginning in 2011, the fund would have a positive fund balance of approximately $1,450,000 in
2018.
Capital Replacement Fund
This fund accounts for the replacement or improvement to municipal buildings, equipment and
technology needs. Revenues are provided through property taxes, equipment replacement charges,
and interest income. Expenditures are for buildings, vehicles, computer hardware, software and
other equipment. The long term sustainability of this fund has been in question for some time. This
fund goes into deficit in 2012 unless changes take place. Some options available to the City Council
to avoid this deficit is a less aggressive equipment replacement schedule, alternative revenue sources
including increased property tax revenues, and/or bonding for equipment such as equipment
certificates. While each has pros and cons, it is important to consider the long range implications of
each option. Without any changes, the Capital Replacement Fund will have a projected deficit of
approximately $5,660,000 in 2018.
Projected Sustainability – Not sustainable. It will be necessary for a specific strategy to be
developed by staff and approved by the City Council over the next year which will address this issue.
The development of this strategy will be a high work priority of City staff .
Other City Funding Sources (non-fund instruments available to fund or help fund projects)
Developer Agreements
These revenues come from a specific project to defray part of the cost of the project. An example is
the Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Louisiana - Dakota Ave.) that will benefit property that has been
developed in the area. The developer of this project (Methodist) is obligated through the
development contract to pay $75,000.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)
G.O. Bonds
The fire station projects will be funded primarily through new debt issues that will be repaid with
general tax dollars.
Municipal State Aid
This revenue source is designated for maintenance of our primary city routes and is limited to streets
that by their size and construction type meet state guidelines. We are limited to designating no
more than 20% of our street system from this funding source. Proposed CIP projects are street
rehabilitations and railroad crossing signals.
Public Works Operations Budget
This revenue source shows that some of the smaller street and sidewalk repair projects, along with
street light replacements, are completed out of the Public Works General Fund operating budget.
Future discussion should occur on identifying a different source of funding to pay for these
improvements, particularly street light replacements.
Special Assessments
This revenue source is from specific properties that are usually benefitted by a city project (e.g. alley
projects). Each special assessment project holds a public hearing and assessment roll prior to the
project being let for contract.
Tax Increment – Elmwood
All of the projected future increment through 2029 has been allocated to funding six infrastructure
projects totaling approximately $8,250,000. If the revenues projected in the current TIF plan do
not come to fruition, the proposed projects using this funding source will have to be revisited
potentially resulting in the elimination or delay of the projects and/or placing more of a burden on
other funds or funding sources.
__________________________________
Community Feedback
Council solicited feedback from the community regarding the approach to balancing the budget by
use of an online form on the city’s website from Aug. 1 through Oct. 1, 2009. The feedback tool
was promoted through the city newsletter, information cards at City Hall (and handed out at public
events), Cable TV, social media, the Sun-Sailor and the city’s website.
Attached is a report on this item. Staff will be prepared to review this information with Council.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)
Fees and Administrative Penalties
Council has asked staff to review some concepts regarding fees and administrative penalties.
Attached are two documents with information on each of these areas. At the study session, staff will
be prepared to discuss questions regarding the information attached to this report. We also would
like direction from Council on additional information or next steps they would like to take in any of
these areas:
• New Fee Options:
o business license re-inspection
o false fire alarm
o personal injury (PI) accident response
• Administrative Fines and Penalties:
o Is Council interested in developing a program for Administrative penalties for
violations of City Codes?
o Is Council interested in developing a program for an Administrative penalty process
for specific low-level violations?
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The decisions we make over the next month will shape the course of the City’s levy for the next
several years. We must carefully consider both the immediate and long-term effects on our ability to
provide services to our constituents.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
All areas of Vision are taken into consideration by Department Directors in preparing budgets, CIP,
and other future directions.
Attachments: 2010 “Budget Problem” Worksheet
CIP Funding Source Summary
CIP Projects by Funding Source
CIP Projects Category and Department
Long Range Financial Management Plan
Community Feedback
Fees and Administrative Penalties
Prepared by: Brian Swanson, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
"The Budget Problem"
Updated October 12, 2009
Operating Departments
2009 2010 2010
Adopted Projections* Preliminary
General Fund Revenues:
Property Taxes 14,970,275 14,970,275 15,470,275
MVHC Loss (632,000) (638,916)
Licenses and Permits 2,515,000 2,300,000 2,294,768
Intergovernmental 1,647,214 1,647,214 1,606,347
Charges for Services 1,201,900 1,201,900 1,132,018
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 312,000 312,000 311,750
Investment Earnings 350,000 200,000 200,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 102,000 102,000 101,500
Transfers In 2,678,910 2,678,910 2,583,625
Total General Revenues 23,777,299 22,780,299$ 23,061,367$
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Total Admininstration 990,835 1,026,391$ 1,011,472$
Total Communications 289,225 291,215$ 278,705$
Total Community Outreach 86,055 87,342$ 86,055$
Total Human Resources 644,050 653,383$ 643,350$
Total Information Resources 1,483,270 1,508,733$ 1,399,766$
Total Finance 679,450 690,923$ 610,650$
Total Assessing 487,530 500,498$ 484,680$
Total Community Development 1,107,750 1,132,484$ 1,043,850$
Total Facilities Maintenance 1,203,442 1,207,006$ 1,088,442$
Total General Government 6,971,607 7,097,975$ 6,646,970$
Public Safety:
Total Police 7,307,022 7,468,904$ 7,282,502$
Total Fire 3,116,673 3,183,956$ 3,141,173$
Total Inspectional Services 2,053,427 2,106,305$ 1,932,727$
Total Public Safety 12,477,122 12,759,165$ 12,356,402$
Public Works:
Total Public Works Administration 854,950 867,745$ 855,700$
Total Engineering 923,800 943,830$ 822,800$
Total Operations 2,485,800 2,535,963$ 2,537,800$
Total Public Works 4,264,550 4,347,538$ 4,216,300$
Non-Departmental:
Total Non-Departmental 180,000 276,000$ 180,000$
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,893,279 24,480,678$ 23,399,672$
General Fund Gap (1,700,379)$ (338,305)$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
Property Taxes 4,073,118 4,073,118$ 4,073,118$
Licenses and Permits 6,275$
Intergovernmental 55,702 55,702$ 71,219$
Charges for Services 1,141,598 1,141,598$ 1,048,900$
Rent Revenue 871,000 871,000$ 795,900$
Investment Earnings - -$ -$
Miscellaneous Revenue 24,000 24,000$ 124,000$
All Other Revenues 2,092,300 2,092,300 2,046,294
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,165,418 6,165,418$ 6,119,412$
Park & Recreation Expenditures:
Total Organized Recreation 1,291,210 1,309,958$ 1,264,407$
Total Recreation Center 1,454,767 1,469,195$ 1,445,958$
Total Park Maintenance 1,460,585 1,468,697$ 1,417,615$
Total Westwood Nature Center 491,786 496,956$ 491,911$
Total Environment 286,793 300,484$ 374,943$
Total Vehicle Maintenance 1,180,277 1,220,214$ 1,173,342$
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,165,418 6,265,504$ 6,168,176$
Park & Recreation Gap (100,086)$ (48,764)$
Total Gap General and P&R (1,800,465)$ (387,069)$
*Projected Spring 2009
Assumes no redistribution of Park Improvement Levy in 2010 or 2011
Assumes no use of fund balance in 2010 or 2011.
Assumes $215,000 reduction in permit fees in 2010 and 2011.
Assumes $150,000 drop in interest earnings for 2010 and 2011.
Assumes a salary increase for all employees by 3.25% for 2010 and 3% for 2011
Assumes no increase in benefits for 2010 - $750/month and $25 to $775 for 2011.
Assumes a very modest increase in supplies and contractual expenses for 2010 and 2011
Assumes no property tax levy increase for 2010 and 2011
Assumes no MVHC aid to city in 2010 and 2011
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 8
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY
2010 thru 2014
TotalSource2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ARRA (Stimulus)957,500957,500
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 220,50062,000 46,000 21,000 76,500 15,000
Capital Replacement Fund 10,252,8151,777,492 2,327,777 2,759,250 1,558,023 1,830,273
Developer Agreement 75,00075,000
G.O. Bonds 11,000,0005,500,000 5,500,000
Hennepin County 5,359,7354,739,735 320,000 300,000
HRA Levy 5,058,3131,647,771 3,410,542
Municipal State Aid 1,706,500180,000 390,000 477,500 515,000 144,000
Park Improvement Fund 5,073,0001,199,000 1,676,000 836,000 682,000 680,000
Pavement Management Fund 7,913,6841,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 4,500,0004,500,000
Police & Fire Pension 3,350,0003,000,000 350,000
PW Operations Budget 1,518,564283,934 330,892 290,149 328,436 285,153
Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,412,000330,000 119,000 556,000 237,000 170,000
Solid Waste Utility 1,000,0001,000,000
Special Assessments 890,000121,000 110,000 659,000
State of Minnesota 18,944,500500,000 18,444,500
Stormwater Utility 2,150,0001,230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000
Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,776,5093,776,509
U.S. Government 10,828,000198,000 7,630,000 3,000,000
Water Utility 4,409,8001,255,000 278,000 0 2,201,700 675,100
29,712,600 12,971,404 40,503,195 7,584,161 9,625,060 100,396,420GRAND TOTAL
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 1
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 9
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2010 2014thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ARRA (Stimulus)
20041700 957,500957,500Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
957,500957,500ARRA (Stimulus) Total
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment
20070011 16,00016,000Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel units 1
20100008 20,00020,000Video server 1
20100010 8,0008,000Replacement digital camcorders 1
20110011 8,0008,000Replacement digital camcorders 1
20110012 18,00018,000Replacement edit systems 1
20110013 5,0005,000Studio Upgrade 3
20110014 15,00015,000Community Studio Equipment 1
20120012 6,0006,000Knox Router for Chambers 1
20120013 18,00018,000Replacement Edit Systems 1
20120014 15,00015,000Community Studio Equipment 1
20130002 61,50061,500School Board Room Cameras 1
20130014 15,00015,000Community Studio Equipment 1
20140014 15,00015,000Community Studio Equipment 1
220,50062,000 46,000 21,000 76,500 15,000Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment
Grant Total
Capital Replacement Fund
20091599 150,000150,000City Hall HVAC 3
20091600 500,000500,000City Hall Space Reallocation 3
20091700 385,000385,000City Hall Garage Roof 1
2010B1 25,00025,000Energy Improvements - City Hall 3
2010B2 30,00030,000Renovate City Hall Interior Stairway 5
2011B1 15,00015,000Westwood Energy Improvement 3
2011B2 10,00010,000Energy Improvements - Police Department 3
2012B1 150,000150,000Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 1
2013B1 50,00050,000City Hall 1st Floor Entry Canopy 5
2014F1 400,000400,000SCBA Replacement 1
E - XX01 4,930,315664,992 1,037,777 1,599,250 1,018,023 610,273Annual Equipment Replacement Program 1
TRF-001 300,00075,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 50,000On-going PC Hardware Replacement 1
TRF-002 1,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000On-going PC Software Replacement 1
TRF-003 625,000125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000On-going Local Area Network Servers/Electronics 1
TRF-212 20,00020,000Enhanced Web Backup Solution 3
TRF-215 100,000100,000PW Request: Software Consolidation/Replacement 3
TRF-216 10,00010,000Network Vulnerability Assessment 3
TRF-218 150,00050,000 50,000 50,000On-going SAN Storage Additions 1
TRF-219 100,00050,000 25,000 25,000SAN Addition for Documents Imaging 1
TRF-220 100,000100,000Email Archival and Document Management Solution 3
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 1
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 10
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
TRF-221 4,0004,000Point of Sale Equipment for Concessions 3
TRF-222 6,0006,000Wireless Equipment for Assessing Field Work 3
TRF-224 105,00035,000 35,000 35,000ArcGIS Server 3
TRF-304 15,00015,000Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, Dakota-Louisiana 3
TRF-308 65,00065,000City Hall Production Copiers 3
TRF-309 30,00030,000MSC, Utilities Copiers 3
TRF-312 80,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Fiber Conduit - TBD 3
TRF-313 20,00010,000 5,000 5,000MSC / Lenox / Fire Stations Wireless Hotspots 5
TRF-314 50,00050,000Police / Rec Center / Nature Center Copiers 3
TRF-321 250,000250,000Financial / HR/ Payroll App Replacement 1
TRF-324 70,00070,000Park & Rec App Replacement 1
TRF-331 7,5007,500MSC Expansion Equipment 3
TRF-332 100,000100,000PW Request: Eng. Hardware / Software Replacement 1
TRF-333 50,00050,000PW Request: Project Management / CIP Software 1
TRF-334 50,00050,000City Hall Reception Area Interim Solution 3
TRF-335 300,000300,000Telephone Equipment Replacement 3
10,252,8151,777,492 2,327,777 2,759,250 1,558,023 1,830,273Capital Replacement Fund Total
Developer Agreement
20040420 75,00075,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)1
75,00075,000Developer Agreement Total
G.O. Bonds
20081700 11,000,0005,500,000 5,500,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 1
11,000,0005,500,000 5,500,000G.O. Bonds Total
Hennepin County
20040420 4,239,7354,239,735Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)1
20100005 320,000320,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements 5
TEMP-0011 500,000500,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 1
TEMP-0012 300,000300,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 1
5,359,7354,739,735 320,000 300,000Hennepin County Total
HRA Levy
20040420 1,632,7711,632,771Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)1
20120100 2,398,0002,398,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.5
20121300 1,012,5421,012,542Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 5
TRF-307 15,00015,000Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica 3
5,058,3131,647,771 3,410,542HRA Levy Total
Municipal State Aid
20050500 100,000100,000Street Project - W44th Street 1
20081100 50,00050,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 5)1
20091101 130,000130,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)1
20101100 290,000290,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)1
20111100 420,000420,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 3)1
20121304 30,00030,000Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St 1
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 2
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 11
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
20121305 27,50027,500Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama 1
20131100 515,000515,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 1)1
20141100 144,000144,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)1
1,706,500180,000 390,000 477,500 515,000 144,000Municipal State Aid Total
Park Improvement Fund
20071010 300,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Tree Replacement 3
201000100 583,000583,000Birchwood Park improvements 1
20100020 25,00025,000Bleacher Replacement - Aquila Park 1
20100030 40,00040,000Carpenter Park Irrigation 5
20100040 20,00020,000Carpenter Park Scoreboard 3
20100050 10,00010,000Nelson Park Hockey & End Boards 3
20100060 6,0006,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Resurface 3
20100070 55,00055,000Playground Equip Repl-Browndale & Jorvig Parks 1
20100080 45,00045,000Rec Center West Arena Rubber Floor Replcment 3
20100090 85,00085,000Rec Center Skating Arena Rstrms & AP Showers 3
20100110 20,00020,000Rec Center Skate Shop/Eqpt upgrade 3
20100120 130,000130,000Trail Reconstruction 1
20100130 55,00055,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Section Replacement 1
20100140 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement Ph II 1
20110010 30,00030,000Aquila Park Storage Building 3
20110020 20,00020,000Bleacher Replacement-Dakota & Paul Frank 1
20110030 10,00010,000Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement 1
20110040 27,00027,000Lake Victoria Parking Lot (mill,overlay, landscpe)3
20110050 1,000,0001,000,000Northside Park 1
20110060 6,0006,000Oak Hill Park Parking Lot Seal Coat 3
20110070 35,00035,000Playground Equip - Aquila Park 1
20110090 300,000300,000Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification 1
20110110 30,00030,000Rec Center East Arena Floor 3
20110120 25,00025,000Rec Center Energy Upgrades 3
20110130 18,00018,000Rec Center Office Carpet Replacement 3
20110140 20,00020,000Scoreboards-Carlson & Paul Frank Fields 5
20110150 45,00045,000Walker Park Irrigation Upgrade 3
20110160 75,00075,000Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement 5
20120010 50,00050,000Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth & Aquila Parks 3
20120020 20,00020,000Bleacher Rplcmnt-Carlson & Tower Parks 1
20120030 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Field #1 Redev & Fence Repl.3
20120040 17,00017,000Freedom Park-Paul Frank Baseball field fence repl.3
20120050 22,00022,000Louisiana Oaks Park Parking Lot seal coat 3
20120060 140,000140,000Playground Equip Rpl-Oak Hill N & Wolfe Pks 1
20120070 20,00020,000Rec Center Banquet Room remodel 3
20120080 60,00060,000Rec Center Lobby Lights 3
20120090 20,00020,000Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration System Study 1
20120110 15,00015,000Rec Center PA System replacement 5
20120120 12,00012,000Rec Center Rental Skate Purchase 5
20120130 20,00020,000Scoreboard - Dakota Park 5
20120140 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement 3
20120150 20,00020,000Skippy Field Dug Outs 3
20120160 200,000200,000Tower Park Field Redevelopment 5
20120170 50,00050,000Walker Park Field Fence 5
20130010 30,00030,000Court Resurfacing at Ainsworth Park 3
20130020 25,00025,000Carlson Field Storage 5
20130030 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Field #2 3
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 3
