HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/10/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
OCTOBER 26, 2009
Councilmember Sanger Absent
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 2 and November 9, 2009
2. 6:35 p.m. Fiber Network Policy (with Consultant)
3. 7:20 p.m. City Manager 2009 Performance Evaluation
4. 7:25 p.m. Property Acquisition Update - 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
(former American Inn property)
5. 7:45 p.m. 2010 Enterprise Fund Budgets and Related Capital Improvement Plan
6. 8:30 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
7. September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report
8. Quarterly Investment Report (July-September, 2009)
9. Property Foreclosure Workgroup Update
10. Regional Trail Crossings
11. Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Refunding Bonds
8:35 p.m. Adjourn
8:40 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – City Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Resolutions, Ordinances,
Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Request for Closed Meeting for Labor Negotiations Strategy.
Recommended Action:
Motion to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including
negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation
proposals, conducted pursuant to 179A.01 to 197A.25.
3. Adjournment
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 26, 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 – November 2 and November 9, 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set agendas for the special study session on November 2, 2009 and
the regular study session on November 9, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
Attached please find the tentative agendas and proposed discussion items for the special study session
on Monday, November 2 and the regular study session on November 9, 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for November 2 and 9, 2009
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Special Study Session, Monday, November 2, 2009 – 6:45 p.m.
1. Electronic Signs (with Attorney Tom Scott) – Community Development (30 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, City Attorney Tom Scott and Community Development
staff will discuss a proposed electronic signs ordinance with the City Council.
(End of Meeting – 7:15 p.m.)
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, November 9, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Future Studies List – Community Development (45 minutes)
Staff will discuss Community Development’s Future Studies List for 2010. Which of these
studies is a priority for the Council? Does the Council agree with the list as proposed?
3. Active Living Policy – Community Development (30 minutes)
Does the Council wish to proceed with adopting an Active Living Policy?
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. Business Licenses (re-inspection fees and other changes) – Inspections (30 minutes)
As requested by the City Council on 10/12, staff will present proposed changes to the
business license ordinance and related fees. Does the Council want to direct staff to make
any changes at this time?
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.
End of Meeting: 9:00 p.m.
Meeting Date: October 26, 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:
Fiber Network Policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action requested. The information provided in this report is intended to stimulate
conversation as a means to help the City Council consider the policy questions noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
At the core of this topic are the following policy questions:
• Does the City Council wish to explore options for use of available capacity in the City’s fiber
optic network for public and /or private purposes, both short-term and long-term.
• Does Council wish to explore policy options regarding such use or the inclusion of fiber
capacities in new construction or major reconstruction?
More specifically, direction from Council is requested with respect to: First, does Council wish staff
to engage a consultant to begin the process of a long-term (6 – 12 month) study of the future use of
the City’s growing fiber optic network? If so, should such a study include analysis of fiber-to-the-x
(e.g., home, business, curb) ordinance options?
Second, does Council wish staff to pursue an agreement with LocaLoop MAX for the leasing of fiber
capacity in a manner that is fair to both the City of St. Louis Park and to future potential lessees of
fiber capacity? Such an agreement would also incorporate considerations of water tower leasing and
fiber infrastructure that LocaLoop is proposing to build, pay for, and convey ownership of to the
City of St. Louis Park. LocaLoop is also open to discussion of paying for legal, technical, and other
consulting costs associated with this project, and potential use of the Wi-MAX service to support
City services.
In considering these questions separately, Council can indicate “yes”, “yes, with additional
conditions”, or “no” to either or both questions. With respect to the second question, it is important
to have Council direction so LocaLoop MAX may make its own business decisions based on that
direction. LocaLoop representatives will be in attendance to present its business proposition and
answer questions.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 2
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
BACKGROUND:
This report is being provided as follow-up information to a report submitted to Council at its
September 29 study session. Since September 29, staff has solicited input from the
Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC), at its October 8 meeting. At that meeting, the
TAC provided positive support for moving ahead with respect to both policy questions noted above
(see attached minutes). In addition, staff received some input from Council based on the September
29 report. That input is also addressed in this report.
As noted on September 29, as the wi-fi project was coming to a conclusion in 2008, Council
requested that staff prepare some policy points around both the potential use of existing City-owned
fiber optic capacity and related ordinances requiring installation of fiber capabilities in construction.
Now that the wi-fi project clean-up has ended, it seemed like the right time to start addressing these
questions.
The jointly owned fiber network was installed beginning in 1997 following collaborative planning
by the City, the School District, and LOGIS. Major segments of the network were completed in
1998 by the School District and in 2005 by the City and LOGIS. Incremental additions were made
to connect certain sites, plus an additional 8 miles received as part of the wi-fi project legal
settlement.
The existing fiber network includes about 26 miles of infrastructure. Different network segments
have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit only
without fiber strands. These “conduit only” segments were generally installed during road
construction projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with
appropriate capacities to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are known.
Installation of fiber conduit when a road is open is relatively inexpensive.
The City and School District are meeting many high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice, data,
and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8 years for
an asset that should last 20 or more years. Other City / School needs remain (use of fiber for video)
while some future uses cannot be anticipated. However, industry-wide, fiber is projected to have a
real future based on its demonstrated performance. We need to and will reserve fiber capacity for
these needs as well as spare strands. One question that arises is what to do with the remaining
capacity.
LONG-TERM STUDY TOPICS:
Over time, the City Council and Telecommunications Advisory Commission have asked about the
future use of the existing and growing fiber optic network. In addition, questions have been raised
about whether the City should consider playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property
owners to install some portion of fiber optic capabilities during new construction or major
remodeling. There are several potential longer-term study questions surrounding the fiber optic
network whose owners include the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park ISD #283, and Local
Government Information Systems (LOGIS). What follows are some possible major questions to be
considered in a study, and just a few potential alternative answers (not mutually exclusive):
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 3
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
• What goal(s) is the City of St. Louis Park trying to achieve? For example:
o increased competition for high-speed Internet service and related competitive pricing
from the private sector
o increased mobile computing alternatives from the private sector
o increased citywide Internet service alternatives from the private sector
o increased use of the City’s right-of-way for private economic development
o increased opportunities to groups currently underserved by technology / Internet
services
o increased City revenues from private sector use of public assets
o enhanced public services from use of citywide Internet service alternatives from the
private sector
o incorporating and integrating goals of the Schools and LOGIS
o fair treatment to all private sector providers who are interested in private sector use of
public assets
• What does the City Council wish to do with the existing network and remaining fiber
capacity? For example:
o expand the network based on a long-term plan
o expand the network only as needed per an identifiable business purpose
o expand the network only with other construction by policy (e.g., road
reconstruction)
o sell ownership of segments of the network
o lease parts of remaining capacity on the network while retaining ownership
o change nothing - maintain and retain solely for current City, School, and LOGIS use
• How do we maximize both City operational and public benefits of our fiber assets? For
example:
o identify other City business uses
o identify potential productivity improvement opportunities
o position fiber assets with private sector services that could benefit the public (e.g., the
LocaLoop proposal)
• What tasks are related to any expanded (public) use of our fiber assets?
o leasing agreements
o Internet Service Provider
o revenue generation through leasing or sale
o network maintenance – repair, locates, etc.
o other business models
• What broader regulatory role (if any) should the City play? For example:
o requirement to include fiber in new construction or major remodeling
o incentive to include fiber in new construction or major remodeling
o legal requirements in leasing fiber or fiber capacity
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 4
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Staff suggests that the study questions above (and others) would be informed by answering more
fundamental questions such as:
• Does availability of high speed Internet service still matter as an important policy question
for City Council?
o 3 years since Council considered this question in depth.
o U.S. currently ranks 15th worldwide in broadband penetration.
o does the City Council feel this issue still matters?
o if it does matter, does the City Council feel there is any role for the City to play?
• What can we learn about what Comcast, Qwest, and others are doing to provide and grow
high speed Internet services in St. Louis Park?
o Comcast has provided information to customers about increased speeds
o Qwest has added fiber segments in St. Louis Park (per permits) and other
communities. This is fiber to the node / neighborhood (FTTN), not to the home.
Qwest advertises higher speeds available in some St. Louis Park locations.
o Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and others providing 3G (third generation) wireless.
o pricing appears to remain at levels similar to 3 years ago, but needs verification.
o will Comcast, Qwest, others share any information on current coverage / speeds and
plans for the future?
o no known other major provider effort is underway.
• What are other cities doing with respect to their fiber network infrastructure?
o many have talked, few have acted.
o locally, Monticello and Windom building municipal fiber specifically for triple-play
(video-voice-Internet services).
o other Minnesota communities (primarily smaller) have FTTH (fiber-to-the-home)
provided by CLEC or ILEC (i.e., phone company)
o Burnsville has a different fiber history, but is on a similar path of discovery.
o Burnsville currently ahead of St. Louis Park on consultant RFI / contractor RFP.
o Burnsville is open to considering possibilities on collaborating on some phases of
discovery and related consultant work.
• What are other cities doing with respect to broader regulatory roles for requiring fiber
facilities as part of private development?
o locally, very little activity
o nationally, Loma Linda CA is the poster city (see information from its website)
o otherwise, little regulatory roles have been discovered, but this would be a topic for
the study
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 5
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Program Information
FIBER TO THE HOME
Fiber To The Home (FTTH)
Loma Linda Expands FTTH past the home, reaching out to businesses, wireless, anywhere...
we call it FTTX.
Why is FTTX important to Loma Linda?
• This city believes in infrastructure
• Provide a better infrastructure for economic growth and development (e.g. higher home
values, better business environment, etc.)
• Promote competition (Open Ethernet System)
• Strengthens the image of the City as innovative and progressive
• Supports the commercial and residential interests of the citizens
• Enables the City to play a very central role with our larger business in the City
• Create a globally competitive community
• Establish a new revenue source
• Empowered more community involvement
Loma Linda’s FTTX Ordinance
New Construction Requirements:
• Data Cabinet in Master Bedroom
• Cable Bundle Set – 2 Cat 6, 1 Coax in each Living space. 2 sets in Master Bed Room and
Family Room
• Fiber into Data Cabinet and Community MDF
• Fiber throughout the development
• Build a community MDF
• Deed the infrastructure over to the City once completed
• City provides builders with design, SOW and BOM
• City provides list of certified and approved contractors
• Cost to the Builder ~ $3,500 per unit
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 6
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
SHORT-TERM OPPORTUNITY:
In the ideal sequence, the City would have answers to all of the questions above prior to entertaining
possible projects. Opportunity often trumps the ideal sequence. The City has been approached by
seven private sector firms in the last year interested in various relationships for use (primarily leasing)
of part of the fiber network. Staff has provided information, and most of these entities have not
followed up with more detailed proposals. Staff has also not been able to articulate a City policy
regarding other uses of fiber as the recent focus has been on clean-up activities from the wi-fi project.
Staff, the Telecommunications Advisory Commission, and Council have only now had time to begin
to consider the policy matter.
Having said that, staff has been approached by, and received more concrete requests from one firm,
LocaLoop MAX. LocaLoop MAX is a new St. Louis Park-based firm that is interested in providing
Wi-MAX wireless service in St. Louis Park. Information on LocaLoop MAX’s project plan is
attached. Here are some highlights of this firm’s plans:
• LocaLoop plans to install a Wi-MAX network that covers the entire City. They intend to
market this service on a retail basis and it would provide wireless Internet service.
• LocaLoop wants to pilot its service. Most of its pilot users would be residential. Eventually,
they would like to incorporate a few City staff pilot users for their mobile Wi-MAX service.
• LocaLoop claims its pilot project will lead to a full-blown citywide service. In fact, they
indicate current plans call for early installation of equipment to eventually provide that
citywide service.
In summary, the short-term opportunity is for the City to continue to pursue the mechanics of
leasing capacity (fiber strands) within its fiber optic network in a way that (1) preserves capacity for
current and future City needs and (2) provides fair access, based on limited capacity, to other
potential lessees of fiber capacity. This short-term process involves some legal and consulting time as
well. LocaLoop has offered to cover these costs.
BUSINESS POINTS AND PARAMETERS:
Below is an outline of proposed business points and parameters the City of St. Louis Park and
LocaLoop MAX would pursue if City Council provides that direction. Note that these are proposed
starting points and are subject to negotiation and specifics are subject to final verification.
Water Tower Agreement
• Currently in place and used by other wireless providers, mostly cell phone providers.
• LocaLoop is interested in discussing a rate reduction compared with cell providers because
the equipment is smaller.
• LocaLoop is interested in using existing providers’ brackets instead of welding additional
brackets to support a maximum of four Category 5 cables (total of about ½-inch diameter)
on each tower.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 7
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Dark Fiber Agreement
• Formula for the rate of fiber resale:
o Median cost between the City’s actual cost to install the fiber and the current cost to
install fiber. Once calculated, the “sell rate” will be determined by the length of time
the City wishes to have its ROI.
o Using this formula, the monthly charge per mile would be $393 for a 10-year ROI,
$262 for a 15-year ROI, and $196 for a 20-year ROI.
o LocaLoop is open to terms and may be willing to have a clause in the contract to
reset rates if the market changes.
Fiber Extensions
• LocaLoop needs to install approximately one mile of additional fiber. This fiber is to close
the gap between the City’s fiber and the water tower and private tower locations.
• LocaLoop intends to build these fiber extensions at their cost and will give ownership of the
additional fiber to the City. These extensions provide the opportunity for future use of the
water towers by the City and other wireless operators.
• It is recommended that in exchange for this additional fiber and conveyance of its ownership
to the City, that the City defer or waive the first year of fiber lease payments.
• To be fair, a similar arrangement could be completed with other potential fiber customers
who need to install additional fiber to accomplish their business goals.
Legal, Consulting, Technical Fees
• LocaLoop MAX has agreed to pay all legal, consulting, and technical fees that the City may
have in the process of negotiating this agreement and implementing the project.
Especially regarding the short-term opportunity with LocaLoop, Council may also find the following
points helpful:
• After meeting with and hearing staff and LocaLoop representatives at its October 8 meeting,
the Telecommunications Advisory Commission has provided its positive support in response
to the above questions.
• This is a private sector initiative and project, thus, the financial risk to the City is low.
• The City of St. Louis Park is not re-entering the retail wireless service business. It would be
important to clearly communicate this and the City’s role strictly as a lessor of assets.
• Wi-MAX is not wi-fi. That is, Wi-MAX was designed from the ground up for outside and
mobile connectivity. Wi-fi began as an indoor connectivity tool and has been modified to
operate outside, within its technical limitations.
• We already lease water tower assets for similar purposes. LocaLoop is requesting a modified
approach to the water tower agreement and creation of a new fiber leasing agreement.
• Any agreement with LocaLoop MAX (as with any private provider) would be non-exclusive
so other competitors may enter the St. Louis Park market.
• LocaLoop is prepared to cover the legal, consulting, and technical costs to the City associated
with its project.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 8
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
• At the very least, the City of St. Louis Park would gain (1) about $50,000 worth of fiber
infrastructure and (2) fiber connectivity to its elevated water towers for future City use and
potential use by other private providers (part of fair treatment). In fact, LocaLoop has begun
construction of this fiber facility.
• If successful, the City of St. Louis Park could experiment with Wi-MAX for municipal uses
in public safety and public services.
• This project could also help inform the longer-term study, should Council direct that, with a
real world example.
• If Council continues to feel access to additional high-speed Internet alternatives in St. Louis
Park is a worthy goal, this could contribute to that goal. In addition, St. Louis Park would be
one of just a handful of cities where Wi-MAX service is available.
It is important to have Council’s feedback on the short-term opportunity so LocaLoop MAX can
understand whether Council is open to leasing of fiber assets as it affects their business plan. If so, it
is also important to know whether the broad business parameters outlined above are acceptable to
Council. LocaLoop MAX indicates it is hoping to start initial testing in November with production
deployment in December of 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The estimated replacement value of the existing fiber network exceeds $1.5 million. The City’s
portion of the network was essentially funded through a transfer from the Cable TV Fund to the
Technology Replacement Fund. This is a significant asset and part of the City’s infrastructure.
Current financial policy questions center on costs and revenues related to use of this, possibly
expanded, asset. Future financial policy questions will revolve around its replacement.
The long-term study contemplated above is estimated to cost no more than $25,000. The proposed
2010 Cable TV Fund budget includes $10,000 for a related study. If Council provides direction to
move forward with this study, it is recommended that it be supported by the Cable TV Fund and
the proposed $10,000 amount be increased to $25,000.
It is recommended that out-of-pocket legal, consulting, and technical fees associated with the
LocaLoop MAX project be covered by LocaLoop MAX, much like other development projects.
Other financial impacts relate to any potential requirements to incorporate fiber optic infrastructure
in private construction.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with the fiber resources, this could support St. Louis Park’s
desire to be a well connected community.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 9
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
STUDY SESSION RESOURCES:
Staff, the City’s consultant from Elert & Associates, TAC members, and representatives from
LocaLoop will be present to help inform the policy questions in this report. Specifically:
• City staff and Elert will be available to clarify the policy questions (short-term and long-
term) and provide information and analysis
• LocaLoop MAX will be available to present and / or respond to questions about its St. Louis
Park project plan
• Business points and financial factors can be addressed, along with risks
• Other Council questions, comments, and suggestions can be addressed throughout the
meeting
Attachments: LocaLoop St. Louis Park Project Deployment Summary
Excerpt of October 8, 2009 TAC Minutes
St. Louis Park Fiber Map
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 10
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 11
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 12
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 13
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
October 8, 2009 Related TAC Minutes
1. New Business
A. Long term fiber infrastructure planning
Mr. Pires reported the City needed to discuss what should happen with the 26 miles of
fiber that the City of St. Louis Park has installed for both the short term and in the
long term. The Council will discuss what happens with fiber in the City on October
26, and so the Commission’s comments and suggestions are appreciated. For the short-
term opportunity, LocaLoop has approached the City about providing Wi-MAX 4th
generation (4G) services for the private sector, not provided by the City. They would
use City-owned assets, specifically water towers, and would lease capacity on the City’s
fiber optic system. There is an issue of fairness and accessibility to other providers.
This would not be much different than the current relationships with other wireless
providers using water towers.
Carl Torarp, Local Loop, presented their business proposal:
• Building “Mobile Wi-MAX 4G” Broadband Service (affordable internet service
combined patented technology with standard mobile, creates profitable business
for mobile and fixed broadband
• Timing – There is an increased demand for Broadband
• Technology - Speed, capacity and spectral efficiency separates the 4G from 3G
(can handle both fixed and mobile and the technology is proven)
• Community Benefit – This would provide community broadband for all of St. Louis
Park, anywhere in the city. In additional to the fixed service to the home,
LocaLoop would offer a complimentary service that is mobile, competitively
priced, and performs 5-6 times the speed of cellular 3G. LocaLoop is a local St.
Louis Park company.
• Benefit to City – Private affordable broadband, utilize City assets, utilize City’s
investment in fiber, extension of City fiber at LocaLoop cost, available city-
wide for public safety and additional applications (Police, Fire, Inspections,
Public Works, GIS), aid in establishing long term policy for fiber leasing, no
financial up front cost, long-term obligation or risk, special programs for under
privileged groups, first Minnesota city with complete mobile coverage for next
generation broadband internet services
• Consumer Pricing – Mobile: $29/month, $99 device, $29 activation; fixed-
home, $49/month, $8/rental, $79 activation; Indoor/Wi-Fi, $49/month,
$9/rental, $99 activation; Outdoor, $49/month, $9/rental, $149 activation.