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 12
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
20130040 35,00035,000Park Shelter Buildings Keyless Entry System 5
20130050 110,000110,000Playground Eqpt Repl.-Dakota & Oak Hill South Park 1
20130060 65,00065,000Rec Center concession cooling system 1
20130070 60,00060,000Rec Center Front Desk Reconstruction 5
20130080 10,00010,000Rec Center Gallery Update 5
20130090 20,00020,000Rec Center East Arena repainting 5
20130110 12,00012,000Rec Center Rental Skate Purchase 5
20130120 25,00025,000Rec Center West Arena Fire Protection 3
20130130 25,00025,000Rec Center Window Replacement 3
20130140 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Brick House Kitchen Replacement 5
20130150 15,00015,000Westwood Hills Staircase Replacement (north)1
20130160 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Y-Dock Replacement 3
20130170 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Staircase Railing Replacement 1
20130180 30,00030,000Westwood Hills Signage Replacement 5
20140010 30,00030,000Courts - Basketball & Tennis at Nelson Park 3
20140020 25,00025,000Field Renovation Carlson Park 3
20140030 25,00025,000Pennsylvania Park Sun Shelter Replacement 3
20140040 70,00070,000Playground Equip Repl-Jersey & Rainbow Parks 1
20140050 80,00080,000Rec Center Roof Rplc (east arena & main lobby)1
20140060 325,000325,000Rec Center West Arena Dehumidification 1
20140070 35,00035,000Rec Center West Arena Painting 3
20140080 00Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration 1
20140090 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Decking Replacement 3
20140110 00Westwood Hills Rotary & Lower Deck Repairs 3
20140120 10,00010,000Westwood Hills Woodland Wildflower Habitat Project 5
5,073,0001,199,000 1,676,000 836,000 682,000 680,000Park Improvement Fund Total
Pavement Management Fund
20091000 925,097925,097Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)1
20100001 302,071302,071Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)1
20100004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20101000 1,093,8521,093,852Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)1
20110001 259,883259,883Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)1
20110004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20111000 1,635,6641,635,664Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)1
20120001 265,081265,081Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)1
20120004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20121000 1,325,1211,325,121Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)1
20130001 270,381270,381Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)1
20130004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20131000 1,348,7441,348,744Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)1
20140001 237,790237,790Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)1
20140004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
7,913,6841,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534Pavement Management Fund Total
Permanent Improvement Revolving F
20081900 4,500,0004,500,000MSC Complex Expansion 3
4,500,0004,500,000Permanent Improvement Revolving
Fund Total
Police & Fire Pension
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 4
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 13
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
20081700 3,000,0003,000,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 1
TRF-315 80,00080,000Police Mobile Replacements 1
TRF-316 20,00020,000Fire Mobile Replacements 1
TRF-323 250,000250,000Police CAD/RMS/Mobile App Replacement 1
3,350,0003,000,000 350,000Police & Fire Pension Total
PW Operations Budget
20100001 35,00035,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)1
20100003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20100004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20110001 35,00035,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)1
20110003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20110004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20120001 35,00035,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)1
20120003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20120004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20130001 38,00038,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)1
20130003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20130004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20140001 38,00038,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)1
20140003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20140004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
M - XX06 52,21552,215Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets 1
M - XX07 50,6989,550 9,836 10,130 10,434 10,748Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals 1
M - XX08 50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair 1
M - XX10 666,685134,384 128,841 140,019 132,036 131,405Street Light Project - System Replacement 1
M - XX12 42,96642,966Bus Shelter Project - Shelter Replacements 1
1,518,564283,934 330,892 290,149 328,436 285,153PW Operations Budget Total
Sanitary Sewer Utility
20102200 180,000180,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #6)1
20102300 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #19 Generator & Controls 1
20112200 119,000119,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #7)1
20122200 81,00081,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #8)1
20122300 475,000475,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #3 and FM Rehab 1
20132200 66,00066,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #1)1
20132300 171,000171,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #7 Generator Replacement 1
20142200 110,000110,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #2)1
20142300 60,00060,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #10 and FM Rehab 1
1,412,000330,000 119,000 556,000 237,000 170,000Sanitary Sewer Utility Total
Solid Waste Utility
20081900 1,000,0001,000,000MSC Complex Expansion 3
1,000,0001,000,000Solid Waste Utility Total
Special Assessments
20141101 500,000500,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6) 1
TEMP-0010 390,000121,000 110,000 159,000PW Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 1
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 5
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 14
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
890,000121,000 110,000 659,000Special Assessments Total
State of Minnesota
20091500 500,000500,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 3
20120100 17,972,00017,972,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.5
20121304 247,500247,500Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St 1
20121305 225,000225,000Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama 1
18,944,500500,000 18,444,500State of Minnesota Total
Stormwater Utility
20072400 500,000500,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)1
20091500 500,000500,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 3
20100006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20101600 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20110006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20111200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20120006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20121200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20130006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20131200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20140006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20141200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
2,150,0001,230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000Stormwater Utility Total
Tax Increment - Elmwood
20082500 250,000250,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 5
20121300 987,458987,458Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 5
20121301 2,039,0512,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 5
20121302 500,000500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 5
3,776,5093,776,509Tax Increment - Elmwood Total
U.S. Government
20102400 150,000150,000LED Traffic Signal Project 3
2011B2 48,00048,000Energy Improvements - Police Department 3
20120100 7,630,0007,630,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.5
20140100 3,000,0003,000,000Street Project - I394 Ramp / CD Road Improvement 5
10,828,000198,000 7,630,000 3,000,000U.S. Government Total
Water Utility
20040420 360,000360,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)1
20081400 895,000895,000Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation 1
20101300 581,700581,700Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation 1
20101400 00Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20101500 250,000250,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6 1
20111400 278,000278,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20121400 00Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20121500 1,110,0001,110,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 1
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 6
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 15
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
20131400 260,000260,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20141400 275,100275,100Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
TEMP-0004 400,000400,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #2 1
4,409,8001,255,000 278,000 0 2,201,700 675,100Water Utility Total
100,396,42029,712,600 12,971,404 40,503,195 7,584,161 9,625,060GRAND TOTAL
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 7
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 16
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT
2010 2014thru
Total2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Department
Category Future
Buildings
Building
8,500,000 5,500,000 0 0 0 14,000,000 0Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement
5,500,000 0 0 0 0 5,500,000 0MSC Complex Expansion
14,000,000 5,500,000 0 0 0 19,500,000 0Category Sub-Total
Facilities Projects
150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 0City Hall HVAC
0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 0City Hall Space Reallocation
0 385,000 0 0 0 385,000 0City Hall Garage Roof
25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 0Energy Improvements - City Hall
30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000 0Renovate City Hall Interior Stairway
0 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 0Westwood Energy Improvement
48,000 10,000 0 0 0 58,000 0Energy Improvements - Police Department
0 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 0City Hall 1st Floor Entry Canopy
50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 0City Hall Reception Area Interim Solution
303,000 410,000 500,000 50,000 0 1,263,000 0Category Sub-Total
PW-Parking Lot
0 0 150,000 0 0 150,000 7,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project
0 0 150,000 0 0 150,000 7,500
Category Sub-Total
14,303,000 5,910,000 650,000 50,000 0 20,913,000 7,500Department Total:
Cable TV
Cable TV
16,000 0 0 0 0 16,000 0Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel units
00000 0 0Council Chambers equipment replacement
00000 0 0Mobile Production Van
20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 0Video server
8,000 0 0 0 0 8,000 0Replacement digital camcorders
08,000 0 0 0 8,000 0Replacement digital camcorders
0 18,000 0 0 0 18,000 0Replacement edit systems
05,000 0 0 0 5,000 0Studio Upgrade
0 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 0Community Studio Equipment
0 0 6,000 0 0 6,000 0Knox Router for Chambers
18,000 0 0 0 0 18,000 0Replacement Edit Systems
0 0 15,000 0 0 15,000 0Community Studio Equipment
0 0 0 61,500 0 61,500 0School Board Room Cameras
0 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 0Community Studio Equipment
000015,00015,000 0Community Studio Equipment
62,000 46,000 21,000 76,500 15,000 220,500 0Category Sub-Total
62,000 46,000 21,000 76,500 15,000 220,500 0Department Total:
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 1
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 17
Total2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Department
Category Future
Fire
Fire-Equipment
0000400,000400,000 0SCBA Replacement
0 0 0 0 400,000 400,000 0Category Sub-Total
0 0 0 0 400,000 400,000 0Department Total:
Parks & Recreation
PR-Basketball
00000 0 0Jackley Park Basketball and Trail Overlay
00000 0 0Aquila Park - Basketball Courts
0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth & Aquila Parks
0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Buildings
00000 0 0Aquila Park Building & Fence Upgrade
00000 0 0Building Replacement - Fern Hill Park
00000 0 0Carpenter Park Concession Building
00000 0 0Energy Audit
0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0Aquila Park Storage Building
0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 0Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement
0 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Dog Park
00000 0 0Off-Leash Dog Park - Permanent Location
00000 0 0Off-Leash Dog Park Second Location
00000 00
Category Sub-Total
PR-Equipment
00000 0 0Surveilance Cameras at Rec Ctr Parking Lot
0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0Skate Park Equipment Replacement
0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Fencing
00000 0 0Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 2)
00000 0 0Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 3)
00000 0 0Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 4)
0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0Walker Park Field Fence
0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Field
00000 0 0Junior High School Field Improvements
00000 0 0Aquila Park Lighting Upgrade - Field 2
00000 0 0Bronx Park Field Improvements
00000 0 0Ainsworth Park Field Improvements and Irrigation
00000 0 0Aquila Park Fast Pitch Softball Improvements
25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 0Bleacher Replacement - Aquila Park
0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 0Bleacher Replacement-Dakota & Paul Frank
0 0 60,000 0 0 60,000 0Dakota Park Softball Field #1 Redev & Fence Repl.
0 0 17,000 0 0 17,000 0Freedom Park-Paul Frank Baseball field fence repl.
0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 0Scoreboard - Dakota Park
0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 0Skippy Field Dug Outs
0 0 200,000 0 0 200,000 0Tower Park Field Redevelopment
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 2
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 18
Total2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Department
Category Future
0 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 0Carlson Field Storage
0 0 0 60,000 0 60,000 0Dakota Park Softball Field #2
000025,00025,000 0Field Renovation Carlson Park
25,000 20,000 317,000 85,000 25,000 472,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-General Parks Improvement
00000 0 0Ford Park Redevelopment
00000 0 0Beehive Relocation to a Park, Phase I
00000 0 0Fern Hill Park Redevelopment
00000 0 0Frisbee Golf Course
00000 0 0Beehive Restoration Project, Phase II
00000 0 0Splash Pad Structure Improv & Surface Repl
00000 0 0Hurd Park Community Garden
00000 0 0Dakota Park Fencing, Lights, Dugout & Storage Bldg
583,000 0 0 0 0 583,000 0Birchwood Park improvements
20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 0Carpenter Park Scoreboard
6,000 0 0 0 0 6,000 0Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Resurface
0 1,000,000 0 0 0 1,000,000 0Northside Park
0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 0Scoreboards-Carlson & Paul Frank Fields
0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 0Bleacher Rplcmnt-Carlson & Tower Parks
0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 0Court Resurfacing at Ainsworth Park
000030,00030,000 0Courts - Basketball & Tennis at Nelson Park
609,000 1,020,000 20,000 30,000 30,000 1,709,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Hockey Rinks
00000 0 0Rotary Northside Park Reconstruction
10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 0Nelson Park Hockey & End Boards
10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Irrigation
00000 0 0Minikahda Vista Park Irrigation Upgrades
40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000 0Carpenter Park Irrigation
0 45,000 0 0 0 45,000 0Walker Park Irrigation Upgrade
40,000 45,000 0 0 0 85,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Landscape
00000 0 0Rec Center Entrance Landscape
00000 00
Category Sub-Total
PR-Maintenance
00000 0 0Rec Center West Arena Refrig. Pipe Re-Insulation
00000 00
Category Sub-Total
PR-Parking Lot
00000 0 0Aquila Park Parking Lot & Trail Reconstruction
00000 0 0Dakota Park Parking Lots Reconstruction
0 27,000 0 0 0 27,000 0Lake Victoria Parking Lot (mill,overlay, landscpe)
06,000 0 0 0 6,000 0Oak Hill Park Parking Lot Seal Coat
0 0 22,000 0 0 22,000 0Louisiana Oaks Park Parking Lot seal coat
0 33,000 22,000 0 0 55,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Playgrounds
00000 0 0Playground Equipment Replacement
00000 0 0Playground Addition - Climbing Feature
00000 0 0Playground Equipment Replacement
00000 0 0Playground Equipment Replacement
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 3
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 19
Total2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Department
Category Future
00000 0 0Playground Equip Repl-Carpenter, Mdwbrk, Parkview
55,000 0 0 0 0 55,000 0Playground Equip Repl-Browndale & Jorvig Parks
0 35,000 0 0 0 35,000 0Playground Equip - Aquila Park
0 0 140,000 0 0 140,000 0Playground Equip Rpl-Oak Hill N & Wolfe Pks
0 0 0 110,000 0 110,000 0Playground Eqpt Repl.-Dakota & Oak Hill South Park
000070,00070,000 0Playground Equip Repl-Jersey & Rainbow Parks
55,000 35,000 140,000 110,000 70,000 410,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Rec Center
00000 0 0Rec Center Aquatic Park Equip Repair
00000 0 0Rec Center Boiler Retube
00000 0 0Rec Center and Wolfe Park Amphitheater Landscaping
00000 0 0Rec Center West Arena Rubber Floor Replacement
00000 0 0Carpet for Banquet Room at Rec Center
0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 0Rec Center Energy Upgrades
0 18,000 0 0 0 18,000 0Rec Center Office Carpet Replacement
0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 0Rec Center Banquet Room remodel
0 0 60,000 0 0 60,000 0Rec Center Lobby Lights
0 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 0Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration System Study
0 0 15,000 0 0 15,000 0Rec Center PA System replacement
0 0 0 65,000 0 65,000 0Rec Center concession cooling system
0 0 0 60,000 0 60,000 0Rec Center Front Desk Reconstruction
0 0 0 10,000 0 10,000 0Rec Center Gallery Update
0 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 0Rec Center Window Replacement
000080,00080,000 0Rec Center Roof Rplc (east arena & main lobby)
0 43,000 115,000 160,000 80,000 398,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Rec Center Ice
45,000 0 0 0 0 45,000 0Rec Center West Arena Rubber Floor Replcment
20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 0Rec Center Skate Shop/Eqpt upgrade
0 300,000 0 0 0 300,000 0Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification
0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0Rec Center East Arena Floor
0 0 12,000 0 0 12,000 0Rec Center Rental Skate Purchase
0 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 0Rec Center East Arena repainting
0 0 0 12,000 0 12,000 0Rec Center Rental Skate Purchase
0 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 0Rec Center West Arena Fire Protection
0000325,000325,000 0Rec Center West Arena Dehumidification
000035,00035,000 0Rec Center West Arena Painting
00000 0 0Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration
664,992 1,037,777 1,599,250 1,018,023 610,273 4,930,315 7,058,047Annual Equipment Replacement Program
729,992 1,367,777 1,611,250 1,075,023 970,273 5,754,315 7,058,047
Category Sub-Total
PR-Rec Center Pool
00000 0 0Aquatic Park Expansion
00000 0 0Aquatic Park Sand/Water Play Area
85,000 0 0 0 0 85,000 0Rec Center Skating Arena Rstrms & AP Showers
85,000 0 0 0 0 85,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Shelters
00000 0 0Rotary Northside Park Restrooms
00000 0 0Sun Shelter Addition
00000 0 0Ainsworth Park Sun Shelter
00000 0 0Sun Shelter Addition at Louisiana Oaks Park
00000 0 0Jersey Park Sun Shelter, Trail & BB Court Improv
00000 0 0Dakota Park Picnic Shlter Rmvl & Sun Shelter Add
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 4
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 20
Total2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Department
Category Future
0 0 0 35,000 0 35,000 0Park Shelter Buildings Keyless Entry System
000025,00025,000 0Pennsylvania Park Sun Shelter Replacement
0 0 0 35,000 25,000 60,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Signs
00000 0 0Park Signs
00000 0 0Park Signs
00000 00
Category Sub-Total
PR-Tennis Courts
00000 0 0Carpenter Park Tennis Court Resurface
00000 00
Category Sub-Total
PR-Trails
00000 0 0Louisiana Oaks Trail Reconstruction
00000 0 0Rotary Northside Trail Reconstruction
00000 0 0Twin Lake Park Trail Addition
00000 0 0Birchwood Park Trail and Landscaping
00000 0 0Regional Trail Connection
00000 0 0Trail Recon.-Aquila, Carpenter Franklin & Walker
00000 0 0Trail Mill & Overlay (Jordan & Keystone Parks)
00000 0 0Dakota Park Trail Reconstruction
00000 0 0Beltline Trail Reconstruction
130,000 0 0 0 0 130,000 0Trail Reconstruction
130,000 0 0 0 0 130,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Trees
60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 300,000 0Tree Replacement
60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 300,000 0Category Sub-Total
PR-Westwood Nature Center
00000 0 0Westwood Nature Center Natural Resource Inventory
00000 0 0Westwood Hills Front Electronic Entrance Gate/Fnce
00000 0 0Westwood Hills Picnic Shelter Restrooms
00000 0 0Westwood Hills Wood Stair Replacement
00000 0 0Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph. I
00000 0 0Westwood Trail Signs
55,000 0 0 0 0 55,000 0Westwood Hills Boardwalk Section Replacement
40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000 0Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement Ph II
0 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 0Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement
0 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 0Westwood Hills Brick House Kitchen Replacement
0 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 0Westwood Hills Staircase Replacement (north)
0 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 0Westwood Hills Y-Dock Replacement
0 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 0Westwood Hills Staircase Railing Replacement
0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 0Westwood Hills Signage Replacement
000020,00020,000 0Westwood Hills Boardwalk Decking Replacement
00000 0 0Westwood Hills Rotary & Lower Deck Repairs
000010,00010,000 0Westwood Hills Woodland Wildflower Habitat Project
95,000 75,000 0 145,000 30,000 345,000 0Category Sub-Total
1,838,992 2,738,777 2,435,250 1,700,023 1,290,273 10,003,315 7,058,047Department Total:
Police
Police-Equipment
00000 0 0Firing Range Reconditioning
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 5
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 21
Total2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Department
Category Future
00000 0 0Wi-Fi Cameras
00000 00
Category Sub-Total
TRF-Network
00000 0 0Redundant Fiber Path
00000 00
Category Sub-Total
00000 0 0Department Total:
Public Works
PW-Bus Shelters
0 0 0 42,966 0 42,966 0Bus Shelter Project - Shelter Replacements
0 0 0 42,966 0 42,966 0Category Sub-Total
PW-Parking Lot
0 0 121,000 110,000 159,000 390,000 4,500PW Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project
0 0 121,000 110,000 159,000 390,000 4,500
Category Sub-Total
PW-Railroad Crossings
0 0 277,500 0 0 277,500 0Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St
0 0 252,500 0 0 252,500 0Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama
00000 0 100,000Railroad Proj. - Crossing Protection @ 2 crossings
0 0 530,000 0 0 530,000 100,000
Category Sub-Total
PW-Reilly
00000 0 35,000Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413)
00000 035,000Category Sub-Total
PW-Retaining Walls
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 10,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Category Sub-Total
PW-Sanitary Sewers
180,000 0 0 0 0 180,000 0Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #6)
150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 0Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #19 Generator & Controls
0 119,000 0 0 0 119,000 0Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #7)
0 0 81,000 0 0 81,000 0Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #8)
0 0 475,000 0 0 475,000 0Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #3 and FM Rehab
0 0 0 66,000 0 66,000 0Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #1)
0 0 0 171,000 0 171,000 0Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #7 Generator Replacement
0000110,000110,000 0Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #2)
000060,00060,000 0Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #10 and FM Rehab
330,000 119,000 556,000 237,000 170,000 1,412,000 0Category Sub-Total
PW-Sidewalks
82,500 0 0 0 0 82,500 0Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
0 82,500 0 0 0 82,500 0Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
0 0 82,500 0 0 82,500 0Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
0 0 0 82,500 0 82,500 0Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
000082,50082,500 0Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
00000 0 82,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
00000 0 82,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
82,500 82,500 82,500 82,500 82,500 412,500 165,000
Category Sub-Total
PW-Storm Sewers
500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 0Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 6
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 22
Total2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Department
Category Future
1,000,000 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 0Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding
30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000 0Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs
200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 0Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs
0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 0Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 0Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs
0 0 200,000 0 0 200,000 0Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 0Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs
0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 0Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
000030,00030,000 0Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs
0000200,000200,000 0Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
00000 0 1,200,000Storm Water Project - Flood Area #24
1,730,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 2,650,000 1,200,000
Category Sub-Total
PW-Street Lights
134,384 128,841 140,019 132,036 131,405 666,685 380,158Street Light Project - System Replacement
134,384 128,841 140,019 132,036 131,405 666,685 380,158
Category Sub-Total
PW-Streets
6,307,506 0 0 0 0 6,307,506 0Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)
957,500 0 0 0 0 957,500 0Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.
0 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 0Street Project - W44th Street
00000 0 7,000,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction
50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 0Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 5)
00000 0 0Street Project - W36th St Streetscape
925,097 0 0 0 0 925,097 0Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)
130,000 0 0 0 0 130,000 0Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)
337,071 0 0 0 0 337,071 0Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)
62,500 0 0 0 0 62,500 0Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
0 320,000 0 0 0 320,000 0Street Project - France Ave Improvements
0 1,093,852 0 0 0 1,093,852 0Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)
0 290,000 0 0 0 290,000 0Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)
0 294,883 0 0 0 294,883 0Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)
0 62,500 0 0 0 62,500 0Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
0 0 1,635,664 0 0 1,635,664 0Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)
0 0 420,000 0 0 420,000 0Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 3)
0 0 300,081 0 0 300,081 0Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)
0 0 62,500 0 0 62,500 0Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
0 0 28,000,000 0 0 28,000,000 0Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.
0 0 0 1,325,121 0 1,325,121 0Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)
0 0 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,000 0Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction
0 0 2,039,051 0 0 2,039,051 0Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction
0 0 0 308,381 0 308,381 0Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)
0 0 0 62,500 0 62,500 0Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
0 0 0 0 1,348,744 1,348,744 0Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)
0 0 0 515,000 0 515,000 0Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 1)
0000275,790275,790 0Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)
000062,50062,500 0Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
0 0 0 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 0Street Project - I394 Ramp / CD Road Improvement
00000 0 1,627,358Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)
0000144,000144,000 0Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)
0000500,000500,000 0Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6)
00000 0 243,799Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)
00000 0 12,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
00000 0 144,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 7
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 23
Total2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Department
Category Future
00000 0 248,674Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)
00000 0 12,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
00000 0 3,000,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim)
00000 0 3,000,000Street Project - Exc Blvd (CSAH 20 to W City Lim)
500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 0Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing
0000300,000300,000 0Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing
00000 0 500,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing
9,269,674 2,161,235 34,457,296 2,211,002 5,631,034 53,730,241 15,788,831
Category Sub-Total
PW-Traffic Signals
0 0 250,000 0 0 250,000 0Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave
150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 0LED Traffic Signal Project
0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 0Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St
0 52,215 0 0 0 52,215 115,610Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets
9,550 9,836 10,130 10,434 10,748 50,698 22,470Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals
00000 0 500,000Traffic Signal - CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd.
159,550 62,051 760,130 10,434 10,748 1,002,913 638,080
Category Sub-Total
PW-Water
895,000 0 0 0 0 895,000 0Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation
0 0 0 581,700 0 581,700 0Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation
00000 0 0Water Project - Watermain Replacement
0 0 0 250,000 0 250,000 0Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6
0 278,000 0 0 0 278,000 0Water Project - Watermain Replacement
00000 0 0Water Project - Watermain Replacement
0 0 0 1,110,000 0 1,110,000 0Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3
0 0 0 260,000 0 260,000 0Water Project - Watermain Replacement
0000275,100275,100 0Water Project - Watermain Replacement
00000 0 211,000Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement
00000 0 3,000,000Water Project - WTP #6 GAC Upgrade
00000 0 3,500,000Water Project - Replace/Upgrade Residential Meters
0000400,000400,000 0Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #2
895,000 278,000 0 2,201,700 675,100 4,049,800 6,711,000
Category Sub-Total
12,611,108 3,071,627 36,886,945 5,267,638 7,099,787 64,937,105 25,032,569Department Total:
Technology
TRF-Network
125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 0On-going Local Area Network Servers/Electronics
20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 0Enhanced Web Backup Solution
10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 0Network Vulnerability Assessment
50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 150,000 50,000On-going SAN Storage Additions
50,000 0 25,000 0 25,000 100,000 0SAN Addition for Documents Imaging
100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0Email Archival and Document Management Solution
35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0 105,000 0ArcGIS Server
15,000 0 0 0 0 15,000 0Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, Dakota-Louisiana
00000 0 15,000Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, La Ave-Hopkins
15,000 0 0 0 0 15,000 0Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica
0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 80,000 0Fiber Conduit - TBD
10,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 20,000 0MSC / Lenox / Fire Stations Wireless Hotspots
430,000 185,000 260,000 145,000 220,000 1,240,000 65,000
Category Sub-Total
TRF-Office Support
00000 0 0Scanner and Folder Replacement in Support Services
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 8
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 24
Total2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Department
Category Future
0 0 0 65,000 0 65,000 0City Hall Production Copiers
0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 0MSC, Utilities Copiers
00000 0 0City Hall Counter Copiers
0 0 0 95,000 0 95,000 0Category Sub-Total
TRF-PC Hardware
75,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 0On-going PC Hardware Replacement
4,000 0 0 0 0 4,000 0Point of Sale Equipment for Concessions
6,000 0 0 0 0 6,000 0Wireless Equipment for Assessing Field Work
0 80,000 0 0 0 80,000 80,000Police Mobile Replacements
0 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 0Fire Mobile Replacements
7,500 0 0 0 0 7,500 0MSC Expansion Equipment
0 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 0PW Request: Eng. Hardware / Software Replacement
92,500 275,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 517,500 80,000
Category Sub-Total
TRF-PC Software
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 0On-going PC Software Replacement
100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0PW Request: Software Consolidation/Replacement
0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 0Financial / HR/ Payroll App Replacement
00000 0 210,000Utiltiy Billing App Replacement
0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 0Police CAD/RMS/Mobile App Replacement
0 70,000 0 0 0 70,000 0Park & Rec App Replacement
50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 0PW Request: Project Management / CIP Software
350,000 770,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,720,000 210,000
Category Sub-Total
TRF-Radios
00000 0 2,000,000Citywide Radio System Replacement
0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000
Category Sub-Total
TRF-Telephones
00000 0 0Citywide Telephone System
0000300,000300,000 0Telephone Equipment Replacement
0 0 0 0 300,000 300,000 0Category Sub-Total
Unassigned
000050,00050,000 0Police / Rec Center / Nature Center Copiers
0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0Category Sub-Total
872,500 1,230,000 510,000 490,000 820,000 3,922,500 2,355,000Department Total:
29,687,600 12,996,404 40,503,195 7,584,161 9,625,060 100,396,420 34,453,116GRAND TOTAL
Wednesday, October 07, 2009Page 9
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 25
10/08/20091City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 5, 2009 - Without Van Depreciation, Full Equipment ReplacementCable TV Fund - Produces and broadcasts all cable tv programming for cable channels 15, 16, 17 & 96Actual CIPRevenue Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2006 2007 2008 2009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021Actual Actual Actual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesCharges For Services477,344 525,491 588,164 500,000 550,000 566,500 583,495 601,000 619,030 637,601 656,729 676,431 696,724 717,625 739,154 761,329 New Prop Tax Required- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Transfers In- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income48,128 82,958 53,888 80,000 50,000 36,631 37,486 38,356 39,243 40,146 41,065 42,000 42,951 43,918 44,902 45,901 Miscellaneous102 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues525,574$ 608,469$ 642,052$ 580,000$ 600,000$ 603,131$ 620,981$ 639,356$ 658,273$ 677,747$ 697,794$ 718,430$ 739,674$ 761,544$ 784,056$ 807,230$ Personal Services Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%Expenditure Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Expenditures Actual Actual Adopted Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedPersonal Services156,150 297,646 323,363 336,000 337,700 347,831 358,266 369,014 380,084 391,487 403,231 415,328 427,788 440,622 453,841 467,456 Supplies14,224 15,808 6,769 16,000 2,600 2,678 2,758 2,841 2,926 3,014 3,105 3,198 3,294 3,392 3,494 3,599 Services & Other Charges56,732 80,408 85,474 61,500 64,800 66,744 68,746 70,809 72,933 75,121 77,375 79,696 82,087 84,549 87,086 89,698 Capital Outlay- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Transfers Out161,041 158,109 155,063 155,063 159,715 164,506 169,442 174,525 179,761 185,153 190,708 196,429 202,322 208,392 214,643 221,083 Other Expenses- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures388,147 551,971 570,668 568,563 564,815 581,759 599,212 617,188 635,704 654,775 674,419 694,651 715,491 736,955 759,064 781,836 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance137,427 56,498 71,384 11,437 35,185 21,371 21,769 22,168 22,569 22,971 23,375 23,779 24,184 24,588 24,992 25,394 Fund Balance - Beginning603,839 741,266 797,764 869,148 880,585 915,770 937,142 958,911 981,078 1,003,647 1,026,619 1,049,993 1,073,773 1,097,957 1,122,545 1,147,537 Fund Balance - Ending741,266 797,764 869,148 880,585 915,770 937,142 958,911 981,078 1,003,647 1,026,619 1,049,993 1,073,773 1,097,957 1,122,545 1,147,537 1,172,931 Percent of Fund Balance134.29% 139.79% 152.87% 155.91% 157.41% 156.40% 155.37% 154.33% 153.28% 152.22% 151.15% 150.08% 148.99% 147.89% 146.77%Time Warner Cable TV Grant (not included above) Revenue received800,000 200,000 100,000 Equipment purchased(36,461) (468) (390,090) (77,000) (46,000) (21,000) (76,500) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) Grant Balance763,539 763,071 763,071 372,981 295,981 449,981 428,981 352,481 337,481 322,481 407,481 392,481 377,481 362,481 347,481 332,481 Fund Balance per CAFR1,504,805 1,560,835 1,632,219 1,253,566 1,211,751 1,387,123 1,387,892 1,333,559 1,341,128 1,349,100 1,457,474 1,466,254 1,475,438 1,485,026 1,495,018 1,505,412 Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 26