Commissioner Browning asked if Wi-MAX was the defined standard? Mr. Torarp replied yes.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 14
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Commissioner Browning asked if there were issues with signal interference or with
weather? Mr. Torarp replied one reason this was the global standard and Wi-MAX was
developed was because of those issues. It is a non line of sight product that gets to the
user. Distance can diminish the signal, but the network will be designed in an
intelligent way to compensate.
Commissioner Browning asked how fast it was? Mr. Torarp replied by feeding Wi-
MAX with fiber, you don’t have the bottleneck others have. It is 5-6 times better than
3G, 700-800 kilobits average (x6), with peak speed up to 30 megabits/second. It also
depends on usage of the network. They will only offer a premium service.
Chair Keeler asked if the 4G network had been rolled out in other countries? Mr.
Torarp replied this application would take back the lead in wireless broadband Internet
technology. Europeans are stuck in cellular technology. Wi-MAX is being
implemented in many places all over the world.
Chair Keeler asked if he purchased the Wi-MAX antenna, could it be used outside of
St. Louis Park? Mr. Torarp replied initially no. Outside of St. Louis Park it would
receive Wi-Fi, but it won’t take long for the potential hand off to other carriers where
Wi-MAX is available.
Chair Keeler asked about the administration and if LocaLoop would be the seller of
the service and do the sign up of St. Louis Park residents? Mr. Torarp replied yes.
Chair Keeler asked if they had an anticipated staffing plan? Mr. Torarp replied they
would hire according to need as the business grows. There would probably be 20
people just for St. Louis Park.
Chair Keeler asked if they had deployed this anywhere? Mr. Torarp replied this was
the first deployment.
Chair Keeler asked about the financial backing? Mr. Torarp responded there were no
issues with the financing, they are privately financed.
Commissioner Hartman asked if this would be compatible with the 4G network that
had been announced by Verizon? Mr. Torarp replied Verizon was using competing
technology, which would be tested in the spring.
Commissioner Browning asked about the scalability and if there was capability to
enhance from premium service? Mr. Johnson replied part of the premise of Wi-MAX
was to go beyond the best effort service. It is an adaptive, intelligent network. The next
standards to come out hold promise of bigger speeds. The experience is different with
Wi-MAX.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 15
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Mr. McHugh asked if they would be able to cover ten square miles with the existing
towers? Mr. Torarp responded that was what they were proposing with the three
towers. Mr. Johnson added there would be more deployed.
Mr. Dunlap asked why there would be need to install more fiber? Mr. Torarp replied
to fill the gaps from the fiber network to the tower locations.
Mr. Pires stated the proposal is to build fiber at their cost and turn over the assets to the
City.
Chair Keeler asked if they had determined a pilot area? Mr. Torarp replied they would
have 50 consumers with both businesses and residents and run for a month. They
were considering Southeast St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Browning asked about power levels? Mr. Johnson replied that power
levels vary but the design of the network will compensate for that. They need to look
at the density and number of stations.
Tom Pavek, Elert and Associates, stated there were global issues to consider from a long-
term standpoint. This is an aggressive time line for this opportunity and the City needs
protect its long term interests. There is excess fiber that does not have another city use
and is valuable for others to use. It is like renting space on the water towers, or if there
was another empty floor on this building, renting it because it’s an available asset. The
City needs to make a distinction between renting and leasing and the business
opportunity. It’s LocaLoop’s business to market and be successful; it’s the City’s interest
to provide the asset at a market rate and not subsidize the service. Options for the fiber
include: lease or sell strands; do nothing, barter services, or could sell services like a phone
company, which is more difficult.
• Because this entity (LocaLoop) wants to fast track, the City needs to make sure
there is enough capacity for other users and that there is no preferential
treatment
• Different than in the prior wireless project, it is their (LocaLoop) risk
• This is renting space
• The City doesn’t have much role in what LocaLoop does with this asset
• Don’t let short-term interests affect the long-term plan
• From a down side, they aren’t substantial, but they exist. Will residents make a
connection that this is not the City?
• The City needs to maintain the fiber network – much like it does now
• Make sure everyone has opportunity to set up private enterprise – not subsidize
their business
• Long-term, the City needs a policy for this is a valuable asset
• Look at short-term opportunities and protect the long run
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 16
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Commissioner Hartman asked if they could add more fiber to the conduits? Mr. Pavek
replied yes, there would be costs to install more fiber. We’d need to look at the routes
to determine if there were any limited routes and consider adding more fiber to that
area. It looks as though only one area is vulnerable but we’ll work with the School
District on that.
Chair Keeler asked what the current excess capacity is, and what the City and School
are using? Mr. Pires replied it varied by part of town and what they were running.
One example is the new fiber installed by ARINC included 48 strands and almost
none of that is being used.
Mr. Pavek stated if there are aspects with this agreement where they run out, they will
address that in the agreement.
Chair Keeler asked what the market rate was for leasing? Mr. Pavek stated they have
some preliminary information, but need substantial documented information.
Mr. Pires stated over the past twelve months the City had been approached by seven
firms interested in leasing fiber, so that’s another reason for a long term policy.
Commissioner Browning asked how much bandwidth was available? Mr. Pires said
from 24 strands to close to 200 strands. Mr. Pavek replied they are likely to improve
electronics and less likely to increase fiber, and that you don’t want to lease all strands.
Chair Keeler asked what role the Telecommunication Commission played? Mr. Pires
responded when this was discussed with City Council they wanted the Commission’s
input and recommendations.
Mr. Dunlap noted the Council would discuss this issue at their October 26th meeting
and that they could be provided with this meeting’s minutes for background.
Mr. Pires added they had discussions with the City Attorney and had determined
leasing of fiber would be very similar to how the City leases water tower space.
Mr. Pavek felt it was good timing and could be a nice package for the City if they were
protected.
Commissioner Browning liked this concept and felt it was coming at the right time.
The only option for broadband was in bundled services. He has issues with bundled
services, but understood the marketing. This is a great opportunity for the City.
Commissioner Dworsky indicated he would send his comments to Mr. Dunlap. He
agreed that LocaLoop is responsible for the service but the City has responsibility for
the hard asset.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 17
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Commissioner Hartman asked how trees affected the frequency? Mr. Torarp replied
they have licensed frequency to make it work. He said when Sprint deployed the
mobile Wi-MAX system in Baltimore, they did a lousy job because they fed the base
stations with T1 telephone lines. That wasn’t enough capacity to provide the service.
So it goes back to network design, and this technology will go through the tree canopy
assuming you design it correctly.
Chair Keeler felt this was a good opportunity for residents of St. Louis Park and good
timing. He agrees we need to develop a long-term policy on fiber and include fairness
to other parties and maintenance plans for City future use.
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Dworsky, to
recommend the City move forward with the project as proposed.
The motion passed 4-0. (Peterson was no longer on teleconference).
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Hartman, to
proceed with a long-term fiber policy.
The motion passed 4-0. (Peterson was no longer on teleconference).
Chair Keeler noted the Commission had formed a sub committee to work on fiber
issues, was that an appropriate forum to work on a policy? Mr. Pires replied yes.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No.2) Page 18
Subject: Fiber Network Policy
Meeting Date: October 26, 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:
City Manager 2009 Performance Evaluation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests feedback on City Council’s desired approach for an annual performance evaluation for
the City Manager.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What is the City Council’s desired approach for the City Manager’s 2009 annual performance
evaluation?
BACKGROUND:
The employment agreement between the City and the City Manager states “that the City may
conduct an annual review of the Manager’s performance.” The purpose of the evaluation process is
to provide feedback to the City Manager on performance so that he can strive for continuous
performance improvement based on City Council expectations.
At the September 29 Study Session the Council indicated a desire to use a consultant to facilitate the
City Manager’s evaluation. Staff has requested proposals from three consultants. Below is
background information for each consultant and their proposed fees.
J. Forrest – J. Forrest is the founder of Employee Strategies, Inc., an organization dedicated to
providing thoughtful people practices with measurable improvements. He has nearly 15 years of
human resource experience (10 years as an internal employee, and 5 years as an external consultant)
and a Master’s degree from the University of Minnesota. As an Xcel Energy employee, he led the
development of their Individual Performance Management tool. Since then, he has designed and
implemented similar tools for organizations as small as 5 employees and as large as 14,000.
He routinely conducts performance appraisals; interviews; 360 degree de-briefs; and team building
sessions. His background working with the leadership at the City of St Louis Park goes back more
than 5 years, working with Department Heads on leadership development. Most recently he helped
kick off the University of Park II program and conducted performance reviews of each session.
Mr. Forrest can be reached at 612-508-2583. His website is www.employeestrategiesinc.com.
The estimated cost for Mr. Forrest to complete the City Manager performance evaluation is no more
than $1,000 (Mr. Forrest estimates the project to take approximately 10 hours at $100 per hour).
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: City Manager 2009 Performance Evaluation
Diane Hinds – Dr. Hinds is Director of Organizational Effectiveness for Employer’s Association.
She has over 20 years of experience in human resources, organization development, and executive
level management. Diane has a BA in psychology and communications from the University of MN.
She received her MA in human resources development and her doctorate in organization
development from the University of St. Thomas. She serves as adjunct faculty for the University of
St. Thomas and Concordia University.
The estimated cost for Dr. Hinds to complete the City Manager performance evaluation is between
$1,140 and $2,850 (Dr. Hinds estimates the project to take between 6 and 15 hours at $190 per
hour).
Kent Levine – Due to work commitments, Mr. Levine declined to submit a proposal (he was
referred by John Basill).
Staff is looking for direction from Council on which proposal they would like to accept.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for the consultant would be applied to the Human Resources budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Draft Evaluation Instrument
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: City Manager 2009 Performance Evaluation
City of St. Louis Park
2009 CITY MANAGER APPRAISAL FORM
CHECK ONE BOX FOR
EACH CATEGORY
PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR EACH
CATEGORY IN THIS COLUMN
Organizational Management & Leadership
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Communication Skills and Public Relations
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Relationship with the City Council
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Interagency Relations
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Long Range Planning
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: City Manager 2009 Performance Evaluation
OTHER COMMENTS:
___________________________________________________________
Signature Date
CHECK ONE BOX FOR
EACH CATEGORY
PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR EACH
CATEGORY IN THIS COLUMN
Staff Supervision/Overall Performance of City Staff
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Fiscal/Business Management
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Meeting Date: October 26, 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:
Property Acquisition Update - 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn property).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests feedback as to whether the EDA wishes to proceed with the purchase of 3924 Excelsior
Boulevard.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to proceed with the purchase of the subject property?
BACKGROUND:
At the August 10th Study Session, staff discussed the availability of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
(former American Inn property) and the merits of the EDA potentially purchasing the property (see
the attached staff report from 8/10/09). An approximate purchase price of $950,000 was identified.
Upon discussion, it was the consensus of the EDA that staff should pursue a purchase agreement for
the subject property and conduct an environmental investigation of the property. To that end, staff
negotiated a purchase agreement with the property owner’s representative and had an environmental
investigation performed.
Environmental Conditions
Gary Mulcahy, owner of the subject property, agreed to allow the EDA to conduct a Phase I &
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and asbestos survey on the subject property. AMEC
Geomatrix (an environmental consulting company previously utilized by the EDA and Real Estate
Recycling) was retained to perform this work. Below are portions of the Executive Summary
included in its report.
Historically, the Site was a low-lying area that may have been a wetland. Prior to the first
known development fill was placed at the Site to the approximate current grades. The origin
of the fill is unknown. The Site historically has been occupied by a hotel, a restaurant, and a
gasoline service station. The Site currently contains the vacant hotel building, associated
asphalt paved parking lot and green space along Excelsior Boulevard. The City is currently
considering purchasing the property for redevelopment.
On September 8-9, 2009, AMEC advanced five soil borings and collected soil samples from
underlying fill and native soils at the Site. Three groundwater samples were also collected
from the soil borings. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 25 feet below ground
surface in the boring closest to Excelsior Boulevard.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
In accordance with the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed for
the Site by AMEC, the soil and groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis
for characteristic petroleum compounds (diesel range organics (DRO)), the eight resource
conservation and recovery act (RCRA) metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The results of the field work and laboratory analysis indicate the following:
• The fill soil thickness at the Site ranges from 12-feet near Excelsior Boulevard,
10-feet near the center of the parking lot, and 6-feet near the western portion of
the parking lot. This fill is underlain by lean clay, approximately four feet thick
and is then underlain by a poorly graded sand and gravel. The fills are found to
be a silty sand containing debris consisting of brick, concrete, slag, and clinkers.
(Slag is usually defined as the residue remaining from foundry operations, such as
metal parts chipped off after forming and heating. Clinkers are residue
remaining from coal fired furnaces).
• Five of six soil samples collected from the fill, clay and sands that underlie the site
were found to be contaminated either by the field readings or the laboratory
analysis. Two of the three groundwater sample laboratory analysis identified
contaminated groundwater.
• The fill soils at the Site are impacted by DRO and various PAH compounds at
concentrations above both residential and industrial cleanup levels as defined by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The detection of these
contaminants in the fill soils will require notification to the State under State of
Minnesota Rules. The contaminated fill will require management in-place (soil
cover, Notice to the Property Deed, Affidavit regarding the contaminants) or
proper disposal off-site depending on future development plans for the Site.
• These contaminants are consistent with the findings at the adjacent Ellipse on
Excelsior site where a similar fill was identified and removed for that
development. Based on the extent of fill identified in the soil borings, the Site
grades and the area of the Site, it is estimated that the fill covers the entire site
and that there are approximately 11,000 cubic yards of fill at the Site.
• The native soils underlying the fill at the Site are also impacted by PAHs, DRO
and various petroleum related VOCs at concentrations that also exceed
applicable cleanup standards. These impacts are likely the result of the former
gasoline station that was located at the Site (the contamination is detected at
elevations that are consistent with the bottom of what likely was the
underground storage tank basin) and extend to the groundwater table. While the
full extent of these contaminated soils is not yet defined, it is estimated that there
are approximately 3,000 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil that will
either require treatment in-situ, or removal and off-Site treatment or disposal.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
AMEC representatives have indicated to staff that while the subject property has impacts
from the fill materials deposited on the site and the former filling station, they are relatively
low level, do not pose an immediate human health risk and could most likely remain on site
until it is fully redeveloped. They also noted that the underlying lean clay discovered on the
site may not be suitable for building and would likely require removal regardless of its
environmental condition. Based on the above findings, staff requested AMEC to assemble a
summary of potential Extraordinary Site Development Costs. AMEC’s response was the
following:
Site Development Tasks
The main work items for corrective actions at the Site are as follows:
1. Waste Abatement (In accordance with the Regulated Hazardous Materials Survey for
the Site, asbestos, mercury, PCB, freon, miscellaneous liquid wastes and solid wastes
remain at the Site – These wastes will be abated/removed/disposed utilizing
permitted and licensed contractors and disposal off-site at approved facilities)
2. Building Demolition (removal of the building structure, including foundations,
existing below-ground and above-ground utilities, pavements, asbestos materials not
removed in Restricted Waste removal task, and site stabilization – recycle/re-use
materials to the extent possible).
3. Fill Soil Removal and Disposal (the fill soils average 10 feet in thickness across the
site and will require disposal off-site at a State approved and licensed landfill. They
likely will be disposed as “daily cover” which reduces the disposal costs over what
they would be otherwise. It may be possible to keep some of the fill soils on-Site
although under the development scenario described above this is unlikely. If
contaminated soils are kept on-Site, a notification to the property Deed would be
required along with potential long-term management of these contaminated soils).
4. Lean Clay Removal (the construction of a new building on-Site will require proper
foundation support and the underlying clays may be difficult to provide that
necessary support. These materials could, for the most part, be used as general fill off-
Site although some of the clays may be contaminated and have to be disposed of at a
landfill. There can/will be stigma associated with clean soils coming from a
contaminated site and this can make beneficial re-use of the clays difficult and time
consuming (beneficial re-use can be written into a contract, however).
5. Petroleum contaminated soil correction (there are petroleum contaminated soils at
depth, above the water table, that will require treatment in-situ or removal and
disposal off-site, again likely as daily cover. The choice of treatment in-situ or
removal off-site will be based on a number of things including proposed new use of
the Site; schedule for development; extent of the soils to be removed, etc.)
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
6. Site Restoration (the restoration of the Site will be dependent upon the proposed
development and the sequencing/scheduling of the work. The restoration may
include interim management of storm water, erosion control and seeding and
mulching soil areas.)
Site Uncertainties
The following are some unknowns and uncertainties associated with this site and
development. These can/will add uncertainty to the costs developed below.
Potential historic underground storage tanks remain on-site
Historic buried foundations
Actual volume of contaminated soils
Actual volume of lean clays
May need additional geotechnical site investigation depending on proposed
development
Need to shore excavations along Excelsior Boulevard
Potential additional soil and/or groundwater investigation requested by MPCA
Cost Basis
Based on the results of the soil borings, the observations of excavations at the adjacent site to
the northeast, the area of the Site and our similar experience, we estimate the following
quantities which are incorporated into our cost estimate.
11,000 cubic yards (loose) of contaminated fill soil (will be disposed as daily cover)
5,000 cubic yards (loose) of lean clay requires removal and disposal (also as daily
cover)
3,000 cubic yards (loose) petroleum contaminated soils are excavated and disposed
offsite (clean sand backfill is brought in for replacement to maintain
grades/soil balance).
Extraordinary Cost Summary
Based on the soil volumes listed above, the results of the environmental site assessments
and the restricted waste survey, the following costs are estimated for the remedial actions at
the site.
Waste Abatement
Asbestos 30,000
Universal Waste 3,500
Solid Waste 10,000
Sub-total $43,500
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
Demolition
Utility Disconnects 5,000
Clear/Grub 5,000
Interim Site Stabilization 5,000
Permits/General Conditions 20,000
Complete Bldg Demo 90,000
Sub-total $125,000
Soil Correction (excavate/load/haul/dispose)
Fill Soil ($40/yard) 480,000
Lean Clay ($20/yard) 100,000
Petroleum Contaminated Soil ($51/yard) 153,000
Site Restoration/Stabilization 25,000
Sub-total $758,000
Engineering
Coordination with MPCA/Fees 5,000
Additional Site Investigation 25,000
Response Action Plan 12,000
Bidding Plans and Specifications 6,000
Coordination/Oversight 40,000
Reporting 10,000
Sub-total $98,000
Total Cost Estimate $1,024,500
It should be noted that while the above are estimates, they are based on recent quotes from local
contractors.
As with other impacted properties the EDA has acquired, the EDA would enter the subject property
into the MPCA’s Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up Program (VIC) in order to obtain a “no
association determination letter” separating the EDA from any responsibility for the environmental
problems present on the site.
In light of the conditions identified by AMEC, staff recently met with the property owner’s
representative and discussed the findings of the environmental investigation and the Extraordinary
Cost Summary. The property owner expressed that AMEC’s findings were not consistent with
previous environmental reports they had seen on the property. The property owner’s representative
also indicated that they have other buyers interested in reusing the existing building which would
eliminate the need for environmental remediation. That being said, the owner expressed a
willingness to reduce the property purchase price by $200,000 if a sale closing could occur by mid-
November.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
Purchase Agreement Terms
The following is a brief summary of the pertinent terms of the proposed Purchase Agreement
between Gary T. Mulcahy Sr. (“Seller”) and the EDA (“Buyer”).
Purchase Price: The total Purchase Price for the Property is $750,000.00.