10/08/2009 2City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 5, 2009Police & Fire Pension Fund - These pension accounts can only be used for non-benefit related police or fire purposesInflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018ActualActualActual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesGrants/GV Share(44,123) - - - - - - - - - - - - Investment Earnings317,779 359,613 147,286 217,878 214,734 128,454 111,702 110,264 110,753 113,244 113,977 117,922 42,006 Other Miscellanous- - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues273,656 359,613 147,286 217,878 214,734 128,454 111,702 110,264 110,753 113,244 113,977 117,922 42,006 ExpendituresCapital Outlay- - 875,135 - 2,124,865 350,000 - - - 80,000 - 2,000,000 - Non-Capital Equipment64,958 54,000 12,124 12,488 12,862 13,248 13,646 14,055 14,477 14,911 15,358 15,819 16,294 Services & Other Charges178,937 - - - - - - - - - - - - Transfers384,000 384,000 334,000 284,000 234,000 184,000 134,000 84,000 34,000 - - - - Total Expenditures627,895 438,000 1,221,259 296,488 2,371,727 547,248 147,646 98,055 48,477 94,911 15,358 2,015,819 16,294 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(354,239) (78,387) (1,073,973) (78,610) (2,156,994) (418,794) (35,944) 12,209 62,276 18,333 98,619 (1,897,897) 25,712 Fund Balance - Beginning6,953,549 6,599,310 6,520,923 5,446,950 5,368,340 3,211,347 2,792,552 2,756,609 2,768,818 2,831,094 2,849,427 2,948,045 1,050,148 Fund Balance - Ending6,599,310 6,520,923 5,446,950 5,368,340 3,211,347 2,792,552 2,756,609 2,768,818 2,831,094 2,849,427 2,948,045 1,050,148 1,075,860 Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 27
10/08/20093City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 5, 2009HRA Levy - This fund is to be used for infrastructure construction in redevelopment areas. 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2008 2009 2010 20112012201320142015201620172018Actual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues HRA Levy762,794 1,028,045 1,043,341 1,043,341 1,032,908 1,032,908 1,032,908 1,032,908 1,032,908 1,032,908 1,032,908 Intergovernmental24,605 - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income 136,983 80,000 100,000 178,957 225,686 137,380 181,897 228,125 276,132 325,986 377,759 Misc/Other - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues924,382 1,108,045 1,143,341 1,222,298 1,258,594 1,170,288 1,214,804 1,261,033 1,309,040 1,358,894 1,410,667 Expenditures Services & Other Charges55,754 48,000 52,500 54,075 55,697 57,368 59,089 60,862 62,688 64,568 66,505 Capital Outlay- - 1,647,771 - 3,410,542 - - - - - Total Expenditures55,754 48,000 1,700,271 54,075 3,466,239 57,368 59,089 60,862 62,688 64,568 66,505 Net Transfers3,102,182 - - - - - - - - - - Revenues less Expenditures3,970,810 1,060,045 (556,930) 1,168,223 (2,207,646) 1,112,920 1,155,715 1,200,171 1,246,352 1,294,326 1,344,162 Fund Balance - Beginning3,970,810 5,030,855 4,473,925 5,642,148 3,434,502 4,547,422 5,703,137 6,903,308 8,149,660 9,443,986 Fund Balance - Ending3,970,810 5,030,855 4,473,925 5,642,148 3,434,502 4,547,422 5,703,137 6,903,308 8,149,660 9,443,986 10,788,148 Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 28
10/08/2009 4City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 5, 2009Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund - This fund pays for the cost of project construction and is repaid through special assessmentsRevenue Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018ActualActualActual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) - 754 - 1,226 1,226 1,226 1,226 1,226 1,226 1,226 1,226 1,226 1,226 Special Assessments427,885 347,039 259,174 210,000 - - - - - - - - - Interest Income 275,902 480,544 258,916 344,816 172,987 84,575 84,337 84,036 83,669 83,232 82,722 74,719 66,387 Misc/Other 18,768 100 13,987 - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues722,555 828,437 532,077 556,042 174,213 85,801 85,563 85,262 84,895 84,458 83,948 75,945 67,613 Expenditures General Government 297,848 2,373 - - - - - - - - - - - Capital Outlay40,106 75,881 89,396 92,078 94,840 97,685 100,616 103,634 106,743 109,946 113,244 116,642 120,141 Transfers Out374,238 438,036 419,647 435,000 4,500,000 - - - - - 370,833 375,913 Total Expenditures712,192 516,290 509,043 527,078 4,594,840 97,685 100,616 103,634 106,743 109,946 484,077 492,554 120,141 Revenues less Expenditures10,363 312,148 23,034 28,964 (4,420,627) (11,885) (15,053) (18,372) (21,849) (25,488) (400,129) (416,609) (52,528) Fund Balance - Beginning8,274,859 8,285,222 8,597,370 8,620,404 8,649,368 4,228,741 4,216,857 4,201,804 4,183,431 4,161,583 4,136,094 3,735,966 3,319,357 Fund Balance - Ending8,285,222 8,597,370 8,620,404 8,649,368 4,228,741 4,216,857 4,201,804 4,183,431 4,161,583 4,136,094 3,735,966 3,319,357 3,266,829 Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 29
10/08/2009 5City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 5, 2009Park Improvement Fund - This fund covers capital expenditures for the replacement and improvement of park facilities3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018Actual Actual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues General Property Taxes 1,010,000 1,010,000 685,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 IntergovernmentalState Grants 388 - - - - - - - - - - - School District Contibutions 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 Charges For ServicesCost Reimbursement 15,000 - - - - - - - - - - - MiscellaneousRent Revenue 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Refunds & Reimbursements (5330)- - - - - - - - - - - - Transfers InGO Bonds - - - - - - - - - - - - Other Funds - - - - - - - - - - - - Other RevenueInterest Income 41,982 70,388 44,939 42,370 36,457 20,887 21,804 25,821 29,957 28,076 26,158 24,201 Park Dedication Fee 554,725 1,258,285 250,000 - - - - - - - - - Tree Replacement18,090 2,250 - - - - - - - - - - Misc/Other 28,934 12,000 - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,722,821 2,406,625 1,033,641 906,072 900,159 884,589 885,506 889,523 893,659 891,778 889,860 887,903 Expenditures Capital OutlayTree Replacement 57,863 51,037 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Parks/Rec Ctr1,140,448 966,852 1,099,392 1,139,000 1,616,000 776,000 622,000 620,000 925,000 925,000 925,000 925,000 Other Insurance/Taxes 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 Transfers Out- - - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures1,198,311 1,020,589 1,162,092 1,201,700 1,678,700 838,700 684,700 682,700 987,700 987,700 987,700 987,700 Revenues less Expenditures524,510 1,386,036 (128,451) (295,628) (778,541) 45,889 200,806 206,823 (94,041) (95,922) (97,840) (99,797) Equity Transfer from General FundFund Balance - Beginning336,406 860,916 2,246,952 2,118,501 1,822,873 1,044,333 1,090,221 1,291,028 1,497,850 1,403,809 1,307,887 1,210,047 Fund Balance - Ending860,916 2,246,952 2,118,501 1,822,873 1,044,333 1,090,221 1,291,028 1,497,850 1,403,809 1,307,887 1,210,047 1,110,250 Fund Balance Percentage84.35%193.35%176.29%108.59%124.52%159.23%189.11%151.65%142.13%132.42%122.51%Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 30
10/08/2009 6City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 5, 2009Pavement Management Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to street reconstruction and chip-sealingRevenue Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Actual Actual Actual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues General Property Taxes 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 New Prop Tax Required- - - - - - - - - - - - - Charges for ServicesFranchise Tax 945,641 917,153 922,194 922,194 922,194 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 Transfers InWater - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sanitary Sewer - - - - - - - - - - - - - Other RevenueMarket Value Credit (4370)- - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income 62,090 100,690 57,101 66,306 53,268 57,800 58,925 38,216 28,888 19,545 7,865 (6,305) (23,125) Misc/Other - 76,752 5,177 - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,422,731 1,509,595 1,399,472 1,403,500 1,390,462 1,431,881 1,433,007 1,412,298 1,402,970 1,393,627 1,381,947 1,367,777 1,350,956 ExpendituresCapital Outlay 1,265,815 1,447,993 1,420,082 1,729,456 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534 1,685,630 1,736,199 1,788,285 1,841,933 Total Expenditures1,265,815 1,447,993 1,420,082 1,729,456 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534 1,685,630 1,736,199 1,788,285 1,841,933 Revenues less Expenditures156,916 61,602 (20,610) (325,956) 113,294 28,146 (517,738) (233,204) (233,564) (292,003) (354,252) (420,508) (490,977) Fund Balance - Beginning1,459,744 1,616,660 1,678,262 1,657,652 1,331,696 1,444,990 1,473,136 955,398 722,194 488,630 196,627 (157,625) (578,134) Fund Balance - Ending1,616,660 1,678,262 1,657,652 1,331,696 1,444,990 1,473,136 955,398 722,194 488,630 196,627 (157,625) (578,134) (1,069,111) Fund Balance Percentage111.65% 118.18% 95.85% 104.27% 102.94% 75.52% 58.06% 44.13% 28.99% 11.33% -8.81% -31.39%Assumptions:Interest earnings calculated at 4.0% of py ending fund balance.No increase in franchise fee 2007-2010.No add'l revenue after 2006 from Water and Sanitary Sewer funds per original agreement.Capital outlay amounts comes from CIP for years 2010-2014Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 31
10/08/2009 7City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 5, 2009WITH FRANCHISE FEE INCREASE OF $274,000 PER YEAR BEGINNING IN 2011.Pavement Management Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to street reconstruction and chip-sealingRevenue Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Actual Actual Actual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenues General Property Taxes 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 New Prop Tax Required- - - - - - - - - - - - - Charges for ServicesFranchise Tax 945,641 917,153 922,194 922,194 922,194 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 959,082 Franchise Tax Increase274,000 274,000 274,000 274,000 274,000 274,000 274,000 274,000 Transfers InWater - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sanitary Sewer - - - - - - - - - - - - - Other RevenueMarket Value Credit (4370)- - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income 62,090 100,690 57,101 66,306 53,268 57,800 69,885 60,574 63,101 66,086 67,228 66,392 63,440 Misc/Other - 76,752 5,177 - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,422,731 1,509,595 1,399,472 1,403,500 1,390,462 1,705,881 1,717,967 1,708,656 1,711,182 1,714,168 1,715,310 1,714,474 1,711,522 ExpendituresCapital Outlay 1,265,815 1,447,993 1,420,082 1,729,456 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534 1,685,630 1,736,199 1,788,285 1,841,933 Total Expenditures1,265,815 1,447,993 1,420,082 1,729,456 1,277,168 1,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534 1,685,630 1,736,199 1,788,285 1,841,933 Revenues less Expenditures156,916 61,602 (20,610) (325,956) 113,294 302,146 (232,778) 63,154 74,648 28,538 (20,889) (73,811) (130,412) Fund Balance - Beginning1,459,744 1,616,660 1,678,262 1,657,652 1,331,696 1,444,990 1,747,136 1,514,358 1,577,513 1,652,161 1,680,699 1,659,810 1,585,999 Fund Balance - Ending1,616,660 1,678,262 1,657,652 1,331,696 1,444,990 1,747,136 1,514,358 1,577,513 1,652,161 1,680,699 1,659,810 1,585,999 1,455,587 Fund Balance Percentage111.65% 118.18% 95.85% 104.27% 102.94% 89.56% 92.03% 96.39% 98.01% 96.80% 92.82% 86.11%Assumptions:Interest earnings calculated at 4.0% of py ending fund balance.No increase in franchise fee 2007-2010.No add'l revenue after 2006 from Water and Sanitary Sewer funds per original agreement.Capital outlay amounts comes from CIP for years 2010-2014Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 32
10/08/20098City of St. Louis ParkFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 5, 2009Capital Replacement Fund - Combines MBF, Tech Repl, & Equip Repl into a universal equipment replacement fundActual CIPRevenue Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20112012201320142015201620172018ActualActualActual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesNew Prop Tax Required- - - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Housing Authority 10,958 6,089 6,089 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 Transfers In- - - - - - - - - - - - - P&F Pension - - 875,135 - 2,124,865 - - - - - - - - Other Funds 127,664 172,139 82,060 4,000,000 5,500,000 - - - - - - - - Equipment Replacement Charges 587,131 975,282 616,732 685,234 705,791 726,965 748,774 771,237 794,374 818,205 842,751 868,034 894,075 Bond Proceeds- - - - 5,500,000 5,500,000 - - - - - - - Other Revenue- - - - - - - - - - - - - Market Value Credit (4370)- - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income 181,652 238,774 116,372 122,463 98,874 153,416 18,985 (52,214) (77,314) (113,382) (136,615) (170,378) (199,914) Misc/Other 102,338 109,350 215,445 - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,009,743 1,501,634 1,911,833 4,819,200 14,141,033 6,591,883 979,262 930,526 928,563 916,326 917,639 909,159 905,664 Expenditures Supplies/Non-Capital/ServicesComputers/Printers 330,837 652,864 268,503 50,000 75,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Software - - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Network Hardware - - - 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 Vehicles414,753 675,641 1,645,808 588,928 664,992 1,037,777 1,599,250 1,018,023 610,273 1,122,137 1,386,719 1,272,551 1,193,649 Other Equipment4,292 287,436 185,017 445,000 712,500 890,000 785,000 165,000 845,000 - - - - New Buildings- - 875,135 4,000,000 11,000,000 7,624,865 - - - - - - - Total Expenditures749,882 1,615,941 2,974,463 5,408,928 12,777,492 9,952,642 2,759,250 1,558,023 1,830,273 1,497,137 1,761,719 1,647,551 1,568,649 Revenues less Expenditures259,861 (114,307) (1,062,630) (589,728) 1,363,541 (3,360,759) (1,779,988) (627,497) (901,710) (580,811) (844,080) (738,392) (662,985) Beginning Unrestricted Fund Bal 3,978,656 4,238,517 4,124,210 3,061,580 2,471,852 3,835,393 474,635 (1,305,353) (1,932,851) (2,834,561) (3,415,372) (4,259,451) (4,997,844) Ending Unrestricted Fund Bal4,238,517 4,124,210 3,061,580 2,471,852 3,835,393 474,635 (1,305,353) (1,932,851) (2,834,561) (3,415,372) (4,259,451) (4,997,844) (5,660,828) Fund Balance Percentage262.29%138.65%56.60%19.35%38.54%17.20%-83.78%-105.60%-189.33%-193.87%-258.53%-318.61%Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 33
10/08/20099City of St. Louis ParkNEW REVENUES NEEDED FOR POSITIVE FUND BALANCE BY 2018 WITH INTERFUND LOAN FROM DEV. FUNDFinancial Management PlanUpdated October 5, 2009Capital Replacement Fund - Combines MBF, Tech Repl, & Equip Repl into a universal equipment replacement fundActual CIPRevenue Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20112012201320142015201620172018ActualActualActual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesNew Prop Tax Required- - - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 New Revenues Needed150,000 250,000 350,000 450,000 550,000 650,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 Housing Authority 10,958 6,089 6,089 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 Transfers In- - - - - - - - - - - - - P&F Pension - - 875,135 - 2,124,865 - - - - - - - - Other Funds 127,664 172,139 82,060 4,000,000 5,500,000 - - - - - - - - Equipment Replacement Charges 587,131 975,282 616,732 685,234 705,791 726,965 748,774 771,237 794,374 818,205 842,751 868,034 894,075 Bond Proceeds- - - - 5,500,000 5,500,000 - - - - - - - Other Revenue- - - - - - - - - - - - - Market Value Credit (4370)- - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest Income 181,652 238,774 116,372 122,463 98,874 159,416 35,225 (21,325) (27,189) (39,252) (33,519) (31,159) (19,126) Misc/Other 102,338 109,350 215,445 - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues1,009,743 1,501,634 1,911,833 4,819,200 14,291,033 6,847,883 1,345,502 1,411,415 1,528,688 1,640,456 1,820,735 1,948,378 2,086,452 Expenditures Supplies/Non-Capital/ServicesComputers/Printers 330,837 652,864 268,503 50,000 75,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Software - - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Network Hardware - - - 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 Vehicles414,753 675,641 1,645,808 588,928 664,992 1,037,777 1,599,250 1,018,023 610,273 1,122,137 1,386,719 1,272,551 1,193,649 Other Equipment4,292 287,436 185,017 445,000 712,500 890,000 785,000 165,000 845,000 - - - - New Buildings- - 875,135 4,000,000 11,000,000 7,624,865 - - - - - - - Total Expenditures749,882 1,615,941 2,974,463 5,408,928 12,777,492 9,952,642 2,759,250 1,558,023 1,830,273 1,497,137 1,761,719 1,647,551 1,568,649 Revenues less Expenditures259,861 (114,307) (1,062,630) (589,728) 1,513,541 (3,104,759) (1,413,748) (146,608) (301,585) 143,319 59,016 300,827 517,803 Beginning Unrestricted Fund Bal 3,978,656 4,238,517 4,124,210 3,061,580 2,471,852 3,985,393 880,635 (533,113) (679,721) (981,306) (837,987) (778,971) (478,144) Ending Unrestricted Fund Bal4,238,517 4,124,210 3,061,580 2,471,852 3,985,393 880,635 (533,113) (679,721) (981,306) (837,987) (778,971) (478,144) 39,659 Fund Balance Percentage262.29%138.65%56.60%19.35%40.04%31.92%-34.22%-37.14%-65.55%-47.57%-47.28%-30.48%Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 34
Community Feedback on Budget
The city published an online feedback form on its website from Aug. 1 through Oct. 1,
2009. The purpose of this tool was to solicit feedback from the community regarding the
City Council’s approach to balancing the budget. This approach includes a possible wage
and benefit freeze for employees, staff reductions, increased revenues from existing and new
fees, line item budget reductions and a modest increase in the property tax.