Terms:
(1): Earnest Money. The sum of One Dollar ($1.00) Earnest Money shall be paid by the Buyer
to the Seller.
(2): Balance Due Seller: Buyer agrees to pay by check or wire transfer on the Closing Date the
remaining Balance Due according to the terms of the Purchase Agreement.
(3): Deed/Marketable Title: Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller agrees to deliver a
Warranty Deed conveying marketable title to the Property to Buyer.
Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Seller shall pay all real estate taxes, interest and
penalties relating to the Property for the years prior to the year of closing. Provided that this
transaction shall close as provided herein, Buyer agrees to pay taxes for the year following the year
of closing and all taxes for years thereafter. Seller and buyer shall prorate all taxes for the year of
closing based on the Closing Date. Seller shall pay all special assessments regarding the Property
which are levied or pending as of the Closing Date.
Closing Date. The date of closing will be on or before November 20, 2009.
Proposed Property Plan
Originally it was thought that the EDA would raze the former motel building and have the site
graded, seeded and prepared for redevelopment. Given the findings of the environmental
investigation, the EDA may wish to demolish only the building (so as to avoid it becoming an
attractive nuisance) but keep the parking lot in place as a cap over the contaminated soils and hold
off on remediating the remainder of the property. The EDA would then market the property to
prospective redevelopers. The EDA would seek a reputable and experienced redeveloper with a site
plan consistent with France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines and
acceptable to the city. The parties would then enter into a property purchase and redevelopment
contract in which the redeveloper would assume responsibility for the proper clean up of the
property. Such an agreement would likely require some TIF assistance. The site is already in the
existing Ellipse on Excelsior TIF District. Grant assistance from other public agencies is another
potential source to help fund remediation of the site. Staff envisions the property to ultimately be
redeveloped as a multi-story mixed use building with underground structured parking. Staff is
reasonably confident that, given the availability of grant funds from DEED, the Metropolitan
Council and Hennepin County, that the redevelopment of the subject property would likely qualify
for cleanup funds. Between those funds and the availability of tax increment from the subject
property as well as the Ellipse project (if need be) there should be sufficient financial resources to
address the extraordinary costs facing the subject property.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
How would the property acquisition and ancillary costs be funded?
Purchase of the subject property would be paid for through the Development Fund. The
Development Fund would be reimbursed upon resale to a future redeveloper. Costs related to the
environmental investigation, building demolition, restrictive waste removal, as well as site
stabilization would also be paid for through the Development Fund. Since these expenses are all TIF
eligible, the Development Fund could be reimbursed from the Ellipse on Excelsior TIF District as
tax increment becomes available. This would require approval of an Interfund Loan resolution.
Summary
While purchasing the subject property certainly has its risks; EDA ownership makes finding the right
redeveloper for the site more likely. The subject property is situated near the highly regarded
Excelsior Boulevard/France Ave intersection, next door to what will be an attractive new mixed use
development, and is surrounded by strong neighborhoods. Purchasing the subject property now
precludes an undesirable interim use of the property and affords the EDA the opportunity to have it
redeveloped to its highest and best use sooner rather than later.
Based upon comparable land sales information, the acquisition price of the subject property is
reasonable and within market.
Next Steps
If the EDA remains interested in acquiring the subject property staff will schedule formal approval of
the proposed purchase agreement for November 2nd.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is requested to consider the acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Blvd. for $750,000. The EDA
would incur additional costs related to building demolition as well as site stabilization and
maintenance until a suitable buyer is found to properly cleanup the property and redevelop it along
the lines envisioned by the city.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the Strategic Directions of providing well-maintained [neighborhoods], being
a connected and engaged community, as well as promoting community aesthetics.
Attachments: Staff report of August 10, 2009
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager
Meeting Date: August 10, 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:
Potential EDA Acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn property).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City staff requests feedback on the EDA’s potential purchase of former American Inn property.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to consider purchasing the former American Inn property?
BACKGROUND:
The former American Inn (3924 Excelsior Blvd.), Al’s Liquors (3912 Excelsior Blvd.), and Anderson
Cleaners (3099 Excelsior Blvd.) properties have been eyed for redevelopment for many years. In the
France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines a preference was expressed for a
coordinated site plan involving all three properties. On February 2, 2009 redevelopment plans were
approved for the Al’s Liquors, Anderson Cleaners properties only. The developer of these properties,
Bader Development, originally pursued the acquisition of the former American Inn property as well
but was unable to negotiate a purchase price that worked financially. Since that time the American
Inn was forced to close due to failure to pay property taxes and is now shuttered. The property also
changed hands and is currently owned by Gary Mulcahy Sr. of Mahtomedi, MN. Staff has met with
Mr. Mulcahy regarding his plans for the subject property. Given current economic conditions there
is little interest at this time in a major redevelopment of the .7 acre-property. He expressed interest
in either selling the property or possibly renovating the existing building into apartment units. The
latter choice would mean that the property would continue to be underutilized for the foreseeable
future.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard Page 8
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Potential EDA Acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn property)
Given Bader Development’s $18 million mixed use project currently under construction next door
(as well as the EDA’s commitment of $1.45 million in TIF assistance to that project) the EDA may
wish to consider the highest and best use for the former American Inn property. As a result, staff has
been discussing the EDA’s possible acquisition of the subject property with its owner. Potential
terms for such an acquisition include the following:
• Purchase price is approximately $950,000.
• Seller agrees to allow Buyer access to the Property so as to allow Buyer to conduct an
environmental investigation (“Phase I and Phase II Study” including asbestos survey) on the
Property. Buyer agrees to for pay the cost of the investigation.
• Buyer’s purchase of the Property would be conditioned upon:
1. Results of the environmental investigation
2. Seller’s ability to provide marketable title to the Property
3. Seller’s payment of any outstanding property taxes, assessments and penalties at
Closing
• Preparation of a Purchase Agreement acceptable to both parties.
• Formal approval of the Purchase Agreement by the EDA.
• Closing would occur no later than 90 days from agreement on terms.
The cost to demolish and remove the former building would be roughly $100,000. This estimate
includes utility disconnects and parking lot removal. It excludes any hazardous waste removal. Some
fill material may be present on the property given that fill material was found next door on the
former Al’s property. The environmental investigation would address this potentiality.
Current Land Use
The subject property is currently zoned and guided high density residential (RC). The France
Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines recommended mixed use for the entire
American Inn/Al’s Liquors/Anderson Cleaners site. Such uses could include residential with
neighborhood retail, professional or medical office. As a result, the land use likely to be proposed for
the subject site within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is Mixed Use.
Property Value
The current assessed value of the subject property is $950,000. It is assessed as a redevelopment site
with the building having negligible value.
Why Purchase the Subject Property?
Owning the subject property provides the EDA with the ultimate ability to control the site and
insure that its future redevelopment is consistent with the France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard
Development Guidelines. If the EDA were to purchase the subject property it would remove the
former motel building (along with any restrictive wastes and fill material) and have the site graded
and seeded. It would likely hold the property until market conditions turn more favorable. In the
mean time staff could consult with the adjacent neighborhoods and prepare a more specific vision
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard Page 9
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Potential EDA Acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn property)
for the property. At the appropriate time the EDA would disseminate an RFP to the local real estate
community for the resale and redevelopment of the site.
Purchasing the subject property now would be a strategic move that affords the EDA the
opportunity to have it redeveloped to its highest and best use sooner rather than later. Leaving
matters entirely to the private sector (in this particular case) may not result in the property’s optimal
usage.
Residents from the surrounding Minikahda Oaks and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods have
expressed considerable interest in seeing the former motel building removed and redeveloped in a
manner consistent with the France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines.
Purchasing and clearing the former motel prevents the building from falling into further disrepair
and becoming a potentially blighting influence on the adjacent neighborhoods.
Based upon comparable land sales information, the acquisition price of the subject property is
reasonable and within market.
Staff explored the possibility of having Bader Development take another run at the subject property.
Bader is currently concentrating on the construction of The Ellipse on Excelsior and is not in a
financial position to purchase and hold the subject property. Bader indicated it would only purchase
the property if it had a potential user and, given the economy, prospects are currently slim.
How much would the environmental investigation cost?
A Phase I and II environmental study (including an asbestos survey and groundwater sampling)
would cost up to $32,000 and would require approximately six weeks to complete.
How would the property acquisition and ancillary costs be funded?
Purchase of the subject property would be paid for through the Development Fund. The
Development Fund would be reimbursed upon resale to a future redeveloper. Costs related to the
environmental investigation, building demolition, restrictive waste removal, as well as site
stabilization would also be paid for through the Development Fund. Since these expenses are all TIF
eligible, the Development Fund could be reimbursed from the recently created Ellipse on Excelsior
TIF District (of which the subject property is a part) as tax increment becomes available. This would
require approval of an Interfund Loan resolution.
Next Steps
If the EDA is interested in acquiring the subject property staff will arrange for an environmental
investigation and negotiate a formal purchase agreement with the property owner. The agreement
would be presented to the EDA for review and approval.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard Page 10
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Potential EDA Acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn property)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is requested to consider the acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Blvd. for up to $950,000. The
EDA could incur addition costs related to environmental investigation, building demolition as well
as site stabilization and maintenance.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the Strategic Directions of providing well-maintained [neighborhoods], being
a connected and engaged community, as well as promoting community aesthetics.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 3924 Excelsior Boulevard Page 11
Meeting Date: October 26, 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:
2010 Enterprise Fund Budgets and Related Capital Improvement Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested or required at this time. This study session discussion is to provide
information on the 2010 Enterprise Fund Budgets.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• What are the initial reactions of the City Council to the 2010 Enterprise Fund Budgets?
• Going forward, what other information would the City Council like to receive regarding the
2010 Enterprise Fund budgets?
BACKGROUND:
Each year the City Council reviews the Enterprise Funds to ensure the budgets are prepared in the
same consistent fashion as the General and Park and Recreation Funds. While formal adoption of
the enterprise fund budgets is not technically required, it is important to do so because, when taken
in aggregate, they make up a significant portion of a customer’s overall expenditures for receiving
city services.
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.
2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets
For the Sewer, Solid Waste, Storm Water and Water funds, the following items apply to all the
funds for budgeting purposes:
• Charges for services revenues are based on the Ehler’s Utility Rate Analysis presented to
Council in February, 2009.
• Personnel Services are consistent with the General and Park and Recreation Fund budget
philosophies the Council has previously directed.
• Other expense line items were to remain at 2009 levels or less, unless contractually or past
history dictates an increase.
• Capital Outlay is consistent with the 2010 – 2014 Capital Improvement Plan.
• Transfers out remain at the 2009 levels.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: 2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Sewer Fund
Overall, the Sewer Fund’s expenses increased by approximately $170,000 or 3.2% after factoring in
a $219,000 increase from $3,425,000 to $3,644,000 in sanitary sewer charges from the Met Council
(Met Council Environmental Services – MCES). This increase by the Met Council is a result of a
new calculation method that is required and results in significant increases to participating cities. In
speaking with staff at the Met Council, they expect the MCES charge to increase by 6% in 2011 and
2012 and 5% thereafter. Excluding this line item increase, the remaining budgeted operations
within the fund are projected to decrease by approximately $49,000 or 2.7%. As per the CIP,
capital projects are budgeted at $330,000, with no significant changes in cost from the 2009
Adopted Budget. Charges for Services revenues are suggested to be increased by 5.5% in the 2010
Proposed Budget per the Ehler’s Utility forecast. However, this number may need to be increased
based on the new MCES charges.
Solid Waste Fund
This fund’s operating expenses increased by approximately $20,000 or .81% after factoring out a
one time transfer of $1,000,000 to the Capital Replacement Fund. This transfer will be to assist in
paying for the MSC project. Otherwise, two expenses, one for $10,000 for software and $7,000 in
contract costs with Waste Management and Eureka account for most of the $20,000 increase. This
fund does not have true capital costs and are therefore accounted for in operations for items such as
additional carts. Charges for Services revenues are suggested to be increased by 3.0% in the 2010
Proposed Budget per the Ehler’s Utility forecast. The rates may need to be increased further in
future years, based on changes in the economy and contractual obligations with vendors.
Storm Water Fund
This fund’s operating expenses increased by approximately $15,300 or 1.02% from $811,100 to
$826,400 after removing bond interest and capital outlay outliers. The bond interest pertains to two
issuances, the 2001B and 2007A and is budgeted at $155,000 for 2010. Per the CIP, capital outlay
increased by $880,000 from $350,000 in the Adopted 2009 Budget to $1,230,000 in the Proposed
2010 Budget. The large projects proposed that are aside from normal repairs and replacements are
the Lift Station #6 and Minnehaha Creek Flooding projects, with each project receiving $500,000 in
funding from the Storm Water Fund. Charges for Services revenues are suggested to be increased by
approximately 17% in the 2010 Proposed Budget per the Ehler’s Utility forecast. This significant
increase is to cover the major capital needs in 2010 and beyond. Potential future rate increase could
be far less significant based on current estimates and Council direction.
Water Fund
The Water Fund’s operating expenses increased by approximately $385,000 or 10.85% from
$3,553,000 to $3,938,000 after removing Capital Outlay. Of this increase, approximately $32,000
was in Personnel Services for current union contracts. Approximately $220,000 are for increases in
Supplies for chemicals, meters, valves, hydrants and cleaning and waste removal based on historical
costs and projections for 2010. Services and Other Charges are budgeted to increase by
approximately $115,000 which is related to a $60,000 increase in professional services for meter
work/replacements and $50,000 for electricity costs based on historical data. Capital Outlay
decreased by $96,000 from $1,351,000 in the Adopted 2009 Budget to $1,255,000 in the Proposed
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: 2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
2010 Budget. This is part of the normal flow of projects based on the CIP. Charges for Services
revenues are suggested to be increased by approximately 4.7% in the 2010 Proposed Budget per the
Ehler’s Utility forecast. The rates may need to be increased further in future years, based on cash
flow needs.
Capital Improvement Plan
Attached are documents which provide a preliminary snapshot of the 2010 – 2014 CIP for Utility
Funds only. These documents summarize the CIP in two separate ways – CIP Funding Source
Summary and CIP Projects by Funding Source. Based on Council direction, staff will revise the
documents as needed to meet the goals of the City.
Long Range Financial Management Plan
Throughout the year, staff has brought to Council updated versions of the Long Range Financial
Management Plan (LRFMP). Staff was prepared to provide information pertaining to each of the
Enterprise Funds, but due to new information just received (e.g. MCES rate increases), staff thought
it was best to verify and recalculate the LRFMP for a later meeting.
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 Enterprise Funds Budgets
CIP Funding Source Summary – Enterprise Funds
CIP Projects by Funding Source – Enterprise Funds
Prepared by: Brian Swanson, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2010 Budget
Department: Sewer Fund
Business Unit: 5100 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 2010
Actual Amount Actual Amount Actual Amount
Adopted
Budget
Requested
Budget
New
Programs
Adopted
Budget
REVENUES
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES (7)(11)(82)0 0 0 0
INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 (55,730) (23,055)0 0 0 0
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (4,584,159) (4,764,471) (4,462,045) (4,790,000) (4,819,104)0 (4,819,104)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5101 COLLECTED BY CITY 1,631 1,631 1,631 0
5102 CURRENT (2,168) (1,965) (21,591)0
5103 DELINQUENT (98)(186)0
OTHER
5200 MISCELLANEOUS (1,197)0
MISC OTHER INCOME (105,283) (166,201) 5,428 (120,000) (70,000)0 (70,000)
TOTAL REVENUES (4,690,084) (4,986,933) (4,500,911) (4,910,000) (4,889,104) 0 (4,889,104)
EXPENDITURES
PERSONAL SERVICES 436,403 261,392 313,495 259,700 274,200 0 274,200
SUPPLIES 29,859 17,581 78,361 38,700 38,650 0 38,650
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,557,264 3,733,144 3,861,144 3,820,791 3,974,549 0 3,974,549
DEPRECIATION 231,862 187,543 149,610 0 0 0 0
CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 1 328,295 330,000 0 330,000
TRANSFERS OUT 746,060 790,849 741,334 790,876 790,876 0 790,876
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,001,448 4,990,509 5,143,945 5,238,362 5,408,275 0 5,408,275
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets and Capital Improvement Plan Page 4
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2010 Budget
Department: Solid Waste Fund
Business Unit: 5200 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 2010
Actual Amount Actual Amount Actual Amount
Adopted
Budget
Requested
Budget
New
Programs
Adopted
Budget
REVENUES
INTERGOVERNMENTAL (91,516) (90,016) (101,301) (90,000) (95,000)0 (95,000)
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (2,124,203) (2,395,469) (2,347,995) (2,418,080) (2,517,930)0 (2,517,930)
OTHER
5200 MISCELLANEOUS (138)0
MISC OTHER INCOME (92,510) (125,969) (79,608) (90,000) (75,000)0 (75,000)
TOTAL REVENUES (2,308,229) (2,611,454) (2,529,042) (2,598,080) (2,687,930) 0 (2,687,930)
EXPENDITURES
PERSONAL SERVICES 34,382 34,281 42,171 128,225 128,400 0 128,400
SUPPLIES 50,948 23,131 57,180 48,500 58,500 0 58,500
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,943,973 1,962,182 2,036,326 2,290,050 2,299,900 0 2,299,900
OTHER EXPENSE 335,617 348,866 353,299 314,732 1,314,732 0 1,314,732
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,364,920 2,368,460 2,488,976 2,781,507 3,801,532 0 3,801,532
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets and Capital Improvement Plan Page 5
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2010 Budget
Department: Storm Water Fund
Business Unit: 5300 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 2010
Actual Amount Actual Amount Actual Amount
Adopted
Budget
Requested
Budget
New
Programs
Adopted
Budget
REVENUES
INTERGOVERNMENTAL (353,942) (117,256) (864,753)0 0 0 0
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (1,169,915) (1,470,529) (1,529,180) (1,550,000) (1,896,318)0 (1,896,318)
OTHER
5200 MISCELLANEOUS (3,217)0
MISC OTHER INCOME (18,552) (74,132) (23,287) (40,000) (20,000)0 (20,000)
TOTAL REVENUES (1,542,409) (1,665,134) (2,417,220) (1,590,000) (1,916,318) 0 (1,916,318)
EXPENDITURES
PERSONAL SERVICES 151,930 188,983 253,378 222,500 240,675 0 240,675
SUPPLIES 12,627 4,249 6,589 34,700 33,950 0 33,950
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 477,245 446,230 452,869 641,043 706,850 0 706,850
DEPRECIATION 372,128 432,725 445,774 0 0 0 0
CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 (1) 350,000 1,230,000 0 1,230,000
TRANSFERS OUT 335,118 317,694 328,438 395,123 395,123 0 395,123
MISC OTHER EXPENSE 18,482 16,133 13,888 18,000 14,000 0 14,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,367,530 1,406,014 1,500,935 1,661,366 2,620,598 0 2,620,598
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets and Capital Improvement Plan Page 6
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2010 Budget
Department: Water Fund
Business Unit: 5001 - 5097 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 2010
Actual Amount Actual Amount Actual Amount
Adopted
Budget
Requested
Budget
New
Programs
Adopted
Budget
REVENUES
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES (459)(872) (9,690)0 0 0 0
LICENSES & PERMITS (2,788) (14,428) (29,021)0 0 0 0
FINES & FORFEITS 0 (760)0 0 0 0 0
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (2,786,613) (3,232,041) (3,251,474) (3,260,000) (3,677,766)0 (3,677,766)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5101 COLLECTED BY CITY (10,642) (19,948) (4,250)0 0 0 0
5102 CURRENT (10,818) (26,749) (39,644)0 0 0 0
5103 DELINQUENT (33,774) (33,924) (39,303)0 0 0 0
OTHER
5200 MISCELLANEOUS (10,500)0 (18,410)0 0 0 0
5300 RENT REVENUE (123,992) (132,575) (210,562) (130,000) (130,000)0 (130,000)
5330 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 0 (1,542)0 0 0 0 0
MISC OTHER INCOME (28,090) (44,518) 23,049 (80,000) (65,000)0 (65,000)
TOTAL REVENUES (3,007,676) (3,507,357) (3,579,305) (3,470,000) (3,872,766) 0 (3,872,766)
EXPENDITURES
PERSONAL SERVICES 637,832 804,329 807,126 935,400 967,400 0 967,400
SUPPLIES 331,221 374,191 548,507 431,800 562,500 89,500 652,000
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,529,505 1,672,211 1,569,254 1,575,415 1,690,690 0 1,690,690
DEPRECIATION 331,438 362,438 439,589 0 0 0 0
CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,719 0 (77,265) 1,351,000 1,255,000 0 1,255,000
TRANSFERS OUT 506,965 538,882 533,656 610,652 610,652 0 610,652
MISC OTHER EXPENSE 12,895 15,691 17,924 0 18,000 0 18,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,352,575 3,767,742 3,838,791 4,904,267 5,104,242 89,500 5,193,742
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets and Capital Improvement Plan Page 7
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets and Capital Improvement Plan Page 8
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets and Capital Improvement Plan Page 9
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2010 Enterprise Funds Budgets and Capital Improvement Plan Page 10
Meeting Date: October 26, 2009
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 26, 2009
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This is a written report for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues and
expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds should be a
primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use
of tax levy dollars.
Through the month of September, actual expenditures should generally not exceed about 75% of
the annual budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 69% and the Park and
Recreation Fund expenditures are at 72%. Both of these figures are not only below the general
expected level, but they are also below last year’s comparable figures of 71% and 85% respectively.
Certain revenues tend to be slightly harder to gauge in this same way due to the timing of when they
are received. Significant variances from the budget for both revenues and expenditures are
highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
• General Fund property tax revenues are slightly below 50% because of delinquent taxes.
Staff believes this revenue source may potentially fall short of the 99% that we have generally
collected in prior years because of increasing delinquencies county-wide and the increase in
commercial tax court petitions which have the ability to reduce taxes retroactively.
• License and permit revenues are at $2,367,407 or 94% of the annual budget. This indicates
that we should meet budget again this year.
• While interest earnings are not allocated until the end of the year, it is likely that this source
of income will be down significantly, probably about $150,000 below budget, with short
term rates staying well below 1%. Accordingly, the 2010 interest income budget has been
revised downward to account for the fact that interest rates may not improve in the near
future.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report
Expenditures:
• Communications & Marketing service charges are at about 97% for the year, but this reflects
the full cost of the combined Park & Recreation brochure and Park Perspective. The 2009
budget for IR did not assume paying for the full cost of the combined Park and Recreation
and Park Perspective publication. As such, savings are shown in the Park and Recreation
budget relating to the cost of the Park and Recreation publication. We will need to properly
allocate the costs for the rest of the year.
Parks and Recreation
Revenues:
• Revenues for the Rec Center Division are running lower than last year due mainly to the
cool weather conditions over the pool season. For the 2010 budget, we have reduced the
aquatic park revenue projection to account for the fact that this revenue source can fluctuate
significantly depending on the weather.
Expenditures:
• Recreation Center supplies expenditures are at 87% of budget because most of the pool
supplies and concessions have been purchased by this time of the year.
• Environmental services expenditures are over 100% primarily because the number of tree
removals is down a bit this year, but the diameter of the trees being removed due to disease
are larger making the cost more. The Repairs and Maintenance expenditures, where the
direct tree removal charges are identified, are over budget by 65%. This issue has been
addressed in the 2010 budget through an addition of $100,000 in budgeted expenditures for
tree removals.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Finance Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,970,275.00-7,208,993.31- 7,761,281.69- 48.16 |14,107,179.00-7,134,840.22- 50.58
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,515,000.00- 197,054.40- 2,367,407.30- 147,592.70- 94.13 |2,712,715.00-3,200,616.27- 117.99
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 312,000.00- 25,601.53- 243,619.43- 68,380.57- 78.08 |311,000.00-218,107.91- 70.13
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,647,214.00- 62,470.46- 792,213.92- 855,000.08- 48.09 |1,709,365.00-916,549.55- 53.62
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,201,900.00- 10,702.79- 462,393.51- 739,506.49- 38.47 |1,084,975.00-467,911.00- 43.13
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-8,483.33- 113,057.42- 13,057.42 113.06 |100,000.00-76,687.50- 76.69
4001 REVENUES 20,746,389.00-304,312.51-11,187,684.89-9,558,704.11-53.93 |20,025,234.00-12,014,712.45-60.00
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,646,154.00 602,757.67 13,365,225.21 5,280,928.79 71.68 |17,638,555.00 13,054,651.00 74.01
6210 SUPPLIES 781,135.00 67,456.39 502,567.90 278,567.10 64.34 |758,098.00 572,714.67 75.55
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 70,775.00 9,558.53 34,883.34 35,891.66 49.29 |71,350.00 20,464.00 28.68
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,195,215.00 231,844.38 2,352,352.15 1,842,862.85 56.07 |4,258,872.00 2,535,395.49 59.53
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 91.02 91.02-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 23,693,279.00 911,616.97 16,255,119.62 7,438,159.38 68.61 |22,726,875.00 16,183,225.16 71.21
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,628,910.00- 219,075.82- 1,971,682.38- 657,227.62- 75.00 |2,555,694.00-1,916,770.59- 75.00
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-62.35- 4,012.15-2,012.15 200.61 |2,000.00-445.00- 22.25
8100 INTEREST 350,000.00-76,283.34 426,283.34- 21.80- |325,000.00-210,442.22- 64.75
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 10,773.00 6,253.00 6,253.00-|100.00-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 125.00- 3,475.00-3,475.00 |5,750.00-
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 307.50-307.50 |912.40-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,980,910.00-208,490.17-1,896,940.69-1,083,969.31-63.64 |2,882,694.00-2,134,420.21-74.04
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES .71 .71-|8.25
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,000.00 81.33 180,918.67 .04 |180,650.00 61,261.47 33.91
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,960.65 16,120.87 2,879.13 84.85 |400.00 21,489.03 5,372.26
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,000.00 1,960.65 16,202.91 183,797.09 8.10 |181,050.00 82,758.75 45.71
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 165,980.00 400,774.94 3,186,696.95 3,020,716.95-1,919.93 |3.00-2,116,851.25 **********
01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 400,774.94 3,186,696.95 3,020,716.95-1,919.93 |3.00-2,116,851.25 **********
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,073,118.00-2,036,559.00- 2,036,559.00- 50.00 |3,750,197.00-1,875,098.50- 50.00
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 350.00- 6,610.00-6,610.00 |5,950.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 55,702.00-970.75- 38,795.48- 16,906.52- 69.65 |56,402.00-59,133.51- 104.84
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,141,598.00- 65,003.94- 875,547.53- 266,050.47- 76.69 |1,058,170.00-908,369.19- 85.84
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 883,000.00- 72,122.47- 522,534.90- 360,465.10- 59.18 |823,061.00-572,633.63- 69.57
4001 REVENUES 6,153,418.00-138,447.16-3,480,046.91-2,673,371.09-56.55 |5,687,830.00-3,421,184.83-60.15
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,520,813.00 107,901.42 2,620,938.99 899,874.01 74.44 |3,403,854.00 2,657,362.35 78.07
6210 SUPPLIES 922,131.00 47,553.45 551,314.71 370,816.29 59.79 |795,292.00 753,472.67 94.74
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 500.00 520.97 3,599.03 12.64 |4,500.00 1,982.01 44.04
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,703,002.00 120,993.80 1,265,824.00 437,178.00 74.33 |1,543,904.00 1,467,770.11 95.07
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 15,352.00 1,602.83 13,749.17 10.44 |19,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,165,418.00 276,948.67 4,440,201.50 1,725,216.50 72.02 |5,766,550.00 4,880,587.14 84.64
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00-
8100 INTEREST |1,600.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 12,000.00-50.00- 4,259.00-7,741.00- 35.49 |11,100.00-5,077.00- 45.74
8200 MISC REVENUE |34,116.89-
8001 OTHER INCOME 12,000.00-50.00-4,259.00-7,741.00-35.49 |87,700.00-39,193.89-44.69
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 6,735.78 75.00
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 8.36 8.36-|80.85
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 807.06 14,819.51 14,819.51-|13,642.17
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 807.06 14,827.87 14,827.87-|8,981.00 20,458.80 227.80
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 139,258.57 970,723.46 970,723.46-|1.00 1,440,667.22 *********
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 139,258.57 970,723.46 970,723.46-|1.00 1,440,667.22 *********
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
100 GENERAL
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,970,275.00-7,208,993.31- 7,761,281.69- 48.16 |14,107,179.00-7,134,840.22- 50.58
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-22,602.50- 22,602.50- 50.00 |45,205.00-22,602.50- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2.53-372.72-372.72 |218.04-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 63,981.76- 21,018.24- 75.27 |85,000.00-63,874.17- 75.15
4001 REVENUES 15,100,480.00-7,085.86-7,295,950.29-7,804,529.71-48.32 |14,237,384.00-7,221,534.93-50.72
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES |52.50
6001 EXPENDITURES |52.50
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,628,910.00- 219,075.82- 1,971,682.38- 657,227.62- 75.00 |2,555,694.00-1,916,770.59- 75.00
8100 INTEREST 350,000.00-76,285.95 426,285.95- 21.80- |325,000.00-210,442.22- 64.75
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 500.00 500.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,978,910.00-219,075.82-1,894,896.43-1,084,013.57-63.61 |2,880,694.00-2,127,212.81-73.84
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,000.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,000.00
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 17,899,390.00-226,161.68-9,190,846.72-8,708,543.28-51.35 |16,938,078.00-9,348,695.24-55.19
100 GENERAL 17,899,390.00-226,161.68-9,190,846.72-8,708,543.28-51.35 |16,938,078.00-9,348,695.24-55.19
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 5
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
110 ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 215,500.00-3,208.30- 168,476.96- 47,023.04- 78.18 |178,000.00-179,966.65- 101.10
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-750.00- 6,750.00-1,250.00- 84.38 |8,000.00-4,000.00- 50.00
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 947.30-947.30 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 97.00-97.00 |
4001 REVENUES 223,500.00-3,958.30-176,271.26-47,228.74-78.87 |186,000.00-183,966.65-98.91
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 531,500.00 13,367.68 379,714.10 151,785.90 71.44 |511,250.00 390,696.68 76.42
6210 SUPPLIES 3,700.00 180.57 2,261.86 1,438.14 61.13 |4,350.00 5,263.32 121.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,635.00 62,144.11 299,980.19 155,654.81 65.84 |518,727.00 317,950.58 61.29
6001 EXPENDITURES 990,835.00 75,692.36 681,956.15 308,878.85 68.83 |1,034,327.00 713,910.58 69.02
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 307.50-307.50 |30.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 307.50-307.50 |30.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES .71 .71-|8.25
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 4.86 4.86-|14.95
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 5.57 5.57-|23.20
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 767,335.00 71,734.06 505,382.96 261,952.04 65.86 |848,327.00 529,937.13 62.47
110 ADMINISTRATION 767,335.00 71,734.06 505,382.96 261,952.04 65.86 |848,327.00 529,937.13 62.47
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 6
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 FINANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 50,000.00-27,833.75- 22,166.25- 55.67 |50,000.00-27,364.75- 54.73
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00-150.00-150.00 |
4001 REVENUES 50,000.00-150.00-27,983.75-22,016.25-55.97 |50,000.00-27,364.75-54.73
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 999,200.00 23,918.03 713,089.53 286,110.47 71.37 |951,407.00 658,225.38 69.18
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 104.49 2,378.33 1,846.67 56.29 |4,000.00 2,649.03 66.23
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 162,555.00 10,856.25 106,220.21 56,334.79 65.34 |167,356.00 123,038.91 73.52
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,165,980.00 34,878.77 821,688.07 344,291.93 70.47 |1,122,763.00 783,913.32 69.82
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 125.00- 3,475.00-3,475.00 |5,750.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE |281.71-
8001 OTHER INCOME 125.00-3,475.00-3,475.00 |6,031.71-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 24.41 475.59 4.88 |150.00 61,261.47 *********
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 22.97 477.03 4.59 |300.00 2.96 .99
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 47.38 952.62 4.74 |450.00 61,264.43 *********
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,116,980.00 34,603.77 790,276.70 326,703.30 70.75 |1,073,213.00 811,781.29 75.64
120 FINANCE 1,116,980.00 34,603.77 790,276.70 326,703.30 70.75 |1,073,213.00 811,781.29 75.64
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 7
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
130 HUMAN RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 9,000.00-5,461.00-3,539.00- 60.68 |9,000.00-3,142.00- 34.91
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30.00-30.00 |
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-5,491.00-3,509.00-61.01 |9,000.00-3,142.00-34.91
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 481,000.00 16,629.49 353,935.85 127,064.15 73.58 |459,624.00 346,136.95 75.31
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 83.84 1,533.33 466.67 76.67 |2,000.00 793.68 39.68
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 4,595.33 81,244.75 79,305.25 50.60 |168,050.00 95,034.18 56.55
6001 EXPENDITURES 643,550.00 21,308.66 436,713.93 206,836.07 67.86 |629,674.00 441,964.81 70.19
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 634,550.00 21,308.66 431,222.93 203,327.07 67.96 |620,674.00 438,822.81 70.70
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 634,550.00 21,308.66 431,222.93 203,327.07 67.96 |620,674.00 438,822.81 70.70
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 8
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 12,000.00-1,120.00- 10,809.25-1,190.75- 90.08 |12,000.00-9,405.00- 78.38
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 585,000.00-5,386.51- 344,939.24- 240,060.76- 58.96 |572,675.00-360,057.10- 62.87
4001 REVENUES 597,000.00-6,506.51-355,748.49-241,251.51-59.59 |584,675.00-369,462.10-63.19
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,047,000.00 15,955.95 732,165.38 314,834.62 69.93 |1,019,147.00 747,523.37 73.35
6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 45.32 531.80 2,468.20 17.73 |3,000.00 449.50 14.98
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,750.00 394.51 12,046.23 44,703.77 21.23 |57,750.00 44,064.27 76.30
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,107,750.00 16,395.78 744,743.41 363,006.59 67.23 |1,080,897.00 792,037.14 73.28
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 510,750.00 9,889.27 388,994.92 121,755.08 76.16 |496,222.00 422,575.04 85.16
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 510,750.00 9,889.27 388,994.92 121,755.08 76.16 |496,222.00 422,575.04 85.16
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 9
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 8,200.00-8,200.00-|8,200.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,250.00- 12,500.00-2,500.00- 83.33 |15,000.00-12,813.33- 85.42
4001 REVENUES 23,200.00-1,250.00-12,500.00-10,700.00-53.88 |23,200.00-12,813.33-55.23
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 534,000.00 18,557.76 390,051.76 143,948.24 73.04 |510,784.00 377,526.85 73.91
6210 SUPPLIES 105,500.00 2,733.68 29,989.38 75,510.62 28.43 |109,500.00 55,298.51 50.50
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 5,725.61 10,643.22 15,356.78 40.94 |31,000.00 6,685.05 21.56
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 537,942.00 32,860.83 296,823.25 241,118.75 55.18 |536,642.00 312,396.07 58.21
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,203,442.00 59,877.88 727,507.61 475,934.39 60.45 |1,187,926.00 751,906.48 63.30
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |385.09-
8001 OTHER INCOME |385.09-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 37.02 37.02-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 203.10 203.10-|6.19
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 240.12 240.12-|6.19
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,180,242.00 58,627.88 715,247.73 464,994.27 60.60 |1,164,726.00 738,714.25 63.42
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,180,242.00 58,627.88 715,247.73 464,994.27 60.60 |1,164,726.00 738,714.25 63.42
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 10
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,277.42-1,277.42 |
4001 REVENUES 1,277.42-1,277.42 |
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 575,000.00 18,790.46 425,392.30 149,607.70 73.98 |566,679.00 481,386.99 84.95
6210 SUPPLIES 30,800.00 2,218.57 14,806.06 15,993.94 48.07 |31,200.00 19,299.84 61.86
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,931.46 2,931.46-|2,300.00 2,021.43 87.89
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 877,970.00 7,566.79 495,309.36 382,660.64 56.42 |860,660.00 546,630.08 63.51
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,483,770.00 28,575.82 938,439.18 545,330.82 63.25 |1,460,839.00 1,049,338.34 71.83
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21.53-51.45 51.45-|50.54
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 21.53-51.45 51.45-|50.54
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,483,770.00 28,554.29 937,213.21 546,556.79 63.16 |1,460,839.00 1,049,388.88 71.83
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,483,770.00 28,554.29 937,213.21 546,556.79 63.16 |1,460,839.00 1,049,388.88 71.83
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 11
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,000.00-3,000.00-|2,500.00-
4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-3,000.00-|2,500.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 184,980.00 3,992.08 114,076.76 70,903.24 61.67 |173,932.00 65,645.71 37.74
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 104,245.00 101,218.12 3,026.88 97.10 |113,850.00 121,841.50 107.02
6001 EXPENDITURES 289,225.00 3,992.08 215,294.88 73,930.12 74.44 |287,782.00 187,487.21 65.15
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 16.49 16.49-|16.18
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 16.49 16.49-|16.18
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 286,225.00 3,992.08 215,311.37 70,913.63 75.22 |287,782.00 185,003.39 64.29
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 286,225.00 3,992.08 215,311.37 70,913.63 75.22 |287,782.00 185,003.39 64.29
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 12
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
160 POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS |20.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 24,851.53- 236,869.43- 66,630.57- 78.05 |302,600.00-213,449.91- 70.54
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 809,009.00- 62,470.46- 307,929.09- 501,079.91- 38.06 |882,160.00-416,479.00- 47.21
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-4,925.75- 64,705.27- 44,994.73- 58.98 |110,300.00-65,277.11- 59.18
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 36,370.47- 36,370.47 |
4001 REVENUES 1,222,209.00-92,247.74-645,874.26-576,334.74-52.84 |1,295,060.00-695,226.02-53.68
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,572,294.00 225,670.86 4,742,210.01 1,830,083.99 72.15 |6,185,321.00 4,645,957.10 75.11
6210 SUPPLIES 150,900.00 10,945.42 59,960.23 90,939.77 39.74 |155,300.00 63,113.84 40.64
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 35,775.00 2,714.21 17,704.02 18,070.98 49.49 |33,550.00 11,002.18 32.79
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 547,053.00 22,024.70 289,719.70 257,333.30 52.96 |552,343.00 285,608.07 51.71
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,306,022.00 261,355.19 5,109,593.96 2,196,428.04 69.94 |6,926,514.00 5,005,681.19 72.27
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-62.35- 4,012.15-2,012.15 200.61 |2,000.00-445.00- 22.25
8100 INTEREST 2.61-2.61 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00-62.35-4,014.76-2,014.76 200.74 |2,000.00-445.00-22.25
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 19.36 169.81 330.19 33.96 |100.00 170.72 170.72
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 19.36 169.81 830.19 16.98 |600.00 170.72 28.45
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,082,813.00 169,064.46 4,459,874.75 1,622,938.25 73.32 |5,630,054.00 4,310,180.89 76.56
160 POLICE 6,082,813.00 169,064.46 4,459,874.75 1,622,938.25 73.32 |5,630,054.00 4,310,180.89 76.56
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 13
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,500.00 2,651.47 56,178.41 20,321.59 73.44 |73,127.00 55,216.68 75.51
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |1,100.00 145.73 13.25
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 231.00- 4,512.96 4,192.04 51.84 |9,756.00 5,089.75 52.17
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,055.00 2,420.47 60,691.37 25,363.63 70.53 |83,983.00 60,452.16 71.98
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,055.00 2,420.47 60,691.37 25,363.63 70.53 |83,983.00 60,452.16 71.98
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,055.00 2,420.47 60,691.37 25,363.63 70.53 |83,983.00 60,452.16 71.98
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 14
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 50,000.00-7,758.95- 35,487.72- 14,512.28- 70.98 |55,000.00-31,266.42- 56.85
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-5,712.53- 294,287.47-1.90 |332,000.00-33,660.00- 10.14
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-360.00- 14,943.00- 10,943.00 373.58 |4,000.00-9,895.00- 247.38
4001 REVENUES 354,000.00-8,118.95-56,143.25-297,856.75-15.86 |391,000.00-74,821.42-19.14
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,815,680.00 100,400.08 1,994,263.04 821,416.96 70.83 |2,712,378.00 1,926,438.16 71.02
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 4,205.16 29,674.31 42,135.69 41.32 |93,648.00 61,605.91 65.78
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 1,118.71 2,909.64 2,090.36 58.19 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 224,183.00 11,178.92 117,664.09 106,518.91 52.49 |223,092.00 130,719.95 58.59
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,116,673.00 116,902.87 2,144,511.08 972,161.92 68.81 |3,029,118.00 2,118,764.02 69.95