The feedback tool was promoted through the city newsletter, information cards at City Hall
(and handed out at public events), Cable TV, social media, the Sun-Sailor and the city’s
website.
The intent was never to conduct a scientific survey, but instead receive open-ended answers
from the public.
The Data
There were a total of 73 responses collected. The system blocked people from responding
more than once from any individual computer, and there is no reason to believe any of the
answers were skewed by any one individual, group or interest.
While each answer is unique and there are some stand alone suggestions that you can see in
the full text of answers, there are a couple of general trends that emerged:
1) Respondents overwhelmingly endorsed an approach that included a wage & benefit
freeze, staff reductions, increased revenues through new and existing fees and line item
reductions.
2) Support for the wage and benefit freeze surpassed all other suggested methods;
followed by line item budget reductions and increased revenues via fees and staff
reductions.
3) Respondents did not support a property tax levy increase by a margin of about 2-to-1,
however, 14 respondents specifically said they would support a modest increase.
Sharing The Feedback
Council has indicated an interest in sharing this feedback with the public. Staff recommends
the general description of trends above be published to the city website, along with a link to
the report, which includes the full text of comments.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 35
1 of 10
Budget survey
The current economic climate and significant cuts in state payments to cities will impact the City of St. Louis
Park’s 2010 budget and future budgets. It’s currently estimated that the city will need to close an estimated $1.8
million gap for 2010 through cuts and new revenues. The City Council is currently considering a plan that could
include: -- A city employee wage and benefit freeze for 2010 -- Staff reductions/changes made through attrition,
retirements, reorganization, reassignments or layoffs -- Increased revenues from existing fees and the creation of
new fees/revenues -- Strategic/selective line item budget reductions -- A modest increase in the property tax levy
Note: The City Council has not approved any of the above measures, and the final budget may or may not include
these strategies. The City Council would like your feedback on this approach and any ideas you may have to
decrease costs, cut services or increase revenues to close this budget gap. Please provide your comments below.
Response
Count
73
answered question 73
skipped question 0
Response Text
1 I support a wage freeze. A benefits freeze depends on health care coverage
package. I also suggest voluntary unpaid time off of 1 week, as long as
employees can remain covered for health insurance. It would save the City some
money: if 10% of the pay roll (25 people) took it, savings would range from
$15,000 to $35,000, depending on the income of those who volunteered. It's not
going to solve the problem but it would demonstrate employee support of cutting
costs.
Aug 3, 2009 8:34 PM
2 Freeze city employee wages & benefits along with a "modest" increase in the
property levy.
Aug 5, 2009 2:01 AM
3 Layoffs and early retirements are never a good idea, either for the public who
have fewer resources, the staff left behind, or those who are laid off.
Line item budget reductions can be a positive thing, provided the choices are
thoughtful and not politically-motivated.
Wage freeze: yes.
Aug 7, 2009 2:14 AM
4 Sponsor a contest where residents, government employees, workers, etc. submit
ways to cut costs by improving efficiencies, eliminating redundant or underutilized
services, etc. This takes after the model the airline industry used to help creatively
solve their budget constraints.
Aug 7, 2009 2:50 AM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 36
2 of 10
Response Text
5 As a resident of SLP for just over 2 years I really appreciate all the work Staff has
put into making the city a great place to live. Because of their commitment to the
City I would prefer the following order needed efforts:
1) Strategic/selective line item budget reductions
2) Increased revenues from existing fees and the creation of new fees/revenues -
residents need to understand the true cost of government. If people want
government to be run more like a business, then they will have to pay for it
(literally)
3) Staff reductions/changes made through attrition, retirements, reorganization,
reassignments or layoffs - layoffs is not preferred, while their are inefficiencies in
every organization, getting the job done is the primary goal.
4) A modest increase in the property tax levy - i don't mind paying for quality. A
10% increase in my taxes is only $210 a year or less than $20 a month. Totally
worth the investment... but I have a job.
5) A city employee wage and benefit freeze for 2010 - we need to attract and
retain quality staff to continue to make the City great. Just because these are
tough times doesn't mean they have an easy job.
Aug 10, 2009 4:16 PM
6 One of my recommendations is that you look at combining additional services with
the communities that are next to us. We are doing some of that with the fire and
ambulance services. I would recommend looking at more efficiencies along that
line.
I am also disappointed that the revenues from the recent land sale ($623,000 or
so) are not going to more constructive uses.
Their is also a movement afoot give to give property owners the opportunity to
segment out the portion of their property tax that goes toward education and have
that deducted if they would like to not pay that. I know that is opening a huge can
of worms but if you had enough of our aging population say that they didn't want
to pay for the portion of their property taxes that is going to education that could
really change things.
Our City Council needs to take this real serious in light of the wireless internet
situation that did not work. I appreciate your dedication and hard work.
Thanks for giving us an opportunity to comment.
Aug 11, 2009 5:09 AM
7 Wage and benefit freezes seem appropriate, along with retirements and increased
fees for revenues... I do not support layoffs or a modest increase in the property
tax levy.
Aug 11, 2009 2:30 PM
8 A wage/benefit freeze is the first place to look, then staff reductions through
attrition. I would prefer increased fees over service reductions-especially if it were
handled via the property tax levy sicne that makes it less noticeable
Aug 11, 2009 2:31 PM
9 I would be in favor of the following:
A city employee wage and benefit freeze for 2010
and/or Staff reductions/changes made through attrition, retirements,
reorganization, reassignments or layoffs
My employer has initiated the above and feel it would be fair for the City to employ
the same measures.
Aug 11, 2009 2:31 PM
10 Strategic selective budget reductions should come first, then try the wage and
benefit freeze. Tax and fee increases should come last.
Aug 11, 2009 2:32 PM
11 The approach you have outlined makes sense. A balanced approach!Aug 11, 2009 2:34 PM
12 My hope is that a wage & benefit freeze, staff reductions and user fees will do the
trick. I lean away from line item reductions and increased property tax.
Aug 11, 2009 2:34 PM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 37
3 of 10
Response Text
13 City Employee wage freeze for 2010 should be put into place. Every other
employers are freezing wages. Freezing would be better than laying off. but
reductions related to attrition and retirements seem to also be the norm accross
agencies and companies. I would not like to see budget reductions or property
tax levy increases. People do not have the money for this and need the services
and jobs that are in place already. If properties are going into foreclosure, why
would a property tax levy help? Police for St. Louis Park could reduce their cost
by obtaining mental health and crisis specific training through the national Crisis
Intervention Training. They have many calls that are related to this and I have
been told that do not have a CIT officer on their force, as other cities/suburban
departments do. Some cost in training could save money in many ways.
Aug 11, 2009 2:41 PM
14 No new hires. Reduce staff and freeze wages for ALL city staff/employees. Do not
increase any tax. We're already going to have higher Hennepin County tax. Some
of us are just able to hold on to our property as is.
A cost saving suggestion: Stop watering the streets before street cleaning. Wait
until it rains, the streets will be wet, clean streets.
Aug 11, 2009 2:44 PM
15 I would encourage staff input and possibly individual options to wage/benefit
freeze/reduction. Offer voluntary unpaid leaves, use of sick time as
holiday/vacation, etc. Keep people first, if possible, then reductions or eliminations
of positions. Keep unfilled positions empty temporarily. Selective line item
restrictions, limited use of new fees/revenues. Consider partnerships with
individuals, business, groups for grounds maintenance(Bachmans sponsors
landscape maintenance at the rec center, for example). I strongly oppose
additional tax levys.
Aug 11, 2009 2:54 PM
16 Lower property taxes. Please are not making as much money as they used too.
Shring city government more aggressively.
Aug 11, 2009 2:58 PM
17 Make reduce employment costs through employee salary savings, RECESS
(used at the U of M). It allows employees to reduce their work appointment to as
low as 50%, while still receiving the same employer contribution toward medical
and dental benefits that they enjoyed prior to such reduction.
Aug 11, 2009 3:05 PM
18 We pay so much in property taxes now, I would hope that you won't increase
property taxes again. My husband and I don't have kids and got the tax hike with
the referendums that were passed as well the regular tax increase. I would prefer
seeing revenues coming from existing fees and the creation of new
fees/revenues.
Aug 11, 2009 3:10 PM
19 No to property tax increase. Strategic/selective budget reductions would be best
along with employee wage freeze and a hiring freeze.
Aug 11, 2009 3:26 PM
20 Raising taxes is not necessarily a bad thing. If the services are good and effiicient,
it is probably better not to be so tied to the state for budgeting.
Aug 11, 2009 3:32 PM
21 I agree with this approach, focusing on increased revenue through property tax
increase and increased/new fees. Unfortunately, I don't have any innovative
ideas on how to increase revenue.
Aug 11, 2009 3:34 PM
22 Agree city needs to freeze wages/benefits like many of us have been forced to
do.. No increase in property taxes--I must live within my budget and cut outflow
and so should the city!
Aug 11, 2009 3:40 PM
23 The $1.8M estimated shortfall works out to approx. $40 per SLP resident. If we
could ask non-residents, businesses, and the "strategic reductions" to make up
1/2 of that, that would leave approx. $20 per actual SLP resident.
That $20 per year per resident is less than $2 per month per resident...which I
would be more than willing to cover in a variety of ways.
The cost of city utilities and garbage/recycling pick-up could be raised and used
as a income add-in. The charging of fees for some services such as a snow
removal 'service charge' (everyone benefits) or a city-run fiber optics internet
system (No, not a wireless service, but actual fiber optic cabling - with associated
service fees) may also help.
Aug 11, 2009 3:53 PM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 38
4 of 10
Response Text
24 Many in the community are facing their own personal version of the city's problem.
Therefore I think raising property taxes should be the last resort. Many of us have
wage freezes and less ability for things we "want" but don't "need", so I would
expect the city to also selectivly reduce some programs without sacrificing too
much.
Aug 11, 2009 3:54 PM
25 Yes - wage/benefit freeze, staff reductions, selective line item reductions
No - increased property tax levy, creation of new fees.
Aug 11, 2009 4:17 PM
26 take the hit on a budget in the red.It can be hand-up in the future. Don't be a part
of the employment problem, be the solution.Please donot cut wages nor
employees.
I am not an employee of st louis park and currently unemployed. Don't foresake
people for money or budgets. thx Dan
Aug 11, 2009 4:26 PM
27 A bit of all of the above would, perhaps, spread the pain around.Aug 11, 2009 4:39 PM
28 A city employee wage and benefit freeze for 2010 and changes made through
attrition, retirements. We all are experiancing this.
As well as strategic/selective line item budget reductions for 2010.
Aug 11, 2009 4:55 PM
29 >First, hold up on those new "photo op" projects and new buildings that cost
millions, first of all. They really make you look like you "don't get it," and they can
wait a year or two.
>Staff reductions may make sense, but try to focus on the staff in city hall -- we
need the firemen, the cops, and the street workers.
>Do a "zero based" budget for the line items in the budget. None of this "Last
year plus inflation adjustment" baloney which most government departments
seem to use. Each department should justify each penny.
>Fees are too high already, but if the ACTUAL cost of providing a service justifies
it, they should be adjusted. But take a good look at claimed cost.
>Wage/benefit freezes should be applied to the top earners only. The little guys
are struggling as much as the citizens in this economy.
>Any council person who wants to leave the job at the end of his/her term is
welcome to vote for a levy increase. Especially if the assesors don't get real in
the property values they set this year.
>No amount of justification or appearing to look like the council has been "careful"
in its budget plans will fly in my estimation if spending increases this year.
Aug 11, 2009 4:59 PM
30 I'd be happy to pay a touch more in property taxes.Aug 11, 2009 5:03 PM
31 i would like to see more traffic monitoring / ticketing; a fee assessment on use of
cell fones/texting devices in cars' etc.- or a certificate
for usage,..........
Aug 11, 2009 5:13 PM
32 You've already cut most of the help to keep elm trees, I had to pay $750 for two
trees to be treated. I really can't afford a tax increase either.
Aug 11, 2009 5:17 PM
33 I'm concerned about the amount of tax revenue that the city is giving up to
developers. Tax increment financing may seem like a good idea to keep the city
growing, but what it really does is give a handout to the developer, and raise the
property taxes on residents who have to make up for the loss. With the gap we
are facing it sounds like the "modest" increase in taxes will hit the residents again.
It does not make sense that my home has lost over $30,000 in value, yet each of
the last two years my tax bill has increased. The most distressing part of that is
that I really don't receive much in the way of city services. What my taxes used to
pay is now being converted to a fee. Please give consideration to all of those
people who have been laid off - how will they pay their property tax as it is, let
alone an increase. There are also many who, though they still may have a job,
have taken pay cuts. Instead of just a freeze, the city employees should take a
pay cut like everyone else. At my company we were asked to pay another 20%
for health insurance on top of a 10% pay cut.
Aug 11, 2009 5:53 PM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 39
5 of 10
Response Text
34 I'm a liberal democrat saying - NO NEW PROPERTY TAXES!
Fee for service revenues are best.
NEED vs. WANT:
Please ask the question “Is it critical to the basic functioning of SLP?” If people
are honest with themselves, I think they could find many areas that could easily
be cut and not even noticed by most of us. There are always a vocal few who will
make the Council’s life miserable when you take away their favorite items, but
please think about the vast majority of us and ignore them. I’d suggest stop
spending money if we don't have it (new firestations and utility center). Find
minimum cost alternatives that will sufficiently serve the function without all the
bells and whistles.
Reduce services that are not critical and/or are redundant. How many hockey
rinks are actually critical to the functioning of St. Louis Park? Or ice cream
socials, kiddy bands, etc. etc. I work like a dog to keep up with my property taxes
and wish I could even have the time to sit on my patio just once in the summer to
relax. I already pay so much money so other can enjoy their leisure time...
If parents like all those services, let them pay for them. I'm pushed to the brink
paying for their kid’s education – please stop making me pay thru the nose for
everyone else’s leisure activities too.
Please stop sending fancy school calendars (that go straight into the garbage for
the majority of SLP households), parks/rec calendars, etc. Make it available on-
line and/or a very cheap version available at the City offices.
How about underutilized capacity? We have paid firemen with spare time on their
hands I assume? At any for-profit company, those people (receptionists for
example) are given additional duties to do if they are not working on their primary
duties. Isn’t there some city tasks that they could do via computer?
Thank you for listening to my viewpoint – I trust you will make good decisions
either way. Keep up the good work!