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 10,773.00 5,753.00 5,753.00-|100.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 10,773.00 5,753.00 5,753.00-|100.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 11.52 11.52 11.52-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 11.52 11.52 11.52-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,762,673.00 119,568.44 2,094,132.35 668,540.65 75.80 |2,638,118.00 2,043,842.60 77.47
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,762,673.00 119,568.44 2,094,132.35 668,540.65 75.80 |2,638,118.00 2,043,842.60 77.47
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 15
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,162,500.00- 178,677.15- 2,095,893.37- 66,606.63- 96.92 |2,392,615.00-2,912,078.20- 121.71
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |445.65-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 28.00- 2,214.11-2,214.11 |800.00-882.00- 110.25
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 25.19-25.19 |
4001 REVENUES 2,162,500.00-178,705.15-2,098,132.67-64,367.33-97.02 |2,393,415.00-2,913,405.85-121.73
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,941,500.00 62,958.53 1,359,113.58 582,386.42 70.00 |1,771,747.00 1,334,567.80 75.32
6210 SUPPLIES 22,300.00 1,520.19 9,749.86 12,550.14 43.72 |11,500.00 12,905.11 112.22
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 71,627.00 4,937.44 36,636.35 34,990.65 51.15 |69,627.00 67,912.25 97.54
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,035,427.00 69,416.16 1,405,499.79 629,927.21 69.05 |1,852,874.00 1,415,385.16 76.39
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS |215.60-
8001 OTHER INCOME |215.60-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 19.90 19.90-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,951.30 15,618.93 2,381.07 86.77 |21,202.22
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,951.30 15,638.83 2,361.17 86.88 |21,202.22
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 109,073.00-107,337.69-676,994.05-567,921.05 620.68 |540,541.00-1,477,034.07-273.25
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 109,073.00-107,337.69-676,994.05-567,921.05 620.68 |540,541.00-1,477,034.07-273.25
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 16
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 826,500.00 31,110.45 656,313.51 170,186.49 79.41 |793,133.00 580,273.82 73.16
6210 SUPPLIES 4,500.00 64.36 3,543.02 956.98 78.73 |4,500.00 1,690.81 37.57
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 22,950.00 2,790.00 9,329.03 13,620.97 40.65 |33,450.00 20,889.85 62.45
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,950.00 33,964.81 669,185.56 185,764.44 78.27 |832,583.00 602,854.48 72.41
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21.74 21.74-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 21.74 21.74-|
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,950.00 33,964.81 669,207.30 185,742.70 78.27 |832,583.00 602,854.48 72.41
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,950.00 33,964.81 669,207.30 185,742.70 78.27 |832,583.00 602,854.48 72.41
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 17
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-6,290.00- 56,110.00- 18,890.00- 74.81 |75,000.00-67,850.00- 90.47
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 436,000.00-550.00- 435,450.00-.13 |330,000.00-1,075.00- .33
4001 REVENUES 511,000.00-6,290.00-56,660.00-454,340.00-11.09 |405,000.00-68,925.00-17.02
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 844,000.00 27,981.98 545,623.32 298,376.68 64.65 |690,511.00 539,412.32 78.12
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 10.24 2,437.53 4,612.47 34.57 |7,000.00 4,020.73 57.44
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 695.00 1,305.00 34.75 |2,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 8,341.32 41,114.88 29,635.12 58.11 |85,671.00 25,181.22 29.39
6001 EXPENDITURES 923,800.00 36,333.54 589,870.73 333,929.27 63.85 |785,182.00 568,614.27 72.42
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |25.27
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |25.27
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 412,800.00 30,043.54 533,210.73 120,410.73-129.17 |380,182.00 499,714.54 131.44
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 412,800.00 30,043.54 533,210.73 120,410.73-129.17 |380,182.00 499,714.54 131.44
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 18
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 630.00-630.00 |100.00-30.00- 30.00
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 500.00-500.00-|400.00-658.00- 164.50
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 490,000.00-455,022.50- 34,977.50- 92.86 |450,000.00-440,862.40- 97.97
4001 REVENUES 490,500.00-455,652.50-34,847.50-92.90 |450,500.00-441,550.40-98.01
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,217,000.00 40,772.85 903,097.66 313,902.34 74.21 |1,219,515.00 905,643.19 74.26
6210 SUPPLIES 374,500.00 45,344.55 345,702.19 28,797.81 92.31 |331,000.00 345,478.66 104.37
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |755.34
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 894,300.00 64,385.18 460,533.03 433,766.97 51.50 |861,898.00 438,986.31 50.93
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 91.02 91.02-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,485,800.00 150,502.58 1,709,423.90 776,376.10 68.77 |2,412,413.00 1,690,863.50 70.09
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,995,300.00 150,502.58 1,253,771.40 741,528.60 62.84 |1,961,913.00 1,249,313.10 63.68
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 1,995,300.00 150,502.58 1,253,771.40 741,528.60 62.84 |1,961,913.00 1,249,313.10 63.68
01000 GENERAL FUND 165,980.00 400,774.94 3,186,696.95 3,020,716.95-1,919.93 |3.00-2,116,851.25 **********
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 19
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,073,118.00-2,036,559.00- 2,036,559.00- 50.00 |3,750,197.00-1,875,098.50- 50.00
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-22,351.00- 22,351.00- 50.00 |44,702.00-22,351.00- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 259,298.00-6,273.50- 219,858.30- 39,439.70- 84.79 |242,070.00-167,533.45- 69.21
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-2,104.00- 17,926.70- 16,073.30- 52.73 |19,600.00-11,522.22- 58.79
4001 REVENUES 4,411,118.00-8,377.50-2,296,695.00-2,114,423.00-52.07 |4,056,569.00-2,076,505.17-51.19
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 729,162.00 19,843.82 531,986.39 197,175.61 72.96 |711,222.00 560,138.92 78.76
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 647.65 25,798.68 33,652.32 43.39 |66,892.00 28,924.86 43.24
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 502,597.00 28,703.81 386,895.14 115,701.86 76.98 |472,585.00 416,716.30 88.18
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,291,210.00 49,195.28 944,680.21 346,529.79 73.16 |1,250,699.00 1,005,780.08 80.42
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |1,600.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 14,000.00-1,500.00- 12,500.00- 10.71 |13,100.00-3,000.00- 22.90
8200 MISC REVENUE |34,116.89-
8001 OTHER INCOME 14,000.00-1,500.00-12,500.00-10.71 |14,700.00-37,116.89-252.50
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 3.79 3.79-|
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 738.53 14,307.32 14,307.32-|13,159.28
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 738.53 14,311.11 14,311.11-|13,159.28
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,133,908.00-41,556.31 1,339,203.68-1,794,704.32-42.73 |2,820,570.00-1,094,682.70-38.81
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,133,908.00-41,556.31 1,339,203.68-1,794,704.32-42.73 |2,820,570.00-1,094,682.70-38.81
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 20
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
201 RECREATION CENTER
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 679,000.00-5,556.65- 464,255.06- 214,744.94- 68.37 |645,500.00-539,968.46- 83.65
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 722,000.00- 54,004.81- 385,394.71- 336,605.29- 53.38 |691,200.00-451,488.05- 65.32
4001 REVENUES 1,401,000.00-59,561.46-849,649.77-551,350.23-60.65 |1,336,700.00-991,456.51-74.17
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 792,467.00 18,767.15 612,075.83 180,391.17 77.24 |765,999.00 596,071.75 77.82
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 4,313.51 148,404.61 21,945.39 87.12 |167,100.00 156,249.77 93.51
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 491,950.00 39,587.72 319,431.13 172,518.87 64.93 |413,284.00 372,039.68 90.02
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |12,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,454,767.00 62,668.38 1,079,911.57 374,855.43 74.23 |1,358,383.00 1,124,361.20 82.77
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 4.57 4.57-|2.28
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4.57 4.57-|2.28
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 53,767.00 3,106.92 230,266.37 176,499.37-428.27 |21,683.00 132,906.97 612.95
201 RECREATION CENTER 53,767.00 3,106.92 230,266.37 176,499.37-428.27 |21,683.00 132,906.97 612.95
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 21
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
202 PARK MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 350.00- 6,610.00-6,610.00 |5,950.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,700.00-130.00 10,830.00-1.21- |8,700.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 26,000.00-4,962.26- 35,787.23-9,787.23 137.64 |11,600.00-34,019.08- 293.27
4001 REVENUES 36,700.00-5,312.26-42,267.23-5,567.23 115.17 |20,300.00-39,969.08-196.89
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 986,400.00 35,695.16 722,244.39 264,155.61 73.22 |961,356.00 763,065.52 79.37
6210 SUPPLIES 93,555.00 9,647.29 71,465.58 22,089.42 76.39 |88,700.00 81,273.02 91.63
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,000.00 1,982.01 49.55
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 369,510.00 21,989.93 228,542.85 140,967.15 61.85 |316,462.00 266,185.08 84.11
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,460,585.00 67,332.38 1,022,252.82 438,332.18 69.99 |1,377,518.00 1,112,505.63 80.76
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,423,885.00 62,020.12 979,985.59 443,899.41 68.82 |1,357,218.00 1,072,536.55 79.02
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,423,885.00 62,020.12 979,985.59 443,899.41 68.82 |1,357,218.00 1,072,536.55 79.02
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 22
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
203 WESTWOOD HILLS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 82,600.00-7,550.00- 76,617.39-5,982.61- 92.76 |80,150.00-69,070.10- 86.18
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 120.00-297.00-297.00 |108.50-
4001 REVENUES 82,600.00-7,670.00-76,914.39-5,685.61-93.12 |80,150.00-69,178.60-86.31
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 420,586.00 14,218.81 316,380.31 104,205.69 75.22 |404,679.00 306,876.52 75.83
6210 SUPPLIES 26,700.00 719.83 12,868.97 13,831.03 48.20 |22,650.00 13,604.81 60.07
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 500.00 500.00 500.00-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 44,500.00 5,490.33 27,462.82 17,037.18 61.71 |39,349.00 26,801.40 68.11
6001 EXPENDITURES 491,786.00 20,928.97 357,212.10 134,573.90 72.64 |466,678.00 347,282.73 74.42
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 50.00-959.00-959.00 |2,077.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 50.00-959.00-959.00 |2,077.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 68.53 512.19 512.19-|451.07
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 68.53 512.19 512.19-|451.07
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 409,186.00 13,277.50 279,850.90 129,335.10 68.39 |386,528.00 276,478.20 71.53
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 409,186.00 13,277.50 279,850.90 129,335.10 68.39 |386,528.00 276,478.20 71.53
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 23
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
204 ENVIRONMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |29,500.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 110,000.00- 45,623.79- 107,815.18-2,184.82- 98.01 |81,750.00-112,438.44- 137.54
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 2,542.98- 3,860.98-3,860.98 |
4001 REVENUES 110,000.00-48,166.77-111,676.16-1,676.16 101.52 |81,750.00-141,938.44-173.63
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,898.00 2,793.92 81,423.85 27,474.15 74.77 |99,297.00 82,188.54 82.77
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 948.06 13,960.83 5,464.17 71.87 |17,900.00 14,859.32 83.01
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 158,470.00 14,312.04 206,900.07 48,430.07- 130.56 |171,285.00 255,588.28 149.22
6001 EXPENDITURES 286,793.00 18,054.02 302,284.75 15,491.75-105.40 |288,982.00 352,636.14 122.03
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 1,800.00-3,800.00 90.00- |2,000.00
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 1,800.00-3,800.00 90.00-|2,000.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 178,793.00 30,112.75-188,808.59 10,015.59-105.60 |209,232.00 210,697.70 100.70
204 ENVIRONMENT 178,793.00 30,112.75-188,808.59 10,015.59-105.60 |209,232.00 210,697.70 100.70
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 24
10/20/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:58:45R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2009
20099/30/2009 <==========================================>20082009
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 11,000.00-970.75- 16,444.48-5,444.48 149.50 |11,700.00-7,282.51- 62.24
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 7,131.60-7,131.60 |19,358.74-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 79,268.28- 21,731.72- 78.48 |100,661.00-75,495.78- 75.00
4001 REVENUES 112,000.00-9,359.17-102,844.36-9,155.64-91.83 |112,361.00-102,137.03-90.90
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,300.00 16,582.56 356,828.22 126,471.78 73.83 |461,301.00 349,021.10 75.66
6210 SUPPLIES 552,650.00 31,277.11 278,816.04 273,833.96 50.45 |432,050.00 458,560.89 106.14
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 20.97 20.97-|
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 135,975.00 10,909.97 96,591.99 39,383.01 71.04 |130,939.00 130,439.37 99.62
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 8,352.00 1,602.83 6,749.17 19.19 |
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,180,277.00 58,769.64 733,860.05 446,416.95 62.18 |1,024,290.00 938,021.36 91.58
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN |75,000.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |75,000.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT |8,981.00 6,735.78 75.00
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |78.57
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |31.82
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |8,981.00 6,846.17 76.23
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,068,277.00 49,410.47 631,015.69 437,261.31 59.07 |845,910.00 842,730.50 99.62
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,068,277.00 49,410.47 631,015.69 437,261.31 59.07 |845,910.00 842,730.50 99.62
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 139,258.57 970,723.46 970,723.46-|1.00 1,440,667.22 *********
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: September, 2009 Monthly Financial Report Page 25
Meeting Date: October 26, 2009
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Quarterly Investment Report (July - September, 2009).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This is a written report for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Our portfolio remains focused on short term cash flow needs, with some longer term securities
locked in to try to maximize interest income potential during the recent fall in interest rates. Over
the past year, we have seen a large part of our portfolio turn over as calls have come in on many of
our higher rate securities.
It is always necessary to have a reasonable amount of cash available to cover the normal cash flow
needs for payroll and general operating expenses. We also will require significant cash outlays as we
pay for the MSC expansion project, potential property acquisitions, and major road construction
projects over the next several months.
Our current portfolio yield is roughly 2.2%. This overall level of return is why staff has reduced the
expected interest earnings forecast in the 2010 budget process. Cities generally use a short horizon
benchmark such as the two year Treasury (.95% at 9/30 down from 1.11% at 6/30) or some similar
measure. While our primary money market investment, the 4M Fund, has dropped to an average
yield of .13%, longer term investments that have been purchased raise the total portfolio yield.
Since commercial paper is no longer considered as secure as it once was, we have very few options
other than money markets to lock in short-term investments for cash flow purposes.
Many of our recent longer term purchases are callable agency bonds. They typically have reasonable
interest rates for the final maturity date which is in three to five years, but are callable in three
months to a year. This effectively reduces the average life of our investments, since we expect most
of these securities to be called. However, we also need to be mindful about keeping sufficient
liquidity to be able to lock in higher rates once the economy begins to expand again.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Quarterly Investment Report (July - September, 2009)
Here is a summary of our portfolio at September 30, 2009:
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Quarterly Investment Report
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Finance Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
6/30/09 9/30/09
<1 Year 36% 34%
1-2 Years 3% 10%
2-3 Years 16% 10%
>3 Years 45% 46%
Commercial Paper None
Agency Bonds/CD’s $36,014,550
Corp/Municipal Debt $ 5,799,921
Money Market $18,559,431
City of St. Louis Park
Investments
September 30, 2009
Institution Type Maturity Yield Basis
Adjusted Market
Value 12/31/08
Value at
9/30/2009
Estimated
Annual Yield
4M MM 0.13%24,099,804 4,698,785 6,108
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 12/29/2010 2.00% 750,000 747,252 752,813 15,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 7/6/2011 2.00% 2,000,167 2,043,120 40,003
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 10/26/2011 5.25% 1,000,310 1,003,257 1,003,440 52,516
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLBC 01/04/2012 5.00% 1,000,000 1,039,690 1,012,190 50,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 05/20/2013 4.00% 1,000,000 1,015,420 1,019,060 40,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 2/26/2014 2.00% 1,000,000 998,440 20,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 3/10/2014 2.25% 1,000,000 1,003,900 22,500
Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 7.19%59,175 54,460 3,916
Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 5/21/2014 2.00% 1,000,000 1,002,500 20,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FHLMC 6/30/2014 3.00% 1,000,000 1,013,320 30,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 7/1/2014 4.00% 1,000,000 1,000,000 40,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney Govt MM Fund 0.19%3,144,943 6,760,956 12,846
17,664,198
Prudential/Wachovia CD 12/24/2009 2.25% 250,000 249,314 250,888 5,625
Prudential/Wachovia CD 12/30/2009 2.20% 250,000 249,345 250,910 5,500
Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 96,686 98,281 4,032
Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 96,686 98,281 4,032
Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/16/2010 4.20% 96,000 96,686 98,281 4,032
Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/19/2010 4.25% 96,000 96,684 98,336 4,080
Prudential/Wachovia CD 7/19/2010 4.25% 96,000 96,684 98,336 4,080
Prudential/Wachovia FNMA 1/22/2014 2.00% 1,000,000 1,004,687 20,000
Prudential/Wachovia FNMA 5/13/2014 2.00% 1,200,133 1,200,312 24,003
Prudential/Wachovia FHLB 6/30/2014 2.00% 1,000,000 1,000,000 20,000
Prudential/Wachovia FNMA 7/8/2014 3.00% 1,000,000 1,005,312 30,000
Prudential/Wachovia US Govt MM Fund 0.01%2,005,103 201
7,208,726
UBS/Paine Webber UBS Cashfund 0.01%5,747,091 2,784,558 278
Sterne, Agee FHLB 02/12/2010 5.00% 1,067,800 1,072,850 1,025,590 53,390
Sterne, Agee FHLB 12/9/2011 2.63% 1,026,113 1,054,890 1,051,930 26,987
Sterne, Agee FHLB 7/23/2012 4.15% 1,055,968 1,061,810 1,039,770 43,812
Sterne, Agee FHLB 8/27/2012 5.05% 1,000,000 1,056,140 1,041,410 50,500
Sterne, Agee FHLB 08/27/2012 2.81% 1,063,803 1,058,740 1,039,650 29,850
Sterne, Agee FNMA 10/22/2012 4.48% 1,031,768 1,005,095 1,002,760 46,254
Sterne, Agee FHLB 10/29/2012 4.03% 1,030,220 1,054,700 1,045,300 41,466
Sterne, Agee FNMA 01/04/2013 2.77% 1,041,216 1,021,930 1,009,760 28,883
Sterne, Agee FNMA 1/18/2013 3.85% 1,004,210 1,030,770 1,039,700 38,662
Sterne, Agee FHLB 2/25/2013 3.65% 523,010 537,626 542,924 19,064
Sterne, Agee FNMA 2/26/2013 3.05% 1,022,043 1,022,200 1,014,960 31,162
Sterne, Agee FNMA 03/18/2013 3.96% 1,000,000 1,032,210 1,048,220 39,600
Sterne, Agee FNMA 4/29/2013 3.60% 815,084 822,777 830,505 29,319
Sterne, Agee FHLMC 5/6/2013 4.00% 999,663 1,001,368 1,004,140 39,987
Sterne, Agee FNMA 5/28/2013 4.05% 999,000 1,059,340 1,067,080 40,460
Sterne, Agee Corp Debt 12/15/2013 3.25% 2,084,125 2,000,000 67,734
Sterne, Agee FFCB 12/27/2013 2.20% 974,412 967,617 21,398
Sterne, Agee FNMA 1/30/2014 2.00% 1,000,000 1,001,490 20,000
Sterne, Agee FHLMC 2/11/2014 2.05% 999,500 1,002,430 20,490
Sterne, Agee FAMC 10/3/2011 2.10% 1,070,954 1,083,770 22,490
Sterne, Agee Farmer Mac 1/14/2011 1.62% 1,068,088 1,048,680 17,303
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2013 3.16% 599,360 604,441 18,940
Sterne, Agee Gov't Debt 9/26/2011 1.55% 964,160 962,450 14,944
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2012 2.80% 101,504 104,397 2,842
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2014 3.52% 720,475 748,893 25,361
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 5/1/2013 3.12% 307,584 316,839 9,597
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 6/1/2014 4.04% 1,003,740 1,062,900 40,551
Sterne, Agee Cash Trust Gov't Cash Trust 0.01%124,248 2,310,030 231
28,017,635
GRAND TOTAL 60,373,902 1,320,028
Portfolio Yield 2.19%
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Quarterly Investment Report (July - September, 2009)Page 3
Meeting Date: October 26, 2009
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Property Foreclosure Workgroup Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is needed at this time. This report is being provided for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council approve of the work and direction staff is taking with foreclosed properties?
BACKGROUND:
City Manager Tom Harmening created the Property Foreclosure Workgroup in April 2008 to
proactively identify and monitor foreclosed properties in St. Louis Park. Representatives from
Information Resources, Fire, Inspections, Public Works, Community Development, Finance,
Administrative Services, Police and Park & Recreation meet quarterly to review property lists, share
information and discuss concerns.
St. Louis Park continues to fare better than many other communities in terms of the foreclosure
crisis. The trending for St. Louis Park in 2009 shows signs of improvement:
Of the 100 sub-market areas reported by the Minneapolis Association of Realtors, St. Louis Park
is currently ranked 12th lowest in terms of market share of lender mediated listings (compared to
18th one year ago).
Trending of sheriff sale actions (i.e. mortgage foreclosures) through the first three quarters of
2009 is at 61 parcels for the city. Trending for the first three quarters in 2008 was at 111 (we
ended the year with 133 actions total).
The supply inventory of active listings for all homes has thinned down over the past year. St.
Louis Park currently has a 6.8 month supply of active listings for both the traditional and lender
mediated markets as of October 1st.
Sale prices in the traditional market continue to decline slightly with signs of leveling off. Year-
to-date the traditional single-family sale price is down between 4.5% to 5.2% for 2009. This is
partially due to the downward drag of the lender mediated market, the general economy and
local market forces. This price performance is on a par with our immediately adjacent suburban
neighbors and superior to most other Twin City metro market areas.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Property Foreclosure Workgroup Update
Meanwhile, the rapid drop in price for the lender mediated market has slowed. Year-to-date for
the lender mediated market is down 6.7% for 2009. As the lender mediated and traditional
markets move closer to a balanced equation, we do expect sale prices to pick up (which has been
widely reported in the media although the actual performance trend is a little too early to say it is
occurring definitively).
We are seeing two distinct types of buyers being very active in the market. The first-time buyer
sub-market has been strong which is predominantly attributed to the $8,000 tax credit available.
In this respect, St. Louis Park is fortunate to be a moderate price alternative as the lower value
stock has clearly improved over the past year. The other distinctive buyer sub-market is
comprised of those who purchase with intent to acquire, fix and re-market as a traditional sale.
We have been finding the re-sale values to be in line with the traditional market throughout the
metro.
This positive trend is similar to the market conditions that Hennepin County is experiencing. The
following was information provided to the city by Jeff Strand with Hennepin County’s Taxpayer
Services:
Overall, Hennepin County’s foreclosure number for August 2009 shows a definite decline from the
same month from each of the two preceding years. The local foreclosure numbers for the first eight
months of 2009 show the following: with data from 2/3 of the year reported, the number of
foreclosure sales in 2009 is trending toward 5,500 compared with 7,348 in 2008 and 5,668 in 2007.
August 2009 County: 430
August 2008 County: 617
August 2007 County: 542
January-August 2009 County: 3,667
January-August 2008 County: 5,201
Minneapolis January-August 2009: 1,479
Suburban HC January-August 2009: 2,188
ACTIVITIES/ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
St. Louis Park’s staff continues to provide referral assistance, enforce property maintenance codes
and work to minimize water damage from occurring in the city’s housing stock. The following is a
summary of the key activities/accomplishments of the workgroup:
Foreclosure Prevention:
Community Development and Information Resources promote foreclosure prevention assistance
information to people who need it the most. Residents can find information about these services at
city hall, on the city’s website, through targeted mailings and in the Park Perspective.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Property Foreclosure Workgroup Update
Property Maintenance:
Assessing maintains a current database of foreclosed homes and is able to provide this information to
key staff in a timely manner. Forestry and Inspections continue to conduct routine windshield
surveys of vacant/foreclosed homes for compliance with the city’s property maintenance code.
In addition, once a property is listed on the Foreclosure List, the Inspections Department sends a
letter to the stakeholders (property lender, attorney, mortgagor, etc.) notifying them about the city’s
property maintenance code; the Point of Sale program; the water shut-off and home winterization
procedures; and how to obtain a certificate of property maintenance.
Utilities:
From October 15 through April 15, the city disconnects water service to unheated properties to
prevent catastrophic water damage. Implementation of the program went smoothly last year: 45
properties were identified as “no-heat” and were contacted about disconnecting the water service.
Of the 45 properties, 15 were able to restore heat and maintain water service. Letters of notification
for this winter season will be mailed to affected stakeholders in late October/early November 2009.
No major changes or new initiatives are planned for 2010; the goal of the workgroup is to continue
building on the success of existing efforts and to keep the Council periodically updated about
foreclosed properties in St. Louis Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities of the Property Foreclosure Workgroup are aligned with the City Council’s Vision
Strategic Direction, “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse
housing stock.”
Attachments: Hennepin County Foreclosures, January – August, 2009
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
DISTRICT 7
DISTRICT 6
DISTRICT 5
DISTRICT 1
DISTRICT 2
DISTRICT 4
DISTRICT 3
MINNEAPOLIS
MEDINA
ORONO
PLYMOUTH
CORCORAN
DAYTON
EDINA
BLOOMINGTON
EDEN PRAIRIE
MAPLE GROVE
MINNETRISTA
INDEPENDENCE
MINNETONKA
GREENFIELD
BROOKLYN PARK
HASSAN TWSP.CHAMPLIN
ROGERS
ST. LOUIS PARK
MOUND
RICHFIELD
GOLDEN VALLEY
CRYSTAL
SHOREWOOD
WAYZATA
NEW HOPE
HOPKINS
BROOKLYN CENTER
DEEPHAVEN
HANOVER
ROBBINSDALE
TONKA BAY
MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
ST. ANTHONY
OSSEO
WOODLAND
FT. SNELLING TERR.
LONG LAKE
MAPLE PLAIN
GREENWOOD
EXCELSIOR
MINNETONKA BEACH
ST. BONIFACIUS
SPRING PARK
LORETTO
ROCKFORD
MEDICINE LAKE
CHANHASSEN
Distribution of Foreclosures
Through August 2009
Hennepin County
0 2 4 6 8 101
Miles
Data Source:
2009 Sales Extract, Hennepin County Sheriff's Office
Total Records: 3,667
Records Successfully Geolocated: 3,660 (99.8%)
Records Unsuccessfully Geolocated: 7 (0.2%)
Commissioner District Boundary
Count of Foreclosures
JAN - AUG 2009
0 - 99
100 - 199
200 - 299
517
1,479
!(Foreclosure (Total Records: 3,667)
Commissioner District Total
1 1,031
2 776
3 264
4 481
5 360
6 294
7 454
Map Produced by Hennepin County
Taxpayer Services Department
Survey Division
September 11, 2009
Ü Note:
Map reports mortgage foreclosure sales
reported by the Hennepin County Sheriff to
Taxpayer Services Department. Hennepin
County's methodology is to count all foreclosure
sheriff's sales categories (assessment, association,
execution, judgment, and mortgage). The Sheriff's
certificate of sale documents included in this
report may still be within the owner's redemption
period, which in Minnesota typically ranges from five
weeks to six months.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Property Foreclosure Workgroup Update Page 4
Meeting Date: October 26, 2009
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Regional Trail Crossings.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None required at this time. This report is being provided at the request of the City Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to discuss trail crossings at a future study session?
BACKGROUND:
At the June 19, 2006 City Council meeting, Council discussed options for the regional trail
crossings at Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue. Based on this initial discussion, the
following improvements were made to the Beltline Boulevard crossing:
1. Remove the white crosswalk pavement markings (previously completed).
2. Narrow the traffic lanes and add a median (safe haven) with appropriate warning signs and
markings.
3. Study the feasibility of converting the trail crossing to a pedestrian crossing.
4. Support the Park District trail/street grade separation project funded for 2010.
The city hired consulting firm SRF to conduct further study and at the November 27, 2006 Study
Session, SRF presented a summary of several options for the regional trail crossing at Beltline
Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue.
For the Beltline Boulevard crossing, the following options were presented:
A grade-separated crossing is the best permanent solution. Currently, Three Rivers Park District
has secured funding to provide for such a crossing in 2010. The cost of a separated grade
crossing is approximately $1.0 -$1.5 M.
A more immediate “interim” solution would be the construction of a raised median with a refuge
area. Other interim measures for consideration would be a signalized crossing at Beltline
Boulevard. A temporary median was installed at Beltline in 2006 and it received positive
feedback. However, staff indicated that an improved and more permanent type of raised median
may be desired in the future (this was installed in late 2007).
Some alternative interim options were also discussed for the Beltline Boulevard crossing:
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings
High Cost Solution: Center median (refuge) with widened 4-lane road without a designated
crosswalk ($75,000 - $150,000). Possibly available late 2007 to mid 2008.
High Cost Solution: Signalized crosswalk on the existing 4-lane road ($50,000 - $100,000).
Possibly available late 2007 to mid 2008.
Mid Cost Solution: Center median (refuge) with narrowed 2-lane road without a designated
crosswalk ($50,000). Possibly available mid 2007. May also require signalization of the Park
Glen Rd / Beltline Blvd intersection ($200,000).
Low Cost Solution: Construct a raised median on the existing 4-lane road without a designated
crosswalk (less than $25,000). Possibly available spring of 2007.
Other: Do nothing (leave as is).
The City Council asked staff to obtain information regarding the feasibility, cost, and schedule to
relocate the existing railroad crossing warning signals associated with a median / refuge installation
and widening of the roadway. They also asked staff to request additional information regarding the
Three Rivers Park District trail/street grade separation project funded for 2010.
Staff brought the requested information back to the Council at the February 26, 2007 Study Session
(attached). The following information was obtained:
The railroad can relocate the existing railroad crossing warning signals in the spring of 2007
(given adequate notice) at an approximate cost of $100,000
There is no additional information regarding the Park District trail/street grade separation
project at this time.
Staff then presented the Council with the following interim options:
Available Interim Improvement Options
Estimated
Cost
Earliest Possible
Completion Date
1 - Install a pedestrian actuated traffic signal (signalized
crosswalk)
$100,000 Summer 2008
2 - Widen road and install a raised 12’ wide median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
- RR signal relocation and crossing surface
Extension
$105,000
$125,000
$230,000
Summer 2007
Summer 2007
3 - Install a 6’ wide raised median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
$20,000
Spring 2007
Staff also discussed some potential funding possibilities and challenges with the Council. The
Council identified option #1, the pedestrian actuated traffic signal, as the best option.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings
At the March 19, 2007 City Council meeting staff brought forward a motion to adopt a resolution
accepting a project report and establishing and ordering Project No. 2007-2700 for crossing
improvements at both Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue trail crossings. Staff also noted
that the estimated project costs were approximately $160,000, and that funding had not yet been
budgeted or specified for this project due to its speculative nature in the prior year. Staff contacted
surrounding communities and the Three Rivers Park District to request participation in the cost of
these projects, and also applied for funding through a new federal program, the Non-Motorized
Transportation Pilot Program. The City Council approved the motion and resolution.
At the September 24, 2007 Study Session (attached), staff provided an update on the traffic signal
project. A preliminary plan and cost estimate was completed, which brought the estimated cost for
the traffic signal project to $250,000. Staff also notified the Council that the grant application for
the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program was unsuccessful. Staff offered the following
options for the Beltline Boulevard crossing:
1. Identify and secure a local (city) funding source and proceed with a traffic signal installation
in the spring of 2008. The installation would be considered “temporary” until Three Rivers
Park District constructs their long term improvement (separated grade crossing). All signal
fixtures will be salvageable for use elsewhere when removed (salvage value estimated at
$75,000, or less).
2. Discontinue consideration of a temporary signal and defer to the long term permanent
improvement being pursued by Three Rivers Park District, currently scheduled for 2010. In
the meantime, minor improvements (temporary bituminous median and striping) could be
installed at the Beltline Crossing at a minimal cost (estimated at $10,000, or less), similar to
the improvements recently installed at the Wooddale Ave crossing.
3. Leave the crossing as is. The crossing as it currently exists is satisfactory until the long term
permanent improvement being pursued by Three Rivers Park District is completed.
The Council directed staff to pursue the raised median curb option (#2 above) and to terminate
efforts to install a signal (#1 above).
Since the September 24, 2007 Study Session, the raised median and lane striping at the Beltline
Boulevard crossing have been installed and Three Rivers Park District was awarded $1.027 million
in Surface Transportation Program Urban Guarantee program funding to construct a pedestrian
bridge over Beltline Boulevard where the trail crossing intersects Beltline Boulevard. This project is
included in both state and regional transportation plans.
However, staff has recently learned that the timing of this bridge, scheduled for 2011, is uncertain.
Three Rivers Park District has placed this grade-separated trail crossing on hold, pending some final
decisions about light rail through St. Louis Park, specifically the station at Beltline Boulevard. If the
Council desires to know more about this decision, staff could arrange for Three River Park District
and Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority to update Council at a future study session.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Study Session Report of February 26, 2007
Study Session Report of September 24, 2007
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 1
3. SW LRT Trail Street Crossings at Beltline Blvd and Wooddale
Ave.
Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To provide the City Council with information requested at a previous Study Session and allow
staff the opportunity to obtain direction on specific crossing improvements desired by Council, if
any.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 27, 2006 Study Session, the City Council received and reviewed a report from
staff that provided relevant background information and possible changes which could be
considered for the SWLRT Regional Trail crossings on Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale
Avenue. At the Study Session, Council discussed possible street crossing options, safety, and
long term improvements at these crossing locations and provided input to staff. Before final
deliberations on possible options, Council requested further information regarding the following
areas:
1. Beltline Boulevard
a. Obtain information regarding the feasibility, cost, and schedule to relocate the
existing railroad crossing warning signals associated with a median / refuge
installation and widening of the roadway.
b. Request additional information regarding the Three Rivers Park District
trail/street grade separation project funded for 2010.
2. Wooddale Avenue
a. Obtain information regarding the feasibility, cost, and schedule to relocate the
existing railroad crossing warning signals associated with a median / refuge
installation and widening of the roadway.
b. Check into the possibility of prohibiting right turns on red from eastbound Hwy 7
to southbound Wooddale Ave.
c. Request additional information regarding Park District plans for a trail/street
grade separation project.
INFORMATION OBTAINED:
The following information was obtained in discussions with Mn/DOT, CP Railroad, and Three
Rivers Park District staff:
1. Beltline Boulevard
a. The railroad can relocate the existing railroad crossing warning signals this spring
(given adequate notice) at an approximate cost of $100,000 (a detailed estimate is
currently being developed by the railroad).
b. There is no additional information regarding the Park District trail/street grade
separation project at this time.
2. Wooddale Avenue
a. It has been determined it is not necessary to relocate the existing railroad crossing
warning signals to install a median / refuge with roadway widening.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 5
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 2
b. A right turn on red prohibition from eastbound Hwy 7 to southbound Wooddale
Ave. may be requested by the city. It is possible Mn/DOT will approve this
request, but the prohibition will likely be limited to peak hour periods only.
Mn/DOT does not like these prohibitions as motorists generally do not obey them.
c. There is no additional information regarding a Park District trail/street grade
separation project at this time. The district has reiterated its desire to participate
in the Hwy 7 / Wooddale interchange project development process so trail
crossing needs can be included in that project.
CURRENT OPTIONS AVAILABLE:
Based on the earlier Study Session discussion and the most current information available, it
appears the following crossing improvement options can be considered on a short term or interim
basis:
Beltline Blvd
Available Interim Improvement Options
Estimated
Cost
Earliest Possible
Completion Date
1 - Install a pedestrian actuated traffic signal (signal-
ized crosswalk)
$100,000 Summer 2008
2 - Widen road and install a raised 12’ wide median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
- RR signal relocation and crossing surface
extension
$105,000
$125,000
$230,000
Summer 2007
Summer 2007
3 - Install a 6’ wide raised median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
$20,000
Spring 2007
Wooddale Ave
Available Interim Improvement Options
Estimated
Cost
Earliest Possible
Completion Date
1 - Realign the trail and crossing north to the south
side of Hwy 7
$45,000 Summer 2007
2 - Install a raised 12’ wide median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
- RR crossing surface extension
$35,000
$25,000
$60,000
Summer 2007
Summer 2007
3 - Install a raised 6’ wide median:
- raised median, striping, paving, etc.
$20,000
Spring 2007
4 - Install a signed and marked 6’ wide median:
(same as Beltline Blvd currently exists)
$10,000 Spring 2007
All of the above options were identified and described in the SRF report late last year.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 6
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 3
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The current Capital Improvement program contains a project (#20072700) tentatively scheduled
for 2007 for possible trail crossing improvements at these crossings. This project estimates
possible costs at $250,000; however, funding was not budgeted nor specified for this project due
to its speculative nature at the time. The Finance Department has been consulted to evaluate
what funding sources and amounts, if any, might be available for a capital project such as this.