Aug 11, 2009 6:22 PM
35 I think all of the above is an excellent list of diverse budget cuts. An increased tax
levy is also a good idea. User fees is an excellent idea and falls on those who
"use" the service and eliminates those who don't but pay somehow anyway.
Aug 11, 2009 6:28 PM
36 Please remember that we have budget problems as well. Any increase in taxes is
an added burden to us. The sales tax, gas tax, & property have recently
increased. Where will it end? Maybe the fees sholud increase so that the people
that want the service has a choice to pay for it or not.
Aug 11, 2009 6:50 PM
37 NO to increased property tax levy. We all have cut back on our personal
spending, and raising taxes is both unpopular and unnecessary. Use all the other
options above. We'll learn to get by with a little less.
Aug 11, 2009 7:49 PM
38 Reorganization of current staff needs and numbers along with some line item
reductions would be my preferred direction. Property tax levy would be my last
choice.
Aug 11, 2009 8:13 PM
39 Cutting expenses is always good. My property taxes are already higher than
friends of mine with similar houses. This is a nice city, and I'm in a fantastic
location and would like to keep it that way, but I'd like to see cuts. If there aren't
any cuts, just more money from the residents, the city wouldn't be doing it's job. It
needs to manage money, not just spend it.
Aug 11, 2009 9:23 PM
40 tax increases are absolutely not an option. we are struggling too. companies are
having to cut back, so why shouldn't the government? my company had both
wage freezes and layoffs and I think the government employees should too.
Aug 11, 2009 9:45 PM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 40
6 of 10
Response Text
41 Please define new fees/revenues?
Line item budget reductions sound good, will there be a roll back on community
services, and or new projects? Is there anything currently being planned that can
be put on hold until the economy recovers?
Please define "modest increase in property tax levy" how much is modest?
Will the entire budget be available for a public viewing/debate prior to being
passed?
Aug 11, 2009 10:19 PM
42 At the very least, a wage and benefit freeze would be appropriate for city
employees. This has happened to every working person I know who is not self-
employed.
Aug 11, 2009 10:32 PM
43 I work in the private sector and have had my salary frozen two out of the last three
years. I strongly support a freeze for city employees as well as revisions in their
benefir plans. Staff reductions through attrition and retirement would contribute
additional savings. I strongly oppose an increase in the property tax levy as I've
seen an increase in each of the past few years with no apparent improvement in
services provided by the city. I definitely am interested in seeing potential line item
budget reductions.
Aug 11, 2009 10:59 PM
44 If you pay the groups which perform the summer concerts, consider shortening
the season. Perhaps eliminate the Wednesday concerts or cut out August
concerts. Perhaps the amount is small, but a combination of small savings can
add up. Some increase in fees could be considered. Look at projects to see
whether they are really necessary such as the signs at the entrance to the city.
They may be nice, but don't build any more. This is an example of a luxury which
could be cut. Does the playground equipment need to be replaced as often as it
is currently? If you could use it for an additional year without affecting safety, this
is something worth considering. Consider cutting back on money to neighborhood
groups. I have enjoyed going to several neighborhood picnics. Is is necessary for
the city to subsidize parties.
Aug 11, 2009 11:21 PM
45 I have to say I am frustrated that every time I see a city vehicle it looks brand new.
I don't know if you lease the vehicles (the most expensive way to drive!) or are
constantly buying new, but my husband and I drive 10 and 9 year old cars,
respectively. They look nice and don't come anywhere near a car payment to
maintain. It won't be millions saved, but we need to look at every penny... most
people are these days.
Aug 11, 2009 11:40 PM
46 NO more tax levies on property owners Aug 12, 2009 12:06 AM
47 Can we NOT have an increase in the property tax levy?? Line item budget
reductions should be adequate. My main concern is that the Police, Firefighters,
and Dispatchers don't suffer too bad from budget cuts.
Aug 12, 2009 1:43 AM
48 I believe a review of the budget and any stategic and selective budget reductions
should be the starting point. Although we all are encouraged about pending
promotion opportunities and advancement, I believe a wage an benefit freeze for
2010 is in order. Many people in other employment sectors are going through the
same situation, so the govt. employees should not feel singled out. Lastly, a
modest property tax increase would be OK.
Aug 12, 2009 2:17 AM
49 What does "modest" mean? I don't want to see my property taxes raised - I'm
already trying to keep my head above water and worrying about layoffs myself.
Give us a specific number or % so that we can weigh what "modest" means for
our own financial viability. Thanks!
Aug 12, 2009 2:32 AM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 41
7 of 10
Response Text
50 I agree with some of the measures noted above. They seem to mirror the
economic environment that we all are facing with wage freezes and job cuts. I'm
not sure that it is fair to the residents of our community to increase their tax
burden when they are facing the issues I noted above. Most companies are
forced to only spend the funds that are available to them. With regard to the
selective budget reductions, I might suggest considering the cut of some "luxury"
type projects such as artistic components of street and sidewalk
maintenance/development. Also, I might suggest a more rigorous due diligence
process in considering projects to avoid the complete failure of the solar powered
internet project.
Aug 12, 2009 3:36 AM
51 I have provided my feedback after each of the bullet points that were listed on this
budget feedback form. Thank you for making it easy and convenient for residents
to provide feedback!
-- A city employee wage and benefit freeze for 2010 (I agree with this approach as
most private companies and employees are going through the same thing to stay
afloat. The city / gov't should not be any different)
-- Staff reductions/changes made through attrition, retirements, reorganization,
reassignments or layoffs
(I also agree with this - same as above)
-- Increased revenues from existing fees and the creation of new fees/revenues (I
don't like this idea. Any other business does not raise their rates or impose extra
fees on their customers...they would lose their customers. Costs need to be cut in
order to come in on or under budget)
-- Strategic/selective line item budget reductions (this makes perfect sense)
-- A modest increase in the property tax levy (No way. Pay extra and only receive
what we are already receiving?? How would this make sense? Again, in most
other businesses this model would not work - you would lose your
customers...think about it)
Aug 12, 2009 5:59 PM
52 As many companies are undergoing wage freezes, that would be one of my
suggestions on saving costs, this way, city employees can still keep their jobs. As
an HR professional, other companies are requiring one week or so of unpaid
vacation per year to cut costs, but at least it is planned so people can incorporate
this into their personal budget. It would be nice to know what the line items are,
that the city is considering decreasing so I could better comment on this. I think
as much money as possible should still be spent on schools and community
development. The property taxes are increasing a great deal every year, so it
would be nice to take a break from higher increases than normal.
Aug 13, 2009 1:16 AM
53 All good ideas. Consider ticketing for environmental violations such as running
lawn mowers on days with air quality warnings (like today), enact "no idling"
legislation and ticket offenders--could accomplish a cleaner environment and
make money in the process. Air quality in St. Louis Park is getting worse.
Another suggestion: mandatory time off for city employees without pay(if
everyone did a little it would help)
Set up a system where residents could donate to keep programs going (eg; great
tree service dept)
Aug 13, 2009 3:56 AM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 42
8 of 10
Response Text
54 SLP is a great city to live in, and I would not want to see budget cuts that
dramatically impact the quality of life we have here. I would encourage the city to
consider its top priorities and ensure they are funded adequately.
Then consider some other expenses - I think the city could run leaner. For
example, are we really getting a better deal with hybrid cars when they are are 2-3
times more expensive than an efficient gas vehicle? Green is good but this
practice doesn't make financial sense to me. Are there services that can be
contracted out or done with part time people for less? What services might
citizen's live without or with less of: less mowing in the parks, no ice rinks, can
another year or two be squeezed out of a piece of equipment? Do the city
vehicles all need to be that yellow/orange color - what's wrong with factory white
and a logo?
My company reviewed its priorities, cut some "fat", and held off on some
purchases. We're doing better than I thought we would with the changes and we
will almost certainly survive the recession.
Aug 13, 2009 8:05 PM
55 My recommendation is a combination of the following:
- A city employee wage and benefit freeze for 2010
-- Staff reductions/changes made through attrition, retirements, reorganization,
reassignments or layoffs
-- Strategic/selective line item budget reductions
I work in the private sector and these are the solutions that we have employed in
order to cut our budget.
One a personal note. I have not received a raise due to these actions by my
employer, so an increase in property tax, even though modest reduces my
disposable income, which reduces my spending, which in turn doesn't help the
economic recovery.
Aug 15, 2009 11:59 AM
56 I support a modest increase in the property tax levy. I want to maintain the great
service provided the outstanding officials and staff of SLP.
Thank you
Aug 15, 2009 12:37 PM
57 I am in a wage freeze at work, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. However that
is the reality. Strategic/selective line item budget reductions are good because
they force you to look at the reality of what benefit is derived from each item.
Scrutiny at that level could find things that are left after the low-hanging fruit is all
gone. I am against a property tax levy. Save that for the schools!
Attrition/retirement positions left open save money. Go for that one.
Aug 15, 2009 4:11 PM
58 I am willing to pay a modest amount more in fees and taxes to support local
government.
Aug 16, 2009 6:03 PM
59 I would prefer the city wage and benefit freeze rather than staff reductions.
Please consider line item budget reductions rather than increasing current fees or
adding fees.
I would not support an increase in the property tax considering all the new
business and multiple housing developments in the city.
Aug 17, 2009 3:46 PM
60 Cutting services should be the last resort. Second to that is an increase in the
property tax levy.
Wage and benefit freeze for 2010 makes sense. Staffing - City Council needs to
look at making reductions via attrition and re-organization; layoffs should be a last
resort.
A modest increase in existing fees and a limited amount of new fees is definitely
something that should be examined.
Aug 27, 2009 2:40 PM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 43
9 of 10
Response Text
61 Wage freezes are a dangerous precedent and they limit the spending capacity of
the employees. If what we need is more people putting money into our economy
then our city employees need a minimum of a cost of living increase. IF there are
efficiencies that can be made in staff levels do that. Increasing fees is not
desirable as it often prices out the most neediest. Again searching for efficiencies
in terms of cuts is preferable.
Aug 29, 2009 7:03 PM
62 It's such a difficult thing to balance wage freezes, staff reductions and fee/revenue
increases. Each of these is some real financial pain to someone. I know that I
feel St Louis Park is a great city to live in because of the great services we
receive. I wish I had the "right" answer to make this process easier.
Sep 4, 2009 5:07 PM
63 Since I have not received a raise in the past 20 months, and do not anticipate
getting one anytime soon, I would greatly appreciate the City's leaders to consider
no raises in taxes for 2010. I would greatly appreciate the City do it's very best to
allow me to work hard to provide for my family. If taxes continue to rise as they
have for the past several years, I will be forced to move to a community that
doesn't spend so much on non-necessary items such as art centers, new ball
parks with concrete at fencing, etc. We need to scrutinize all spending and cut
out anything unnecessary, especially when considering that our state and federal
taxes will likely be going up as well in 2010. Our community is wonderful because
we have great, hard working people here in SLP. Unfortunately, many people
here are not millionaires and cannot continue to afford large government at all
levels. I ask you with all seriousness and consideration to help out the families of
SLP by reducing the expense of living in SLP by any means possible. Thank you!
Sep 9, 2009 9:07 PM
64 Wage and benefit freeze seems reasonable.Sep 17, 2009 9:10 PM
65 Test Message Sep 17, 2009 9:12 PM
66 It is alright to raise taxes and fees a bit.Sep 17, 2009 9:49 PM
67 Have you, or do you intend to retire any of the TIF Districts, so the money
generated will accrue to the City? Minneapolis has received positive media
coverage for doing so. Will our feedback/comments be responded to or listed so
we can all share?
Sep 19, 2009 3:25 PM
68 Personally, I see that sidewalk plow on Minnetonka Blvd or Dakota or any of the
main thoroughfares as a huge waste of tax dollars. It does not do a decent job
and the sidewalks are nearly impassable for a large portion of the winter. By
holding the residents and businesses accountable to the same standards as
residents on the side streets in regards to snow removal, the sidewalks would be
safer and the city would save money. For the stretches without businesses or
residences, perhaps contract with the Hennepin County STS program and have
those individuals performing community service take care of the snow removal.
Sep 22, 2009 1:36 PM
69 Fiddling Phil Finkelstein should play his fiddle more and lead us all to financial
prosperity!
Sep 22, 2009 5:26 PM
70 Yes, wage and benefits freeze. Please, I have given back 10% and lost 401k
match this year. The city needs to act more like a business and be responsive to
the realities of its citizens. We can't just pay more fees.
Sep 23, 2009 12:27 AM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 44
10 of 10
Response Text
71 My guess is that employee benefits are a substantial expense to the city. All
benefits should be brought in line with those being provided in the private sector
... and must factor in that benefits packages in the private sector are probably
being decreased. Strong positions on contract negotiations may be required ...
and should be very public.
It's also provide to implement metrics for measuring initiatives and on-going
service offerings ... and published for citizen review.
While citizens should not be allowed to micromanage city affairs, accountability
and transparency are very important ... and can help citizens see what they are
getting for their tax dollars. Right now ... I don't think we have that kind of visibility
and perspective.
Sep 23, 2009 2:24 AM
72 City employee wage and benefit freeze (except for police and firefighters) is good.
The following should also be cut, it is not the purpose of city government to
provide funds for these purposes. If they are worthwhile, a private individual or
business will fund them: arts and culture, home remodeling loans, and community
tv. Just because something is a good idea, does not mean taxpayers should be
forced to pay for it.
Sep 29, 2009 12:46 AM
73 I read the City Council study session report. I appreciate the work that the city
staff and officials are doing on our behalf. I don't have any specific
recommendations. However my gut tells me that there are services the city
provides, that we citizens appreciate, but take for granted due to a lack of
understanding of bottom line cost. Perhaps there are services that can be
provided by a citizen volunteer force - sort of a SLP civil corp. There are likely
successful city programs in this state and nation that we can emulate that have
cut costs by reducing city provided services and supplemented them with citizen
involvement.
Sep 30, 2009 7:13 PM
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 45
New Fees
Fee Study
As part of the 2010 budget preparation, staff conducted a review of existing fees and also reviewed
fees charged by other cities. In conducting its review, Directors have made some recommendations
on possible new fees. Staff will be available at the meeting on October 12th to briefly review the ideas
for new fees as outlined below.
We would like to know if Council is interested in pursuing any of the fee options listed in this
report. If directed by Council, staff would return with more information including a more detailed
outline of a program and a timeline for implementation.
Fee Options
Business License Re-inspection Fee
Re-inspection fees are used in some cities, like Minneapolis, when a license holder fails to comply
with a correction order and multiple inspections are required to ensure compliance. This fee would
only be charged when excessive re-inspections of a property are required. Repeated inspections are
costly to the city so these fees are designed to recoup re-inspection costs and are also used as an
incentive to comply. No fee would be charged for the initial inspection or re-inspection of the
property. The Council would need to adopt an ordinance authorizing the city to impose this fee.
Proposed fee: Staff has not developed a fee for this option; any new fee should cover or offset the
cost of the re-inspection(s). If Council wants to staff to pursue this, staff would propose an hourly
rate or a flat fee.
False Fire Alarm Fees
False alarms have a uniform fee regardless if it is a false fire alarm or a home security system failure.
Commercial and residential users are also charged the same rates. The current fee of $90, which is
proposed to increase to $100 in 2010, does not adequately cover the fire department costs to
respond to a false fire alarm. Other cities, such as Plymouth, have separate fees for both types of
false alarm responses and increase the fee based on the number of false alarms in one year.
If the fee were to increase, it would be important to educate fire alarm holders about the importance
of maintaining their fire alarm systems. It would be detrimental to health and safety if owners were
to disable malfunctioning systems to avoid paying fees to the city. The Council would need to
amend the current ordinance authorizing the city to impose this fee.
Proposed Fee: Fire Service Fee for fully-equipped and staffed vehicles as set forth in Appendix A
($500 per hour for a ladder truck; $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck).