They have determined that all normally available funds have already been programmed or
budgeted. However, it may be possible to fund improvements from the Permanent Improvement
Revolving (PIR) Fund, General Fund reserves, or potentially from Tax Increment Financing
funds. In addition, limited funding in the amount of $20,000 can be obtained from the Public
Works Operations Budget for trail crossing improvements in 2007.
Public Works staff has also researched the availability of outside funds for this work. Three
Rivers Parks District staff has previously stated they do not participate in crossing improvements
(such as contemplated above); however, they may participate in trail realignment costs such as
proposed at the Wooddale Ave crossing. If that option is desired by the city, we will need to
submit a funding request for their consideration. In addition, a new federal program, the Non-
Motorized Transportation Pilot Program, could possibly provide funding for any of the above
identified improvements. Unfortunately, due to application and project development
requirements, improvements done under this program could not be started and completed until
2008 at the earliest. This funding source could possibly work if a signalized pedestrian crossing
is desired at Beltline Blvd as that project can not be completed in 2007 anyway due to its
complexity.
In summary, it does not appear outside funding is available for any improvements desired in
2007 other than possibly the trail realignment option at Wooddale Ave.
STAFF EVALUATION and PROPOSED ACTIONS:
The median (signs and markings) installed on Beltline Blvd in 2006 has received satisfactory
comments to date and, based on this feedback, staff proposes to maintain the Beltline Blvd
crossing as it currently exists. In addition, staff proposes to install a similar median (signs and
markings) on Wooddale Ave. this spring funded by the Public Works Operations Budget
($10,000). Council will be asked to formally approve any crossing changes made at Wooddale
Ave.
POLICY QUESTIONS:
Beltline Blvd
1. Should staff continue to maintain the Beltline Blvd crossing as it currently exists or
would Council like to see one of the three improvements identified above pursued?
2. If an improvement is desired at Beltline Blvd, should that be completed in 2007 at city
cost or should outside funds be pursued for a future project?
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 7
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 4
Wooddale Ave
1. Staff is prepared to request Council approval for the installation of a signed and marked
6’ wide median on Wooddale Ave this spring; does Council desire staff to pursue one of
the other crossing improvement options at Wooddale Ave?
2. If a crossing improvement, other than the one proposed by staff, is desired at Wooddale
Ave, should that be completed in 2007 at city cost or should outside funds be pursued for
a future project?
3. Does Council desire staff to request a right turn on red prohibition for eastbound Hwy 7
traffic at Wooddale Ave?
Attachment: Study Session Report, dated November 27, 2006
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 8
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 5
Study Session Report, dated November 27, 2006
1. SW LRT Trail Street Crossings Beltline and Wooddale Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To provide the City Council an opportunity to discuss options and recommendations provided in
the recently completed report by SRF Consulting Engineers and to provide staff with direction
with regards to further action as may be desired for the Regional Trail crossings at Beltline
Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 12, 2006 Study Session, the City Council received and reviewed a report from staff
that provided relevant background information and possible changes which could be considered
for the SWLRT Regional Trail crossings on Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue. At that
time staff implemented “immediate” actions at both crossings (removed the white crosswalk
pavement markings and increased size of trail signs so all trail users must now stop and yield to
vehicles). In addition, staff made arrangements for a traffic consultant to evaluate these two (2)
crossings to evaluate other possible options that may be available.
At the Study Session, Council discussed possible street crossing options, safety, and long term
improvements at these crossing locations and provided input to staff. Staff was directed to
prepare an action item for Council consideration based on this input for the June 19, 2006 City
Council meeting. A summary of the items directed for further investigation were as follows:
3. Beltline Boulevard
a. Remove the white crosswalk pavement markings (previously completed).
b. Narrow the traffic lanes and add a median (safe haven) with appropriate warning
signs and markings.
c. Study the feasibility of converting the trail crossing to a pedestrian crossing.
d. Support the Park District trail/street grade separation project funded for 2010.
4. Wooddale Avenue
a. Remove the white crosswalk pavement markings (previously completed).
b. Close the existing trail crossing and relocate it south to the pedestrian crossing on
the north side of W36th Street.
c. Study the feasibility of converting the trail crossing to a pedestrian crossing.
d. Develop a future project to grade separate the Regional Trail from Wooddale
Avenue.
Staff was also directed to increase public education efforts aimed at improving trail crossing
safety.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 9
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 6
Because the trail itself is owned by Three Rivers Park District (Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale
Avenue are City streets), the City and Park District have worked together cooperatively on this
issue. Three Rivers Park District has provided additional assistance as follows:
1. Continuing use of a District public safety presence aimed at public education and trail
stop sign enforcement as resources have allowed.
2. Monitoring of trail crossings at Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue (as
resources allow) to assess the effectiveness of the recent crossing changes made by
the City.
ANALYSIS:
SRF Consulting Engineers has completed a report that reviews and evaluates several measures
for consideration at the Beltline and Wooddale crossings. The measures vary extensively in both
the size and type, and the length of time and cost they may take to implement. Among the
factors considered were as follows:
1. Overall safety and traffic flow for both trail users and roadway users.
2. Anticipated time in which a particular solution can be implemented.
3. Short term “immediate” fixes vs. long-term improvements.
4. Possible changes to both roadways and trail configurations to improve safety.
5. Safety, traffic, and construction impacts to neighboring properties, including adjacent
railroad and street intersections.
6. Roadway vs. trail user right of way along with reducing or eliminating confusion
amongst users.
7. Estimated costs.
8. Other factors as discussed in the report.
Report Summary
A full copy of the SRF report is attached for reference and review. Although there are several
options to evaluate and consider, the following general summary and recommendation is
provided as follows:
1. A grade-separated crossing is the best permanent solution for both crossings. Currently,
Three Rivers Park District has secured funding to provide for a crossing at Beltline in
2010. The cost of a separated grade crossing is approximately $1.0 -$1.5 M.
2. A more immediate “interim” solution would be the construction of a median with a
refuge area for both the Beltline and Wooddale crossings. Other interim measures for
consideration would be a signalized crossing at Beltline and relocation of the trail and
crossing on Wooddale. A temporary median was more recently installed this summer on
Beltline and has received positive feedback. However, an improved and more permanent
type of raised median may be desired.
Discussion
A draft of the SRF Report was recently discussed among staff of Three Rivers Park District, the
City and the Consultant. In addition to discussing possible safety implications, the alternatives in
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 10
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 7
the SRF report were also viewed in terms of long-term vs. short-term solutions, high cost vs.
low-cost solutions, and implementation times. More specifically, the following alternatives were
identified by the group for Council consideration and can be generally summarized as follows:
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 11
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 8
Beltline
Long Term Options:
1. Grade separated crossing (funded for 2010)
Interim Options:
1. High Cost Solution: Center median (refuge) with widened 4-lane road without a
designated crosswalk ($75,000 - $150,000). Possibly available late 2007 to mid
2008.
2. High Cost Solution: Signalized crosswalk on the existing 4-lane road ($50,000 -
$100,000). Possibly available late 2007 to mid 2008.
3. Mid Cost Solution: Center median (refuge) with narrowed 2-lane road without a
designated crosswalk ($50,000). Possibly available mid 2007. May also require
signalization of the Park Glen Rd / Beltline Blvd intersection ($200,000).
4. Low Cost Solution: Construct a raised median on the existing 4-lane road without
a designated crosswalk (less than $25,000). Possibly available spring of 2007.
5. Other: Do nothing (leave as is).
Wooddale
Long Term Options:
1. Grade separated crossing (currently not funded)
Interim Options:
1. High Cost Solution: Center median (refuge) with widened 4-lane road without a
designated crosswalk ($75,000 - $150,000). Possibly available late 2007 to mid
2008.
2. Mid Cost Solution: Re-align trail and relocate crossing to the Hwy 7 intersection
($40,000 - $50,000). Possibly available spring of 2007.
3. Low Cost Solution: Construct a raised median on the existing 4-lane road without
a designated crosswalk ($25,000). Possibly available spring of 2007.
4. Other: Do nothing (leave as is).
All of the above solution alternatives are described further in the SRF report. This includes
further details (including pros and cons) of each alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that staff be directed as follows:
1. Work with Three Rivers Park District to secure funding for a separated grade crossing at
Wooddale Avenue in coordination with the proposed 2009 Hwy 7 / Wooddale Ave
interchange project.
2. Continue to work with Three Rivers Park District on public education and monitoring
activities at the crossings.
3. Proceed with implementation of any interim improvement measures at these crossings as
directed by Council.
Attachments: SRF Report, dated November 10, 2006
Prepared by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 12
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 9
SRF No. 0065791
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer
City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Patrick Corkle, PE, PTOE, Senior Associate
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
DATE: November 10, 2006
SUBJECT: SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRAIL CROSSING ALTERNATIVES –
WOODDALE AVENUE AND BELTLINE BOULEVARD
INTRODUCTION
We have completed a study to assess trail crossing alternatives for the Southwest Regional Trail
crossings at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard in the City of St. Louis Park. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate options to improve the operation and safety for both roadway
and trail users at the crossing of Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. Both crossings
experience a high volume of pedestrian/bicycle traffic and moderate vehicular traffic. Previously,
there were marked crosswalks for the Southwest Regional Trail as it crossed Wooddale Avenue
and Beltline Avenue. With the marked crosswalks, there was confusion with the crosswalk law
by motorists and trail users, which requires motorists to stop for pedestrians, not bicyclists, in the
crosswalk. Due to the confusion and safety concerns associated with the marked crosswalks,
they were recently removed. The existing trail stops signs were replaced with larger signs and
supplemented with an “All Trail Users Must Stop” sign. This situation requires all trail users to
stop for traffic on Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard.
Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard are currently four-lane roadways with a posted speed
limit of 30 mph at the trail crossings. Daily vehicular volumes range from 10,000 to 15,000 on
both roadways. The combination of high trail use, crossing four lanes of traffic, moderate
roadway volumes, an adjacent railroad and a crosswalk law not understood by all users, creates
an unsafe condition for all modes of travel.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 13
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 10
SUMMARY
Crossing options were developed and evaluated at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard.
These alternatives can be summarized into two groups. One group is based on the type of
crossing (crosswalk, traffic control devise, installation of medians, relocation or separation of
crossing) and the other is based on the type of roadway cross-section (four-lane undivided, four-
lane divided and two-lane divided). To organize the crossing options, we listed the following
trail-crossing options based on the roadway cross-section.
At Beltline Boulevard, all three types of roadway cross-sections could be considered, although
only certain crossing options should be used for each cross-section.
Four-lane undivided roadway
A traffic control device should be used with this roadway cross-section. The device could either
be warning flashers, traffic signal or “hawk” pedestrian flasher/signal. The striped crosswalk
would be re-installed with these devices (Options 4 and 5). The traffic signal device would
require coordination with the railroad.
The other option would be to remove the at-grade crossing by relocating it or to provide a grade
separation. Re-alignment of the trail would require the crossing of a free-right island at CSAH
25, which is not desirable. The grade separation has received federal funding and should be
constructed in 2010. (Options 2 and 3)
Four-lane divided roadway
A median would be constructed in the roadway at the trail crossing. An important detail would
be the width of the median, to provide refuge for trail users (pedestrians, bicyclists and bicyclists
with buggies). The crosswalk could be re-installed, since it will significantly reduce the
complications of a trail user crossing the roadway if a refuge area is provided. (Options 9 and
10).
Two-lane divided roadway
A wide median would be constructed in the roadway at the trail crossing. Roadway traffic would
not be requested to stop, therefore a crosswalk should not be striped. The shorter crossing
distance would make the crossing easier for trail users. The roadway transition from two lanes to
one lane south of the CSAH 25 intersection could be difficult. Additionally, a traffic signal at
Beltline Boulevard/Park Glen Road may be needed for the cross-street traffic (Options 11 and
12).
The other three devices (Options 6, 7 and 8) are variations of re-installing the striped crosswalk
without enough enhancements to provide additional safety.
Our review of the feasible trail crossing alternatives at Beltline Boulevard is summarized in the
following table:
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 14
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 11
Table 1
Summary of Trail Crossing Alternatives – Beltline Boulevard
Traffic Flow Safety
No. Crossing Option Roadway Trail Roadway Trail
Construction
Cost
1 No Crosswalk
(current condition)
Good Poor Fair Fair to
Poor
$0
2 Grade-Separated
Crossing
Good Good Good Good $1,000,000
3 Relocation of Crossing Good Poor Good to
Fair
Fair $25,000
4 Traffic Signal with
Crosswalk
Fair Fair Fair Good to
Fair
$100,000
5 Pedestrian Warning
Devices with Crosswalk
Poor Good to
Fair
Fair to
Poor
Fair $50,000
6 Striped Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
7 Speed Advisory with
Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
8 Relocation of Stop Bars
with Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
9 Center Median without
Refuge (no widening)
Good to
Fair
Poor Fair Fair to
Poor
$25,000
10 Center Median with
Refuge (widen road)
Good Fair to
Poor
Good to
Fair
Fair $50,000-
$150,000 (1)
11 Center Median with
Refuge (lose a lane)
Fair Fair Fair Fair $50,000
12 Center Median with
Bump-outs (lose a lane)
Fair to
Poor
Fair Fair to
Poor
Fair $30,000
Note (1): Cost varies greatly depending on the impacts to the railroad crossing and equipment.
At Wooddale Avenue, the feasible options are limited. The traffic congestion and traffic signal
spacing between 36th Street and TH 7 does not allow for a traffic control device, striped
crosswalk, or reduction in the number of lanes (Options 4-8, 11 and 12).
Four-lane undivided roadway
The only options which would improve the crossing condition are a re-alignment of the trail to
the TH 7 or 36th Street traffic signal, or a grade separation. Since re-alignment to 36th Street
requires crossing the railroad tracks, TH 7 may be the better choice. In addition, the re-
alignment of the trail to TH 7 would occur on city property (Options 2 and 3).
Four-lane divided roadway
A median would be constructed in the roadway at the trail crossing. An important detail would
be the width of the median, to provide a refuge for trail users (pedestrians, bicyclists and
bicyclists with buggies). The crosswalk should not be re-installed (Options 9 and 10).
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 15
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 12
Two-lane divided roadway
This roadway configuration is not feasible at this location. The negative impact on roadway and
adjacent intersections operations could be significant.
Our review of the feasible trail crossing alternatives at Wooddale Avenue is summarized in the
following table:
Table 2
Summary of Trail Crossing Alternatives – Wooddale Avenue
Traffic Flow Safety
No. Crossing Option Roadway Trail Roadway Trail
Construction
Cost
1 No Crosswalk
(current condition)
Good Poor Good to
Fair
Fair to
Poor
$0
2 Grade-Separated
Crossing
Good Good Good Good $1,000,000
3 Relocation of Crossing
Realignment of Trail
Good Fair to Poor Good to
Fair
Good to
Fair
$40,000
4 Traffic Signal --- --- --- --- ---
5 Pedestrian Warning
Devices with Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
6 Striped Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
7 Speed Advisory with
Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
8 Relocation of Stop Bars
with Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
9 Center Median without
Refuge (no widening)
Good to
Fair
Poor Fair Fair to
Poor
$25,000
10 Center Median with
Refuge (widen road)
Good Fair to Poor Good to
Fair
Fair $75,000-
$150,000 (1)
11 Center Median with
Refuge (lose a lane) --- --- --- --- ---
12 Center Median with
Bump-outs (lose a lane) --- --- --- --- ---
Note (1): Cost varies greatly depending on the impacts to the railroad crossing and equipment.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 16
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 13
RECOMMENDATIONS
We do not recommend re-installing a striped crosswalk without other improvements. An
additional treatment is needed to enhance the crossing (median, warning flasher, etc.), or a
different strategy is needed altogether (traffic signal, crossing relocation, etc.).
Based on our review and analysis of the trail crossing alternatives, we recommend grade-
separated crossings at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. As an interim solution, a
median with a refuge area (as feasible) should be installed at the Beltline Boulevard and
Wooddale Avenue crossings. Within the past few weeks, a temporary six-foot marked median
was installed on Beltline Boulevard at the trail crossing. It is our understanding that the
feedback has been positive and the temporary measure is operating safely. Therefore, if the
temporary median at the Beltline Boulevard crossing continues to receive positive feedback and
is observed to be operating safely, a “permanent” raised curb median should be installed and no
other devices would be required for the interim condition.
Another interim solution for the Beltline Boulevard crossing is a fully-actuated traffic signal (or
“Hawk” pedestrian flasher/signal). Another interim solution for the Wooddale Avenue crossing
is re-alignment of the trail to the TH 7 intersection.
DISSCUSSION
Further discussion of each alternative is summarized below:
1. No Crosswalk (Current Condition)
The current crossing control requires all trail users yield to the roadway users. The trail
users must wait for a gap in traffic to cross. Peak hour roadway traffic will reduce the
number of crossing opportunities and increase waiting times. Many studies show that
unmarked crossings are safer (particular for roadways with ADT over 10,000, similar to
Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue); we attribute this result to pedestrians assuming
vehicles will stop for them just because they are in a crosswalk.
2. Grade-Separated Crossing
The grade-separated crossing would be the only trail/roadway crossing alternative that
would provide a high level of flow and be safe for both drivers and trail users. An
underpass is recommended at these locations to capture the highest number of bicycle and
pedestrians to use the trail crossing. Many times overpass crossings are not used by
pedestrians/bicyclists due to the stairs/ramps that are required on each side.
The main benefit of a grade-separated crossing is the elimination of conflicts between trail
and roadway users. This option also eliminates the confusion of the crosswalk law. In
addition, a grade-separated crossing provides the highest level of safety where trail users
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 17
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 14
can enjoy the experience of the trail and drivers can use the roadway without impedance
from crossing trail users.
The downside to a grade-separated crossing is its high cost ranging from $800,000 to
$1,200,000.
For Beltline Boulevard, federal funding has been designated for a grade-separated crossing
in the year 2010. Since future funding is identified for a grade-separated crossing at this
location, all other options should be considered temporary. Further evaluation of funding
alternatives should also be considered to determine whether a joint effort to advance the
construction of a grade-separation is possible.
Federal funding or other financing mechanisms should be evaluated for a grade-separated
crossing at Wooddale Avenue. All other options should be consider an interim solution,
with the ultimate goal of providing a grade-separation.
3. Relocation of Trail Crossing
Under this alternative, trail users would be routed to a safer crossing location than the
existing mid-block crossing. To cross Beltline Boulevard, trails users would be directed to
the CSAH 25 traffic signal. The additional travel distance would be 1,100 feet. A new
trail segment would need to be constructed on the westside of Beltline Boulevard from
CSAH 25 to the existing trail. To cross Wooddale Avenue, the trail could be re-aligned to
either the TH 7 or 36th Street signalized intersection. The re-alignment would occur on
city owned property.
At the Beltline Boulevard crossing, many trail users would likely continue to cross at the
existing location because of the additional distance. They would also have to cross the free
right-turn movement from TH 7.
At the Wooddale Avenue crossing, the trail re-alignment to the TH 7 intersection would be
relatively easy.
The cost of providing addition trail is a medium-cost option estimated at $10,000 to
$40,000.
4. Traffic Signal with Crosswalk
Another option is the installation of a traffic signal. Although many different types of
traffic signals could be used, a fully-actuated signal with push buttons for trail users and
loop detectors for vehicles, at a minimum, should be considered. The device would operate
with vehicles seeing a green indication and trail users seeing a steady “don’t walk” symbol.