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 46
Personal Injury (PI) Accident Response Fees
There is growing interest in cities across the county to institute accident response fees to recover the
actual cost of providing emergency services at vehicle accident scenes. The City currently charges for
emergency response to hazardous material spills and railroad right of way incidents. In 2003 the
State Legislature gave cities authority to impose fees for emergency services. Several cities in the
metro area currently charge for response to vehicle accident scenes e.g. Richfield, Edina, Burnsville,
and Minneapolis. To proceed with this fee, the City Council would need to adopt an ordinance
authorizing the city to impose this fee.
Proposed Fee: More information or analysis needed.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 47
Administrative Fees and Penalties
Staff is requesting more specific direction from the City Council on how to proceed with this
concept. Is the Council interested in developing a program for Administrative penalties for
violations of City Codes? Is the Council interested in developing a program for Administrative
penalty process for specific low-level traffic violations?
Administrative Fees and Penalties Study
The purpose of the city’s administrative penalty, which is set forth in Section 1-14 of the City Code,
is “…intended to provide the public and the city with an informal, cost effective and expeditious
alternative to traditional criminal charges for violations of certain ordinance provisions. In 2001, the
City Council adopted this process for the following violations:
Failure to remove snow from sidewalk
Failure to allow access by City for inspection or meter reading
Failure to comply with water restrictions
Failure to make utility repair as ordered by City.
Each of these violations carries a $25 fine and subsequent late fee of 10%. The city did not issue any
administrative penalties or citations for any of the above in 2008-09. Rather, staff has relied on
education to encourage compliance.
Administrative penalties, if adopted by a City Council, can also be used for violations of City Codes,
including property complaints, parking violations, animal control and other matters. While St. Louis
Park has the authority in ordinance to administer administrative penalties, other than the
aforementioned violations, expanded use of this process has not been the city’s practice.
The state legislature passed into law (Minn. Stat. § 169.14) a provision for cities to use an
administrative penalty process for specific low-level traffic violations. The penalty is issued as a $60
citation, $20 of which goes to the state and $40 is retained by the city (50% is dedicated to law
enforcement). Examples of eligible traffic violations include speeding (less than 10 mph over the
speed limit), stop line violations, and equipment violations. The city is not required to issue traffic
citations and the revenue cannot be used to offset or supplant the budget. The City Attorney has
advised staff that several steps would need to be taken before the Council could use the
administrative penalty process for traffic and Code violations.
The following is a list of issues to consider as it relates to expanding the city’s administrative penalty
process:
May provide additional revenue to cover cost of administration and enforcement of specified
City Codes; may result in additional expenditures for process.
Could be used as another tool to encourage compliance with City Code
Possible reduction in civil attorney/court fees – administrative process may be less costly to
administer. While not all Code violations would be appropriate for an administrative penalty
process, it could encourage Code corrections earlier in the notification process.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 48
From a timing perspective, 2010 would be used to prepare for the implementation of the process
in 2011. Costs to implement may include but are not limited to development of the
framework, amending the city’s Code and Charter, creating the citation and financial collection
process, reporting to the state (traffic only), and selecting a list of independent hearing
examiners.
Time needed for education and communication
Determine staff resources to develop and manage the administrative penalty process
Training for staff.
For comparative purposes of other types of civil penalties, staff has collected information from
Bloomington, Minnetonka, Coon Rapids and West St. Paul. This information is shown as an
attachment to this report.
Next Steps
St. Louis Park’s Administrative Penalty process is in Section 1-14 of the City Code (attached). It
allows the city to charge a person administrative offense for any violation of the Code. It is a
voluntary process on the part of the person who was charged. However, the city does not use
administrative penalties at this time. Before it could be administered, the process would need to be
developed and fees set by Council.
If the Council directs staff to pursue administrative traffic citations as a policy, there are a number of
steps that need to happen:
Identify eligible violations: Staff would need to identify the Code violation that would be
enforced through administrative fees and develop corresponding fees for each. Not all violations
of City Code are good candidates for administrative penalties.
Develop process for hearing appeals: City Code 1-14 allows the city to administer
administrative penalties. Under the current ordinance, appeals go directly to the City Manager
or his designee. However, traffic citation appeals must go to a neutral third party hearing officer.
The City Attorney has advised that the city would need to revise this ordinance if Council wants
to proceed with traffic citations.
Determine location for program: The administrative penalty program would need to be set up
and housed at some location yet to be determined.
Take Council action: The Council must pass a resolution authorizing the police department to
issue administrative traffic citations and the resolution must establish the parameters of the
program. This resolution is sent to the Commissioner of Revenue.
Create communication/education materials: The city needs to develop communication materials,
educate and train staff and others as needed.
Frame citation processing and oversight: We would need to purchase state citation forms,
submit the state’s fines to the Commissioner of Revenue, manage the bookkeeping and work
with the State Auditor’s Office on program oversight.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 49
Explore possible Charter change: Per the City Attorney, Council may want to consider allowing
administrative penalties of the City Code to be assessed to the property for non-payment which
will require a Charter amendment.
Attachments: Examples from other cities
CAP Table – Coon Rapids
Section 1-14 of the City Code
MN Statute 169.999 Sec. 4. Administrative Citations for Certain Traffic Offenses
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 50
Examples from other Cities
Bloomington
What: The City of Bloomington uses administrative fines for the following violations of City Code:
fire prevention, fires and false alarms, open burning restrictions, vehicles, parking, refuse, public
nuisances, noise, weeds, recycling, firearms, graffiti, smoking, business licenses, building, sign,
swimming pools, streets, wells and private sewer systems, improper display of sexually oriented
materials, development standards, shore line regulations, anti-blight standings, zoning districts and
standards, and trees.
How: Citations can be issued by the Police Department (officers, animal control), Building
Department (Manager, inspectors, program coordinators, plan check engineers), Environmental
Health Department (Manager, program coordinators, specialists and aides), Three River Park
District employees (parking enforcement), Fire Department (Fire Chief, marshal and fire
inspectors), and the License Examiner.
Bloomington is not required to send letters prior to issuing citations but the city’s goal is
compliance. In most cases Bloomington has made several attempts to work with the property owner
before it issues citations. Most violators pay their fines on time or Bloomington will assess the fine
and a late fee to the property for non-payment. The city’s citation program does not exclude the city
from pursuing criminal charges for the violation for non-correction or ongoing violations.
Occasionally the city will use the fees collected for the violation toward corrective measures.
Hearing/appeal: Offenders can appeal their citation through a mediation process, of which they pay
half of the cost, or through the Citation appeals process which is administered through an
independent hearing officer. Fines for administrative fees are adopted by the City Council.
Estimated additional revenue: The city is not able to project revenue because the number of
citations varies each year. Property citations are as follows; 2006 – 35; 2007 - 22 property citations;
2008 - 11 property citations. For 2009, the city has issued 23 property citations to date. The
minimum fee is $100; maximum fee is $1,000.
Estimated cost or staffing to run program: None—it’s part of the city’s environmental health
operations.
Coon Rapids
What: The Citizen Awareness Project (CAP) is similar to Hennepin County’s Administrative
Hearing Officer program in that it gives citizens who receive a ticket an opportunity to avoid
conviction. Similar to other types of diversion programs, CAP participants must apply to
participate, complete an educational program and pay a fee to the city and state. In return, the
ticket is dismissed if the person remains law abiding. Fees range from $25 for plate/tab display
violations to $250 for no insurance/no proof of insurance. As of July 1, program participants are
also required to pay a state surcharge $75 in addition to the CAP fee.
How: CAP is run by the city’s in-house legal counsel and is available to persons with clean driving
records who have been given a ticket for a CAP eligible offense. Types of tickets that can be
dismissed if a participant completes CAP include, but are not limited to, speeding (0-14 miles over
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 51
the speed limit, animal at large, no proof of insurance, and expired driver’s license. Staff has
attached the Coon Rapids’ CAP Eligibility/Requirements Table for more information. Participants
agree to complete the program and sign a contract that if they reoffend, their case will be reopened
and the paid fees forfeited.
Hearing/appeal: Participants volunteer to participate in CAP. If they disagree with the ticket they
can still pay their ticket and accept the charge or proceed to court.
Estimated additional revenue: Based on information from the Star Tribune, the program has
generated $112,000 since the program was incepted in February, 2009. Participation in the
program has decreased since the state added an additional $75 surcharge to the program in July.
Estimated cost or staffing to run program: The city has not needed to add additional staff to run the
program and the only capital cost was to install a dedicated computer terminal outside of the Legal
Department for CAP participants to watch the education videos. CAP fees cover the cost of the
administering the program.
Minnetonka
What: Minnetonka uses their administrative penalties when violators do not comply with correction
notices. They are not planning to implement the recently adopted administrative traffic citations
because their officers issue speeding tickets only when the driver exceeds 10 mph above the speed
limit.
How: Police (CSO’s) and Environmental Health issue the majority of citations in Minnetonka.
Minnetonka uses their administrative penalty process to encourage compliance with City Code. If
the citation process is completed and if the violation is not corrected, fines remain unpaid or if there
are recurring issues, the city can pursue enforcement through the court system.
Hearing/appeal: Offenders can request an appeal through Minnetonka’s city court process. An
independent hearing examiner, who is assigned from a list of attorneys maintained by the city,
oversees the appeals process. City court is not used much because most people pay their fines.
Minnetonka sends up to 4 letters to violators who do not pay fines and they collect fines through
assessing it people’s property, issuing warrants, and criminal court.
Estimated additional revenue: In 2008, Minnetonka issued 32 citations, resulting in $3,200 in paid
fines.
Estimated cost or staffing to run program: The cost of hearings for 2008 was $450. Additional costs
for administration are minimal (less than one hour/week unless there is a hearing) and the costs to
other city staff to prepare for a hearing.
West St. Paul
What: West St. Paul adopted their Administrative Citation ordinance in March 2009 as an
alternative to enforcing violations of City Code, including but not limited to building, public health,
animal, licensing, traffic, rental license program, and zoning codes.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 52
How: Citations can be issued by the Police Department (officers, animal control, reserves and
CSO’s), Building Department (Inspectors, Building Official, Code Enforcement Officers), the
Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, City Clerk, City Engineer and the
South Metro Fire Department (Fire Chief, Fire Marshal and inspectors).
For most violations, the city sends a compliance letter before issuing a citation. This is not required
for repeat violations within 12 months or for the following code violations: traffic, parking,
obstructed fire hydrants or fire lanes, noise, animal, or licenses.
For all other violations, the city mails out a compliance letter requiring that the violation be
corrected by a certain date. If the violation is not corrected by said date, the city will issue a citation
via mail or in-person. Fines for the violations are adopted by City Council and are due within 30
days from the date of issuance. If not paid, they can be assessed against the property. The city has
the ability to send citations every 30 days for non-compliance, up to a maximum fee of $2,000. If
corrective action and fines are not paid, the city will refer the case to district court.
Hearing/appeal: The offender has 10 days to appeal the citation to the City Clerk and the appeal
process is managed by an independent hearing examiner. Decisions by the hearing examiner are
final and can only be appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Estimated additional revenue: The city adopted this program in March 2009 so 2008 revenue data
is not available. Prior to developing the ordinance the city relied on Dakota County Community
Court for housing/code violations (court sunset in January 2009).
Estimated cost or staffing to run program: Since implementation the city has scheduled four hearing
to appeal the citation. No new staff was hired to run the program – staff time spread out amongst
staff.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 53
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 54
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 55
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 56
St. Louis Park City Code – Section 1-14
Sec. 1-14. Administrative penalties.
(a) Purpose.
(1) Administrative offense procedures established pursuant to this section are intended to provide
the public and the city with an informal, cost effective and expeditious alternative to traditional
criminal charges for violations of certain ordinance provisions.
(2) The procedures are intended to be voluntary on the part of those who have been charged with
administrative offenses. At any time prior to the payment of the administrative penalty as is
provided for hereafter, the individual may withdraw from participation in the procedures in
which event the city may bring criminal charges in accordance with law. Likewise, the city, in
its discretion, may choose not to initiate an administrative offense and may bring criminal
charges in the first instance.
(3) In the event a party participates in the administrative offense procedures but does not pay the
monetary penalty which may be imposed, the city will seek to collect the costs of the
administrative offense procedures as part of a subsequent criminal sentence in the event the
party is charged and is adjudicated guilty of the criminal violation.
(b) Administrative offense defined. An administrative offense is a violation of a provision of this
Code and is subject to the administrative penalties set forth in the schedule of offenses and penalties
referred to in subsection (h), hereafter.
(c) Notice. Any person employed by the city, authorized in writing by the city manager, shall, upon
determining that there has been a violation, notify the violator, or in the case of a vehicular violation,
attach to the vehicle a notice of the violation. Said notice shall set forth the nature, date and time of
violation, the name of the official issuing the notice and the amount of the scheduled penalty.
(d) Payment. Once such notice is given, the alleged violator may, within seven days of the time of
issuance of the notice, pay the amount set forth on the schedule of penalties for the violation. The penalty
may be paid in person or by mail, and payment shall be deemed to be an admission of the violation.
(e) Appeal. Any person who is required by the city to pay an administrative penalty may make a
written appeal of the penalty to the city manager, or designee, within seven days of notice by the city of
the penalty. The city manager, or designee, will have authority to reduce the fine or determine whether the
appellant is to be charged with a penalty.
(f) Failure to pay. In the event a party charged with an administrative offense fails to pay the penalty,
a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charge may be brought against the alleged violator in accordance
with applicable statutes.
(g) Disposition of penalties. All penalties collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to the city
and may be deposited in the city's general fund.
(h) Offenses and penalties. Offenses which may be charged as administrative offenses and the
penalties for such offenses may be established by resolution of the city council from time to time and
listed in appendix A to this Code.
(i) Subsequent offenses. In the event a party is charged with a subsequent administrative offense
within a 12-month period of paying a penalty for the same or substantially similar offense, the subsequent
administrative penalty shall be increased by $10.00 above the previous administrative penalty.
(Ord. No. 2215-01, 11-19-2001)
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 57
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 58
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 59
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 3)
Subject: 2010 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)Page 60
Meeting Date: October 12, 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:
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: October 12, 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:
Surface Water Management Plan Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with information and
an update regarding the proposed revisions to the City’s Surface Water Management Plan. . The
current schedule is to request Council approval of the Plan on October 19. However, if the City
Council has questions or concerns regarding the Plan, this matter can be scheduled to be discussed at
a study session. Please let staff know if this is desired.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed revisions to the City’s Surface Water
Management Plan?
The proposed plan does not set a new overall policy direction from what currently exists. The Plan
contains a number of goals and policies required and advised by the many agencies that govern
surface water management, as noted below, and are intended to improve overall water quality and
meet all water regulations.
BACKGROUND:
In 2001, the City adopted a Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. This Plan is a
component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan was developed to meet watershed
management planning requirements of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act. It was
also developed to be in conformance with the requirements of the local watershed management
organizations, Hennepin County programs, Metropolitan Council requirements, Hennepin
Conservation District guidelines, and applicable State and Federal laws.
Cities are required to update their surface water management plans within 2 years of the date that a
watershed management organization within the city adopts a new or revised surface water
management plan. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission completed its Second
Generation Watershed Management Plan in September 2004. At that time, the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District was working on its Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, which
they eventually adopted in July, 2007. As a result, the City Council authorized the retaining of Barr
Engineering on April 28, 2008 to provide the professional services needed for the city to update its
Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) in accordance with regulations.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan Update
Highlights of Plan Update
Since 2001, a variety of new federal and state requirements have been passed on to watersheds and
cities through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The resulting regulations and
requirements have led to the following specific requirements for the City of St. Louis Park and other
similar cities:
• Preparation of the MS4 General Storm Water Permit Application and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Program. This requirement is a part of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations which cover a very broad spectrum
of storm water related issues.
• Preparation of a Loading Assessment and Nondegradation Report which addresses
requirements relating to the limiting of specific pollutant loadings to water bodies (such
as phosphorus).
• Preparation of an implementation program to address the means of conforming to and
reaching the water quality requirements spelled out in the SWMP.
• Preparation of future updates to the MS4 permit and SWMP to address the
requirements of future Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analyses.
In summary, the City’s existing SWMP (approved in 2001) dealt primarily with flooding and
drainage issues. The revised SWMP maintains the importance of these earlier issues, but also
addresses the many water quality related issues and regulations that cities are now required to include
in their plans.
Current Status
Staff has worked with Barr Engineering to complete a draft update to the SWMP. It has been sent
to the water management organizations (WMOs) for a 60 day review period, as well as to the Met
Council and Hennepin County for a 45 day review period. Adjoining cities have received a courtesy
copy. Comments have been received and responded to, and the SWMP has been revised as
necessary. Overall, comments were minor and the plan was well-received. Both WMOs (Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District and Bassett Creek Water Management Commission) have approved the
plan. Unless desired to be discussed at a study session, the Council will be asked to approve the
SWMP at the next regular meeting on October 19, 2009. To review the complete Surface Water
Management Plan, please visit http://www.stlouispark.org/comprehensive_plan.htm and click on
Appendix C. The Executive Summary gives an overview of the plan and covers the main goals and is
attached to this report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To date, Barr has expended almost all of the $79,900 consulting fee approved by Council on April
28, 2008. The cost is being funded from the Development Fund which is being used to pay for the
cost of updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
In terms of future storm water improvements, the plan does not require any activities above and
beyond what is required by the various agencies, rules, regulations and statutes.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan Update
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This SWMP update complements the following area of the recently completed Vision process:
Environmental Stewardship
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.
- Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best
practices.
Attachments: Surface Water Management Plan – Executive Summary
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Adam Fulton, Assistant Planner
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Executive Summary
City of St. Louis Park Surface Water Management Plan
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan – Executive Summary Page 4
Executive Summary
Located in Hennepin County just west of Minneapolis, the 10.7 square mile city of St. Louis Park is
a fully developed suburban community. The population of St. Louis Park is approximately 44,400
residents, making it the 20th largest city in Minnesota. St. Louis Park contains a variety of physical
and water resources including several wetlands and small lakes, wooded areas, parks, and recreational
lands, as well as the Minnehaha Creek corridor.
Two watershed management organizations (WMOs) cover St. Louis Park, each with its own
governing body: the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) and the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD).
In 2001, the city developed the City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan.
That document established a stormwater management plan for the city, integrating flood control
with wetland and water quality needs.
This Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) is a local water management plan prepared in
accordance with Minnesota Statute 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410 and is intended to replace
the 2001 plan. The purpose of this SWMP includes those purposes given in Minnesota Statute
103B.201 for metropolitan water management programs. According to statute, the purposes of
these water management programs are to:
• Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
• Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems;
• Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater
quality;
• Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater
management;
• Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
• Promote groundwater recharge;
• Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
• Secure the other benefits associated with proper management of surface and ground water.
This plan meets the policies and requirements of each of the watershed management organizations
within the city, and other local, state, and federal agencies.
The St. Louis Park SWMP sets the course for the city’s management of the water resources and
stormwater within the city. The SWMP sets goals and policies for the city and its resources,
provides data and other background information, assesses city-wide and specific issues, and lists
implementation tasks to achieve the goals. The SWMP also provides information regarding the
funding of the implementation program. The SWMP is organized into six major chapters as
follows:
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan – Executive Summary Page 5
Executive Summary
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Goals and Policies
Chapter 3 Physical Environment Inventory
Chapter 4 Assessment of Issues
Chapter 5 Implementation Program
Chapter 6 References
The city’s NPDES MS4 Permit requirements have led to the following specific requirements for the
City of St. Louis Park:
1. Preparation of the MS4 General Storm Water Permit Application and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP).
2. Preparation of a Loading Assessment and Nondegradation Report.
3. Preparation of this Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP).
4. Preparation of future updates to the MS4 permit and SWMP to address the requirements of
future TMDL analyses.
As well as meeting the requirements of its NPDES MS4 Permit, the City of St. Louis Park actively
and progressively manages stormwater to protect life, property, waterbodies within the city, and
receiving waters outside the city. Chapter 2 of the Plan presents the city’s goals and policies toward
meeting these goals. The following paragraphs summarize the key goals from Chapter 2.
Surface Water Quality Goals:
1. Manage surface water resources within the city of St. Louis Park, with input from the
public, so that the beneficial uses of wetlands, lakes, and streams remain available to the
community. Such uses may include aesthetic appreciation, wildlife observation,
swimming, boating, or others.
2. Maintain or improve the quality of water in lakes, wetlands, streams, or rivers within or
immediately downstream of the city of St. Louis Park.
3. Manage surface water on a regional basis to protect designated water bodies and meet
regional water quality standards in concert with the watershed organizations and the
Metropolitan Council.
4. Reduce illicit discharge to the city’s storm sewers and receiving waters.
5. Work to meet the phosphorous load reductions required by the city’s NPDES permit,
the BCWMC, and the MCWD for the city of St. Louis Park.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan – Executive Summary Page 6
Policies in this section address topics such as local, state, and federal water regulations, non-
degradation and TMDL issues, and watershed management organization (WMO) requirements. The
city’s policies require the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and include
continuing public education to preserve surface water resources within the city.
Stream Goals:
1. Maintain or enhance the natural beauty, public access, and wildlife habitat value of
streams running through the city of St. Louis Park.
2. Implement stream restoration measures wherever feasible to maintain health, safety, and
ecological integrity.
3. Minimize the volume of stormwater runoff entering streams.
Under these goals, policies include evaluating opportunities to increase recreation opportunities,
reducing runoff from impervious surfaces, and cooperating with the watershed management
organizations to implement stream restoration projects.
Wetlands Goal:
1. Protect and restore wetlands to improve or maintain their functions and values in
accordance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and the city’s Wetland
Management Plan.
Policies associated with the wetland goal reflect the continuing role of the MCWD and BCWMC as
the local government units (LGUs) responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act.
The policies of the city conform to and support the rules and regulations of the WMOs.
Surface Water Quantity and Flooding Goals:
1. Manage the rate and volume of runoff entering rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands
within the city of St. Louis Park.
2. Manage floodplain areas to minimize flooding and protect the functions of the
floodplain.
3. Protect the public from flooding through measures that ensure public safety and prevent
inundation of occupied structures.
4. Minimize flooding potential in a cost-effective manner.
Under these goals, city policies require compliance with the stormwater standards and criteria of the
WMOs and this SWMP. Policies also address issues such as stormwater system maintenance,
floodplain management, and minimum building elevations.
Groundwater Goals:
1. Protect groundwater quality and quantity to preserve it for sustainable and beneficial
purposes.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan – Executive Summary Page 7
2. Manage surface water runoff in order to meet requirements for groundwater protection
from Hennepin County, the MPCA, or the MDH.
The city’s policies regarding groundwater include the continued implementation of the city’s
Wellhead Protection Plan, the promotion of infiltration BMPs, and cooperation with other agencies
to promote the protection and monitoring of groundwater resources.
Erosion and Sedimentation Goal:
1. Prevent sediment from entering the city’s surface water resources and to minimize and
control the erosion and sedimentation in drainage ways within the city.
Under this goal, the SWMP includes policies regarding the submission of erosion and sediment
control plans, compliance with WMO policies, inspection, and proper construction site debris
storage and waste disposal.
Recreation, Habitat, and Shoreland Management Goals:
1. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat within the city of St. Louis Park.
2. Maintain and enhance recreational facilities within the city of St. Louis Park.
3. Preserve or enhance the ecological function of shoreland areas within the city of St.
Louis Park.
Policies in this section include encouraging the maintenance of natural open spaces and riparian
buffers, limiting excavation near water bodies, and cooperating with other agencies to promote the
use and protection of watershed resources.
Education and Public Involvement Goals:
1. Involve and educate the residents of the city in water resource-related issues.
2. Offer programs, educational opportunities, and information that facilitate an
understanding of water resource issues in the city of St. Louis Park and downstream.
With respect to these goals, the SWMP includes policies calling for the city to implement the
education and public involvement-related BMPs identified in the city’s SWPPP for its NPDES
Phase II MS4 permit.
Funding Goal:
1. Provide sufficient funding to implement measures and policies contained in this plan.
Adequate funding is essential for the city to implement its SWMP policies. Under this goal, the
city’s policies call for the continued use of the city’s stormwater utility fee as well as the exploration
of additional funding methods and opportunities to fund the implementation of the SWMP.
Chapter 3 provides technical information describing the surface and subsurface conditions of the
city. Most of Chapter 3 is devoted to presenting a city-wide inventory, including land use, climate
and precipitation, topography, soils, geology, groundwater, DNR public waters, wetlands, surface
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan – Executive Summary Page 8
water resource monitoring information, floodplain information, unique features and scenic areas,
pollutant sources, and major basins and overall drainage patterns. Chapter 3 also includes a number
of maps, such as city-wide maps of land use, DNR public waters, wetlands, drainage basins, and
maps showing the drainage patterns for each major drainage basin. Chapter 3 also includes a
number of tables containing information such as precipitation data and water quality information.
Chapter 4 presents a summary of the general and specific water resource-related issues, problems,
and challenges the City of St. Louis Park is facing. These issues have been summarized in the
following table and include water quality, stormwater runoff rate and volume, wetland, stream, and
erosion and sedimentation issues.
Summary Table of St. Louis Park Stormwater Issues
Category Issue
NPDES Stormwater
Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP)
Public education and outreach
Public participation
Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Construction site runoff control
Post construction storm water management
Pollution prevention/housekeeping
Impaired Waters Twin Lake
Bass Lake
Cobblecrest Lake
Minnehaha Creek
Lake Hiawatha
Bassett Creek
Lake Pepin
Other future listed waters
Watershed
Organizations
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Stormwater management and flood control
Lake water quality
Wetland protection
Erosion control
Groundwater quality and protection
Water resource education
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Phosphorus loading reduction requirement
Wetland protection
Stormwater runoff rate and volume control
Minnehaha Creek aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation
Minnehaha Creek channel stability, erosion, and sedimentation
Metropolitan Council Reduction of storm water volume
Increasing storm water quality
Maximizing infiltration
Wetland management
Nondegradation goals
Water quality goals
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan – Executive Summary Page 9
Executive Summary
Surface Water Management Plan May 2009
Page 6
Category Issue
City Issues Redevelopment
Water quality monitoring
Phosphorus load reduction in stormwater runoff
Stormwater rate and volume
Floodplain management and minimum building elevations
Local flooding issues
Wetland buffers
Minnehaha Creek stream restoration
Public education and public involvement
Storm water system maintenance program
Private storm water facility maintenance
Interagency cooperation
Sources of funding
Chapter 5 of the SWMP describes the city’s implementation program to address the issues that have
been identified in SWMP, including a discussion of the following:
Water Quality/NPDES Phase II MS4 Permit
Operation and maintenance of the stormwater system
Specific MCWD tasks
Education and public involvement
Cost of implementation program
Funding of implementation program
Design standards
Local controls and regulatory responsibilities
Specific implementation program items
Chapter 6 of the SWMP includes a listing of the references (plans, reports, studies, and websites)
used for the development of this SWMP.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan – Executive Summary Page 10
Meeting Date: October 12, 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:
MN GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required. This report is for informational purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this update is informational and no policy considerations are required at this time.
BACKGROUND:
GreenStep Cities is a response to the increasing desire of many cities to implement energy efficiency
and sustainable best practices. However, aside from Minneapolis and St. Paul, most Minnesota
cities do not have the technical resources to develop a comprehensive set of actions that would help
them meet this laudable goal. Through the MN Pollution Control Agency and numerous partners
including the League of Minnesota Cities and the Urban Land Institute, the GreenStep Cites
program was developed.
GreenStep Cities is an action-oriented voluntary program offering a cost-effective and simple
pathway for cities to implement sustainable best practices that focus on greenhouse gas reduction.
GreenStep Cities includes the identification of best practices in the areas of: building and facilities,
land use, transportation, environmental management and community and economic development.
Development of the GreenStep Cities program began in 2008 and Tom Harmening served on the
Advisory Committee that developed the framework for this effort. The Urban Land Institute (ULI
MN) is now working with the Regional Council of Mayors (RCM) cities to implement the pilot
phase. City staff has submitted a letter of interest for consideration as a pilot demonstration city (see
attachment).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Participation as a demonstration GreenStep City does not entail any financial reimbursement nor
will it require city funds. Minimal staff time will be required to attend monthly meetings from
October 2009 through June 2010.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project
VISION CONSIDERATION:
One of the City Councils adopted Strategic Directions states that “St. Louis Park is committed to
being a leader in environmental stewardship and that we will increase environmental consciousness
and responsibility in all areas of city business”. Participation in the GreenStep Cities demonstration
project is consistent with our vision and will be the next step in finding “a simple pathway leading to
implementation of sustainable best practices….”
NEXT STEPS:
The Urban Land Institute plans to make their selection of five cities for participation in the
demonstration project by October 9, 2009. Council will be kept apprised of the selection outcome.
Attachments: GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project
GreenStep Cities Letter of Interest
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
September 2009
Minnesota.uli.org
GreenStep Cities
Demonstration Project
The Urban Land Institute Minnesota (ULI MN) and the nationally recognized Regional Council of
Mayors (RCM) actively engage public and private sector leaders to foster collaboration, share
knowledge and join in meaningful strategic action to create thriving, sustainable communities.
Focus areas include housing, transportation, the environment and job growth.
Environmental objectives include the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, protection of
natural resources and the support of healthy living. To foster the reduction of green house gas
emmissions, ULI MN/RCM was selected by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to
demonstrate best practices from the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program in five RCM
communities. GreenStep Cities is a new program; the GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project
will provide a platform for application.
GreenStep Cities best practices. GreenStep Cities is an action‐oriented voluntary program
offering a cost‐effective, simple pathway leading to implementation of sustainable best
practices that focus on greenhouse gas reduction. GreenStep Cities include best practices in the
areas of: buildings and facilities, land use, transportation, environmental management, and,
community and economic development.
Assessing and identifying opportunities. The GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project will
partner with five RCM cities to identify and implement GreenStep Cities best practices. With
support from the GreenStep Cities Project Manager, the five demonstration cities will assess
their current related practices and sustainability goals to identify areas of opportunities. In
collaboration with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE), best practices that are proven
to have the greatest effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be prioritized.
Communication and Learning. ULI MN/RCM encourages and expands peer‐to‐peer support
and learning among Twin Cities regional mayors, and provides access to key expertise and
technical resources. The GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project will provide a base of
knowledge, project review, and lessons learned through the implementation of GreenStep
Cities best practices. Outcomes and project examples will be documented, and findings will be
made readily available on the ULI MN web site. Practices that have a proven ability to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and are readily replicable will be selected as priorities for promotion.
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 6)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project Page 3
September 2009
Minnesota.uli.org
GREENSTEP CITIES DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
The ULI MN/RCM GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project seeks to address the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions through advancing and implementing energy efficiency and
sustainability best practices, and by motivating public officials to transition to a green economy.
Goals include:
• Educating leaders about GreenStep Cities best practices,
• Identifying actionable steps that are proven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
• Promoting the implementation of these best practices, and
• Communicating the results of these efforts through peer‐to‐peer advising.
The GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project activities include:
1. Selection of five demonstration RCM Cities (September 2009);
2. Peer communication and learning (October 2009 –July 2010);
3. Review of selected cities’ goals and policies that support the reduction of green
house gas emissions (October‐December 2009);
4. In partnership with each city, identify and prioritize GreenStep Cities best practices
(November 2009‐February 2010);
5. Provide suggested action‐steps and access to experts to assist cities in the
implementation of desired best practices (January‐April 2010);
6. Assessment of best practices planned for implementation and their potential to
reduce greenhouse gas reductions (April‐May 2010);
7. Share and communicate results (June‐July 2010).
For more information contact:
Kristina Smitten, GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project Manager
Smitten Group
651.246.9443
ksmitten@smittengroup.com
Caren Dewar, Executive Director
ULI Minnesota
612.759.1016
caren.dewar@uli.org
Meeting of October 12, 2009 (Item No. 6)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project Page 4
Meeting of October 12, 2008 (Item No. 6)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project Page 5
Meeting of October 12, 2008 (Item No. 6)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project Page 6