The trail user presses the pushbutton to identify the need to service the trail. The signal for
the vehicles would change from green to yellow to red, and the trail user would receive a
walk indication. The flashing don’t walk (we would recommend the use of a pedestrian
countdown timers) would follow and then the return to the vehicles receiving a green
indication. This operation would be the same as the traffic signal at Northwest Boulevard
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 18
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 15
(CSAH 61) at the Bass Lake Playfields. In addition, the signal would need to be
interconnected with the railroad crossing equipment.
Alternatively a “Hawk” pedestrian flasher/signal could be installed. The operation of the
device is described in the following by the City of Tucson, Arizona. The unit is normally
off until activated by a pedestrian. When a pedestrian wishes to cross the street, they press
a button and the signal begins with a FLASHING YELLOW indication to warn the
approaching drivers, just like a school bus signal. The FLASHING YELLOW is then
followed by a SOLID YELLOW indication, advising the drivers to prepare to stop. The
signal is then changed to a SOLID RED indication at which time the pedestrian is shown a
WALK indication. The beacon signal then converts to an ALTERNATING FLASHING
RED, allowing the drivers to proceed when safe, after stopping at the crosswalk. This
operation and signal sequence does not follow the current MUTCD (although should be
included in the 2008 version), therefore an exemption would be needed. The cost of this
device would be around $100,000 per system. Additional investigation should be
completed to determine if the “Hawk” system has railroad pre-emption capabilities. We do
not want a device stopping vehicles on the railroad tracks when a train is approaching.
The installation of a traffic signal would dramatically improve overall safety for a trail user
at these crossings by providing a controlled location, that would require all vehicles to stop
when a trail user activates the pedestrian push button at the crossing. Comparing the traffic
signal to the existing condition, a traffic signal would cause more disruption to the traffic
flow and additional delays to motorists by requiring drivers to stop for crossing trail users.
A traffic signal requires vehicles to stop, increasing the opportunities for rear-crashes.
However, changing the traffic signal indication is more predictable to a motorist than a trail
user using a striped crosswalk. Trail users would be more satisfied with this option than no
crossing or having to wait for a gap in traffic.
A traffic signal at either location would require coordination with the railroad. The traffic
and railroad signals would need to be interconnected. Some type of vehicle detection
would be required to prevent vehicles from being trapped in the dilemma zone and
stopping on the railroad tracks. The detection will require an underground crossing of the
railroad tracks.
The installation of a new traffic signal on Wooddale Avenue between the current signals at
36th Street and TH 7 would create three very close spaced signalized intersections. Based
on past studies, congestion and delay on Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street is significant
during the peak periods. Current peak hour conditions include heavy queues from TH 7
already extending into the trail crossing area. Based on these factors, we would not
recommend the installation of a traffic signal at the Wooddale Avenue trail crossing. A
traffic signal installed at the Beltline Boulevard crossing should have no impact on adjacent
intersections.
A traffic signal is a moderate-cost option ranging from $80,000 to $120,000 per system. At
this cost, consideration should be given to preserving these funds to construct a grade-
separated crossing. This option should not be combined with the center median options
(discussed in the following sections).
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 19
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 16
5. Pedestrian Warning Devices with Crosswalk
Traffic control devices such as pedestrian warning flashers and/or in-pavement warning
lights could be installed at the trail crossings. If warning flashers are installed, they would
be activated by the trail user pushing a button. The lights would immediately start flashing
and remain active for a pre-set amount of time. If warning lights are considered, they
should not continuously flash. It is recommended that the device be pedestrian-actuated
with a push button, instead of being actuated by another type of sensor.
Pedestrian-actuated flashing lights would alert drivers when a pedestrian/bicyclist is
entering the crossing, since the use of the trail occurs at varying times throughout the day
and not all trail users wish to cross at this location. An overhead flashing beacon would be
recommended based on the number of lanes and roadway and trail user volumes. The
crosswalk striping would also be reinstalled. This option does not control the trail
crossing, since roadway users would yield to trail users. Many of these devices were
installed five to eight years ago. A cursory review of these systems show a positive
response from city staff; however, not as the only solution. Median options maybe a better
option, or they could be used in conjunction with warning flashers. Median options allow
trail users to cross the roadway in simpler stages (observation of traffic in one direction,
shorter crossing distance and more adequate gaps to cross), while not providing a false
sense of safety when using a striped crosswalk or significant impact to vehicles.
The cost of pedestrian warning devices is estimated at $40,000 to $50,000.
6. Striped Crosswalk
A striped crosswalk was originally installed with construction of the trail. Re-installing the
crosswalk and advanced warning signs could be an option, but not recommended.
The crosswalks were removed because of trail user and vehicle confusion. Pedestrians
have a false sense of safety when using a striped crosswalk, as they may assume vehicles
will stop for them. The law requires vehicles to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. The
roadway is four-lanes wide at the crossing. The four-lanes create a “multiple threat”
situation. A vehicle in one lane stops for the pedestrian to cross and another vehicle
traveling in the same direction (in the other lane) fail to see the pedestrian, or just fail to
stop, and strikes the pedestrian
The cost of a re-installing the crosswalk and signing is a low-cost option at $2,000. We do
not recommend just re-installing the striped crosswalk and warning signs. An additional
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 20
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 17
treatment is needed to enhance the crossing (median, warning flasher, etc.), or a different
strategy is needed altogether (traffic signal, crossing relocation, etc.).
7. Speed Advisory Warning Sign with Crosswalk
This alternative would install a speed advisory sign to warn drivers of approaching trail.
The sign would be located in advance of the trail crossing and could be attached to the
pedestrian crossing ahead sign posts, if the crosswalk striping were re-installed. The sign
could also be a stand alone sign stating "High Use Trail Ahead” with a supplemental speed
plaque “25 mph". The advisory speed would not be enforceable, but would at least warn
drivers of the approaching trail.
If the crosswalk striping were not re-installed, this option may lead to driver confusion on
whether they are required to yield for trail users. Therefore, a striped crosswalk would be
installed with this option. Previously, warning signs were installed warning of the trail
crossing. Changing the warning sign type would not have a significant improvement on
safety, therefore we would not recommend this option by itself.
The cost to install a new sign is a low-cost option of $1,000 to 2,000.
8. Relocation of Stop Bars with Crosswalk
Since Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard are currently four lanes, there is the
potential that motorists in the outside lane do not have sufficient sight distance to see a
bicyclist/pedestrian due to a car in the adjacent lane blocking their line of sight. The
crosswalk would be re-installed, stop/yield lines would be painted in advance of the
crossing (approximately 100 feet) to open the line of sight for drivers in all lanes of traffic
to be able to see the pedestrian/bicyclist entering the crossing.
The relocation of the stop bars would improve the sight and stopping distance at the trail
crossings at a minimal cost. One challenge with this type of treatment at these locations is
the close proximity to the railroad crossings. Drivers would need advance warning prior to
the railroad crossing to stop prior to the tracks. Other challenges include driver
compliance, re-installation of the crosswalk striping, and the driver’s ability to view trail
users at the crossing.
This option is not recommended for these crossings due to the proximity of the railroad
tracks and adjacent intersections. However, it could be an option at other crossing
locations.
The cost to relocate the stop bars is a low-cost option of $1,000 to $2,000.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 21
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 18
9. Center Median without Refuge Area
A center median without a refuge area includes the construction of a narrow center median
(temporary or permanent) in the roadway. The median would be approximately four feet in
width and would not be intended for trail user storage. This still creates a situation with
drivers and trail users to make decisions at the crossing. Installation of median delineator
markers (temporary) would provide minimal safety benefits for pedestrians, due to the lack
of a physical barrier (curb) between the pedestrian and moving vehicles.
The review of this option does not include a striped crosswalk, although it could be
included at Beltline Boulevard but not at the Wooddale Avenue crossing. Installing the
center median without widening the roadway requires narrowing the roadway travel lanes
and likely cause a reduction in vehicle speed. The median would identify the crossing
location by providing a raised element in the roadway. If the driving lanes are narrowed,
the potential of vehicle/vehicle sideswipe crashes may increase. Consideration should be
given to providing a solid white line, instead of broken, between lanes in the area of the
median to reduce lane changing maneuvers.
Trail users will receive improvements in safety due to the reduction in vehicle speed and
identification of the crossing. The trail users still will need to yield to vehicular traffic.
The cost of a permanent center median without widening the roadway is a low-cost option
ranging from $15,000 to $25,000.
10. Center Median with Refuge (widen roadway)
A center median with a large enough area to provide a pedestrian refuge would require
widening of the roadway. The widening will require modification of the roadway at the
train tracks, which could include the need to relocate the gate arms. For these reasons, this
alternative would also require coordination with the railroad.
The review of this option does not include a striped crosswalk, although it could be
included. This option provides operational and safety benefits for both roadway and trail
users. Roadway users would not need to stop for trail users, the number of lanes would be
maintained and lane width could be slightly narrowed. The roadway would probably need
to be widened at the railroad crossing. If roadway widening is needed, consideration
should be given to upgrading the crossing and median to meet Whistle Quiet Zone
requirements.
Trail users would see a benefit in operation and safety over the existing condition. A
refuge area allows trail users to make the crossing maneuver in a two step process. A trail
user only needs to watch for gaps in traffic for one direction and the crossing distance is cut
in half.
The cost of a permanent center median with widening the roadway is a medium-cost option
ranging from $50,000 to $150,000.
11. Center Median with Refuge Area (remove a roadway lane)
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 22
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 19
A center median with a refuge area created by the removal of a roadway lane is feasible for
the Beltline Boulevard crossing, but not at Wooddale Avenue. Wooddale Avenue between
TH 7 and 36th Street has capacity and operational issues, so reducing the number of lanes
should not be an option.
This option should not include a striped crosswalk. The center median with a large enough
area to provide a pedestrian refuge would require the removal of a roadway lane in each
direction at the crossing to maintain the existing roadway width. The lane removal could
be done near the crossing, requiring traffic to merge into one lane or develop a three-lane
section between CSAH 25 and 36th Street.
The roadway operation and safety would be negatively impacted due to the merging of the
through lanes. Although, merging traffic would have minimal impact to adjacent
intersections. The exception would be Beltline Boulevard/Park Glen Road intersection, a
traffic signal may be needed to allow vehicles onto Beltline Boulevard during peak periods
of traffic.
On Beltline Boulevard, the roadway could be modified to two-lane section with left-turn
lanes between CSAH 25 and 36th Street. The roadway safety and operation of a two-lane
section with left-turn lanes at the intersections would be better than merging traffic to a
single lane near the crossing. The only difficulty would be the transition south of the TH 7
intersection, currently a lane adds southbound from the eastbound TH 7 free right.
Trail users would see a benefit in operation and safety over the existing condition. A
refuge area allows trail users to make the crossing maneuver in a two step process. A trail
user only need to watch for gaps in one direction and the crossing distance is cut by one-
fourth. The number of gaps will be reduced because the roadway traffic is concentrated
into one lane. Although, the benefit of the shorter crossing distance and refuge area are
more beneficial.
The cost of a permanent center median with removing a through lane in each direction is a
medium-cost option ranging from $50,000 to $75,000.
12. Center Median with Bump-outs
On Beltline Boulevard, the installation of curb extensions or bump-outs could be
considered by reducing the number of traffic lanes from four to two at the trail crossing
location. This would reduce the distance of the roadway that pedestrians are required to
cross. With the reduction of traffic lanes, a center median area could be installed wide
enough to provide a pedestrian/bike refuge area. This is not an option at the Wooddale
Avenue crossing.
A striped crosswalk should not be included with this option. This option would increase
the visibility for pedestrians waiting to cross. In addition, the pedestrian crossing signs
could be placed near the nose of the bump-out to be more visible to motorists on Beltline
Boulevard. One disadvantage of curb extensions is the potential for drivers to run into
them during darkness or poor weather conditions. If the installation is of a temporary
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 23
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: #10 Attachment #1 022607 - 3 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and
Wooddale.doc
Page 20
nature (i.e. delineator markers), the buffer provides no physical protection from vehicles.
Also, the reduction in the number of lanes would require vehicles to merge prior to the
crossing, creating a conflict point and potential for an increase in vehicle crashes.
The cost of this improvement is low, ranging from $20,000 to $30,000.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 24
Meeting Date: September 24, 2007
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:
Traffic Signal Project Update – Beltline Boulevard @ SW LRT Trail – Project No. 2007-2700
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To discuss and direct staff to pursue one of the following options for the Beltline SWLRT Trail
Crossing:
1. Identify and secure a local (city) funding source and proceed with a traffic signal
installation in the spring of 2008. The installation would be considered “temporary” until
Three Rivers Park District constructs their long term improvement (separated grade
crossing). All signal fixtures will be salvageable for use elsewhere when removed
(salvage value estimated at $75,000, or less).
2. Discontinue consideration of a temporary signal and defer to the long term permanent
improvement being pursued by Three Rivers Park District, currently scheduled for 2010.
In the meantime, minor improvements (temporary bituminous median and striping) could
be installed at the Beltline Crossing at a minimal cost (estimated at $10,000, or less),
similar to the improvements recently installed at the Wooddale Ave crossing.
3. Leave the crossing as is. The crossing as it currently exists is satisfactory until the long
term permanent improvement being pursued by Three Rivers Park District is completed.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Which of the three options provided by staff above will best serve the interests of the
community?
BACKGROUND:
History
At the February 26, 2007 Study Session, the City Council received and reviewed a report from staff
that provided relevant background information and possible changes which could be considered for
the SWLRT Regional Trail crossings on Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue. At the Study
Session, Council discussed possible street crossing options, safety, and long term improvements at
these crossing locations. Council directed staff to develop the following interim improvements at
these two locations:
1. Beltline Boulevard: Install a pedestrian actuated traffic signal (signalized crosswalk). At the
time, the estimated cost to construct such a signal was estimated to be $150,000 to $250,000.
Three Rivers Park District had previously been successful in attaining funds for a separated
grade trail crossing (bridge or tunnel) under the Federal Surface Transportation Program
(STP). However, the funding is not available for release until 2010. As a result, Council
decided to pursue installation of an interim signal improvement until a separated grade
crossing is constructed.
2. Wooddale Avenue: Install a 12’ wide raised median, pavement markings, traffic signs, etc;
and, widen the street and extend the RR crossing surface accordingly. These improvements
were subsequently constructed in the spring of 2007 at a cost of less than $50,000.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 25
Meeting of September 24, 2007 - Item #5 Page 2
Subject: Traffic Signal Project Update
On March 17, 2007, the City Council approved a resolution that established Improvement
Project No. 2007-2700 (Beltline Crossing) and directed the City Engineer to proceed with
moving the project forward. Because no funding sources were readily available for this project,
staff was directed to apply for a grant through the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program
(Oberstar monies).
Project Update
In conjunction with the grant application process, the City’s consulting engineer completed a
preliminary plan and cost estimate for a traffic signal at the Beltline Crossing (drawing attached).
The signal would essentially consist of a state of the art system that would rely on motion
detectors and sensors that would enable pre-emption and timing based on the relative speed of
the trail user and the presence of motor vehicles. Coordination and pre-emption with the CP Rail
Traffic Signal is also required as part of the signal design. As a result, constant warning time
(CWT) circuitry would be required for the two sets of tracks that cross Beltline, and would cost
at least $50,000 for the railroad portion alone.
As a result of the signal design and the railroad requirements, the estimated construction cost for
the signal installation is estimated to be nearly $200,000. With engineering and administrative
costs, the total cost for this signal project is currently estimated to be about $250,000.
Project Considerations
During the summer we were informed our application for federal funding under the Non-
Motorized Transportation Pilot Program was not successful. Therefore, the project will have to
be funded entirely by the city.
We were recently informed Three Rivers Park District is now working to advance their separated
grade project forward to a proposed 2009 letting, which if successful, would provide for
construction in 2010. However, decisions with regards to future LRT in this corridor could have
an impact on the Park District’s ability to deliver their project in a timely fashion. The Three
Rivers Park District is currently beginning discussions with Mn/DOT and the Hennepin County
Railroad Authority (HCRRA) in order to advance their project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Option 1: Estimated total project cost: $250,000 (currently unfunded)
Option 2: Estimated total cost of $10,000 (PW Operations Budget)
Option 3: No cost.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
An improved trail crossing complements the following area of the recently completed Vision
process:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
• Focus area: Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
Attachment: Signal Preliminary Construction Plan
Prepared by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Regional Trail Crossings Page 26
Meeting Date: October 26, 2009
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Refunding Bonds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None required at this time. The purpose of this report is simply to alert the City Council that a
public hearing is being scheduled to consider issuance of private activity revenue refunding bonds.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
A public hearing is being scheduled for November 16, 2009 before the City Council to consider
approving issuance of private activity revenue refunding bonds for Park Nicollet.
BACKGROUND:
Last year (July 2008) the City Council approved issuance of up to $160 million in variable rate and
$250 million in fixed rate private activity bonds for Park Nicollet Health Services and bonds were
issued. Since then economic conditions have made it appropriate for Park Nicollet to replace the
variable rate portion of the bonds issued in 2008 with new fixed rate debt. The City Council will be
asked to approve and authorize issuance by the city of revenue refunding bonds for Park Nicollet
Health Services. For the City to consider this request, a public hearing must be held. That hearing is
scheduled for November 16, 2009. Published notice of the hearing will appear in the Sun Sailor
October 29th.
Park Nicollet is working with the City’s bond counsel, Kennedy & Graven, on the specifics of the
proposed bond refunding and the necessary documents. This is conduit financing and not an
obligation of the City of St. Louis Park. It does not affect the city’s ability to issue debt for its own
purposes nor does it affect the city’s bond rating. Setting the public hearing starts the process, which
Park Nicollet hopes to complete by the end of the year.
Prior to the hearing staff and the city’s bond counsel will be providing the City Council with
additional more specific information regarding the proposed bond issue.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Park Nicollet is responsible for the costs of preparing for and issuing the bonds. They are required by
city policy to pay an initial application fee to cover city costs. These bonds are not obligations of the
city in any respect. In addition, city policy requires payment of an annual administration fee of 1/8th
of one per cent of the outstanding principal balance of the bonds. PNHS paid this administration
fee in a single lump sum payment on the principal of the previous bonds issued. PNHS will
continue to meet its obligations regarding the administration fee per the city’s policies. The monies
generated from the administration fees are deposited in the city’s Housing Rehabilitation fund.
Meeting of October 26, 2009 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: Park Nicollet Private Activity Revenue Refunding Bonds
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The fees generated from the issuance of private activity bonds adds to the financial strength of our
Housing Rehab fund which supports our Vision of a community with diverse and well maintained
housing.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Finance Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 19, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Request for Closed Meeting for Labor Negotiations Strategy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation
strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals, conducted
pursuant to Sections 179A.01 to 179A.25.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to take the action as recommended and close the meeting?
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with Minnesota Statues Section 13D.03, the City Council may by a majority vote in a
public meeting decide to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including
negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals,
conducted pursuant to Sections 179A.01 to 179A.25. The time of commencement and place of the
closed meeting shall be announced during the public meeting.
If City Council is in agreement to close the meeting, labor negotiation discussions will take place for
the following bargaining units:
• International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 (Maintenance);
• International Association of Fire Fighters Local 993;
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 220 (Dispatch);
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 206 (Patrol); and
• Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local 218 (Sergeants).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Financial impacts on 2010 budget dependent upon outcomes of discussion and negotiations
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager