HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/01/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionJanuary 14, 2008
6:00 p.m. Board and Commission Interviews, Westwood Room
6:30 p.m. City Council Study Session, Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
2. 6:35 p.m. 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
3. 7:35 p.m. Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy and Application
4. 8:05 p.m. Redevelopment of the Former Erv’s Property
5. 8:35 p.m. City Council Workshop
6. 9:05 p.m. Communications (verbal)
Written Reports
7. November Financial Report
8. Paint the Park Pilot Program
9. 2008 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds - Proposed
Allocation
9:15 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD (952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of
meeting.
Meeting Date: January 14, 2008
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 – January 28, 2008.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Monday January 28, 2008 study session,
which will start at 6:30 p.m.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the study session on January 28.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Tentative Study Session Agenda for January 28, 2008
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Monday, January 28, 2008 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Southwest Transit Update – Jim Brimeyer (20 minutes)
Jim Brimeyer will provide the Council with an update on the Southwest Transit LRT.
3. Long Range Financial Management Plan – Finance (60 minutes)
Staff will provide the Council with an update and help familiarize the Council on the
Long Range Financial Management Plan in preparation for the Council workshop in
February (tentative – assumes this will be discussed at the workshop).
4. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study
session for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
December Financial Report – Finance
Quarterly Investment Report (October – December 2007) - Finance
8:05 p.m. End of Meeting
Meeting Date: January 14, 2008
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:
2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is required at this time. Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman, State
Senator Ron Latz, State Representatives Ryan Winkler and Steve Simon, and Betty Folliard with
Congressman Keith Ellison’s office will be in attendance to discuss our 2008 legislative
priorities. Metropolitan Council Area Representative Peggy Lippik was also invited. Ms Lippik
wanted to attend but had another prior commitment. Staff will be meeting with her separately
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the issues identified in the attached report regarding priorities for
2008? What else would Council like staff to pursue legislatively? Is Council satisfied with the
approach that staff and the legislative analysts are recommending?
BACKGROUND:
Staff has updated the staff report of issues and concerns that we feel should be made known to
our legislators based on feedback that we received from Council at the November 5, 2007 special
study session. As has been the case in previous years, as we near the start of the session and we
hear from you, additional issues may come to light.
It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to help us with legislative and regulatory
issues. Administrative Services has been very pleased with the legislative services of Doug
Franzen and Vic Moore, (formerly of Rider Bennett, now employed with Franzen & Associates),
and Dennis McGrann, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen. This report addresses the contractual costs of
their services and proposed areas of emphasis for 2008. Mr. Franzen, Mr. Moore, and Mr.
McGrann’s associate, Emily Gehrmann, will be in attendance for the discussion on the 14th.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Overall spending on legislative services has increased over the last couple of years due to
increased efforts to seek state and federal dollars to fund transportation needs in the city.
For 2008 a total of $61,000 has been budget for legislative services.
The following is a short summary of the dollars that have been budgeted for 2008.
Projected expenses for 2008 – EDA/HRA levy budget ($46,000):
• $36,000: Federal lobbying for transportation - Dennis McGrann, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen
• $10,000: State lobbying for transportation - Doug Franzen & Vic Moore, Franzen &
Assoc. (formerly Rider Bennett)
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Projected expenses for 2008 – Administrative Services ($15,000)
• Misc. expenses including travel ($2,000)
• Monthly retainer (between sessions for Franzen & Associates - $8,000)
• State lobbying (not related to transportation, other local issues - $5,000
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Under the City Council adopted Strategic Direction of being a Connected and Engaged
Community, promotion of regional transportation issues and securing transportation funding is
one of Council’s action items. Staff has aligned 2008 activities to promote specific
improvements to intersections, transportation corridors and related projects.
Attachments: 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
City of St. Louis Park
2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
1. Glencoe Switching Yard
Purpose: To secure the remaining $2.5 million for a $3.5 million project to construct a rail
switching yard in Glencoe, Minnesota that would create economic development for Glencoe and
would relocate the Twin Cities & Western Railroad’s train blocking operations from St. Louis
Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka.
Status: A capital budget request in the amount of $700,000 was approved during the 2006
legislative session thanks to the tireless efforts of St. Louis Park’s elected officials; in addition,
$300,000 in local matches have been secured. Senators Norm Coleman with the assistance of
former Senator Mark Dayton, were successful in inserting a $1 million request into the FY2007
Trans-HUD bill, which was not acted on by President Bush.
Staff and Mayor Jacobs, along with delegations from Hopkins, Minnetonka and Glencoe, have
been working to secure the remaining $2.5 million from the federal government. Most recently,
Mayor Jeff Jacobs traveled to Washington D.C. and met with staff aides for Congressmen
Peterson and Ellison, Senators Coleman and Klobuchar on October 9, 2007. Congressman
Peterson, whose congressional district includes the City of Glencoe, drafted a conferee letter in
October 2007 asking that the conferees include funding for this project in the FY2008 Trans-
HUD bill. While there is strong support for this regional project from Minnesota’s delegation for
this project in the Senate’s transportation bill, this project was not included in the final version of
the bill.
Background: In 2001, the St. Louis Park Railroad Advisory Task Force recommended that the
Twin Cities and Western Railroad’s (TC&W) blocking operations be eliminated in St. Louis
Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka and relocated to a new railroad switch yard west of the three
cities. The TC&W blocking operations generate noise levels that exceed the state of Minnesota
nighttime noise standards. In addition, the switching operations cause vibrations and they often
disrupt local transportation systems because at-grade crossings are temporarily blocked by trains
conducting switching operations.
The Glencoe Railroad Congestion Mitigation Project involves constructing four siding tracks to
accommodate the anticipated amount of rail car maneuvering/switching operations at this new
facility. It is a nine acre site and the City of Glencoe was selected as the preferred site for a
switch yard because it would consolidate operations, it would provide for noise mitigation for
residents in Glencoe (existing rail car maneuvers would be relocated to the west or east side of
town), and it would provide opportunities for economic development.
Anticipated project costs of $3,500,000 for the yard include the land acquisition and design
costs. Proposed funding sources include $3.2 million of federal and state funds, and $300,000
from a local match (e.g. cities, railroad, etc). The site will be owned by the McLeod County Rail
Authority and be operated by TC&W. Construction start date, assuming funding is secured, has
been deferred to September 2009; the yard is expected to be fully operational by the fall of 2009.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Staff will prepare a request for funding in FY2009 sometime in February 2008 and is working
with the TC&W to discuss rail removal as a part of this project.
2. Grade Separated Crossing at Hwy 7 and Wooddale
Purpose: To secure an additional $9 million to construct an $18 million grade separated
intersection (interchange) at Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue.
Status: Staff successfully secured $5.866 million in STP funding through the Metropolitan
Council’s TAB process in March 2006. More than $3 million in right-of-way purchases have
been completed by the city at its cost and initiative in anticipation of this project. The city
submitted a $9 million request for inclusion in the 2008 state bonding bill. The Senate Capital
Investment Committee toured this site with staff on November 30, 2007 and in December Mayor
Jacobs met with Senator Steve Murphy and Representative Bernie Lieder to discuss the
importance of this project and the TH100 Full Build Project. The Mayor and staff also met with
Commissioner Dorfman to discuss the County’s possible financial contribution to this project
Background: This project will require a combination of local, county, state and Federal dollars to
finance the reconstruction of the at-grade intersection of Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue in St.
Louis Park to a grade separated intersection.
Currently, the capacity and safety of this at-grade signalized intersection could be characterized
as poor at best. Based on a recent traffic analysis, the intersection is currently operating at a
level of service D, and is projected to decrease to a level of service F. MnDOT staff has
identified this corridor (Hwy 7 from Hwy 169 to Hwy 100) with the east half of the corridor of
particular concern as a higher than average crash rate based on metro and statewide accident
records.
This intersection is regularly used by our Fire Department to respond to calls for service (Station
No. 1 is located just to the south). Pedestrians and bicyclists use this intersection to access mass
transit, the regional trail system, the community center, and the High School. In addition,
significant traffic as a result of redevelopment and from an adjacent industrial/commercial
complex to the south also uses this intersection as a major access point.
This project is of both local and regional significance and it will provide for the separation of
regional and local traffic, which will vastly improve the regional transportation systems. The
regional systems alluded to are Hwy 7, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail immediately to the
south, and the proposed future dedicated bus way or LRT system. Currently, as part of Hennepin
County’s Southwest Corridor transit study, a transit station is proposed adjacent to the
intersection of Hwy 7 and Wooddale. Without this intersection improvement project, these other
regional systems will likely not be possible or the operation of existing ones will continue to
worsen due to congestion and safety concerns. In addition, future anticipated renewal and
redevelopment in the area will be stifled. Reconstruction of this intersection to a grade separated
intersection is the only practical long term solution to this infrastructure problem.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
3. TH 100 Full Build Project
Purpose: To keep the TH 100 Full Build Project on track for its proposed 2014 letting date (or
sooner via MVST monies) and to identify future funding sources for the city’s expected
significant financial contribution to the project.
Status: MnDOT completed construction of the TH 100 interim project during 2006 and is in the
process of shoring up structurally deficient bridges at Hwy 7 and Hwy 5 spanning TH100. The
full build project is on MnDOT’s advanced design list, so with the passage of the MVST
amendment, it could be let as early as 2009, although staff believes that this scenario, given
MnDOT’s existing transportation obligations, is extremely unlikely. The project will cost
approximately $150 million, of which St. Louis Park may be expected to contribute up to an
estimated $10 million. The city will need assistance to fund this expected share of this project of
regional significance. Staff has submitted a request to the state for $10 million in 2008 state
bonding funds for St. Louis Park’s portion of the project.
Background: MnDOT spoke to the Council in March 2006 and while they would not make a
written commitment, MnDOT reassured the city that the construction of the interim project
would not delay the full build project. MnDOT considered removing the TH100 Full Build
project from their 10 Year Plan last year and after considerable opposition from the city and
legislators, the project remained in the plan.
The interim project added a third lane in each direction by decreasing lane widths from 12 feet to
11 feet and eliminating or severely reducing shoulders along that stretch of highway. The third
lane is required for the full build project so that MnDOT can keep a minimum of two lanes open
in each direction during construction.
Improvements not included as a part of the interim project include construction of the noise
walls, which MnDOT agreed to construct no later than 2015, width expansion of lanes,
construction of on/off ramps, and bridge and storm water improvements. Based on current
conditions and no additional maintenance, bridges spanning TH 100 at Hwy. 7 and Hwy 5, and
storm sewers conveyance systems have no more than 10-15 years of useful life left. In addition,
there are approximately 20 residents who live in uncertainty because their homes are within the
future right-of-way of the new project.
4. Grade Separated Crossing Project at Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue
Purpose: To secure $22.1 million in federal and state funding to construct a grade separated
intersection (interchange) at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue.
Status:
The project is programmed to be constructed between 2012 and 2015, and would provide for a
separated grade interchange. This project will not only mitigate congestion and accidents at the
intersection itself, but will accommodate further growth and redevelopment in the immediate
area, including current expansion at Methodist Hospital, a future nearby light rail station, and
other adjacent redevelopment activity.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
In July of 2007, the City of St. Louis Park submitted an application for federal funds for the
proposed reconstruction of the intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The
application was submitted to the Metropolitan Council and Transportation Advisory Board in
accordance with the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP). The project application was
reviewed by a committee and scored against several other applications submitted by other cities
and counties metro-wide. SRF Consulting Engineers assisted the City in putting the application
together. The Highway 7/Louisiana Project’s score ranked at the top of its category (Principal
Arterials). Although there are still a couple of procedural steps in the process, the project
appears to be assured of being awarded the approximately $7 million in federal funds.
Background: The city owns the property or right-of-way in all four quadrants of the intersection
so right of way acquisition for this project will not be necessary. It is expected to construct this
project between 2012 and 2015.
Seven million dollars is the maximum amount that the city can receive through this federal
funding process. The total project cost is estimated to be $22.1 million, which includes
construction and design services of $3.7 million and a revised construction cost estimate (using
2011 dollars) of $18.4 million. This revised cost estimate is consistent with the project estimates
for Hwy. 7 & Wooddale. The federal grant (STP) would provide $7.0 million with the remaining
$15.1 million requiring a match from the city and/or state, or other sources.
This project will require a combination of local, state and federal dollars to finance the
reconstruction of the at-grade intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue in St. Louis Park
to a grade separated intersection.
5. Levy Limits and LGA
Background: Any move to mandate levy limits is a concern. If the legislative session outcomes
contain levy limits, then the formula used to calculate the limits needs to be reviewed. The
formula used in the past results in St. Louis Park having an extremely limited ability to even
account for inflationary increases. Staff would like to see the state adopt an LGA formula
distribution that would establish some minimum per capita amount for cities currently not
receiving any aid before any increases to other cities already in the distribution.
6. Transportation Funding Increases
Background: In general the City of St. Louis Park needs increased revenues to support the two
street systems we own and maintain; the Municipal State Aid system (MSA) which comprises
20% of our street mileage and our local street (residential) system which is the remaining 80% of
the mileage we own.
The MSA system is funded primarily by the state. Increasing statewide transportation funding
(via gas tax, license tab fees, motor vehicle sales tax revenues) will increase MSA funding for
the City of St. Louis Park. The local street system is funded 100% by property taxes or special
assessments, of which neither method is necessarily preferred by residents / taxpayers.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
The other area the City of St. Louis Park struggles with is advancing improvements to the State
transportation system in our community. State revenues have not kept pace with state
transportation needs and improvements in our community have been significantly delayed due to
the lack of state funding (TH 100, TH 7, and Transit).
Solutions:
Provide increased funding for our MSA system (20% of our city streets)
o This can be via a gas tax increase, MVST transfer, increase in vehicle registration
taxes, provisions for a wheelage tax, and special funding for cities burdened with
excessive cost participation responsibilities.
Transportation Authority - enabling legislation to provide local funding options, such as
explicit authority to impose street utility fees, which would allow cities to raise the
dollars necessary to adequately fund local roads (80% of our city streets) and transit.
Full funding of state transportation projects and special state funding to local agencies for
regional transportation purposes.
7. Future Capital Budget Requests
Background: The following two pedestrian / trail connections are important to our community.
We would request that these be included in any future special funding bills considered by the
legislature:
•Pedestrian / Trail bridge over the BN RR @ Hwy 100 and Cedar Lake Road - $3,000,000
(100% of total estimated costs; construct 2014; currently unfunded)
•Pedestrian / Trail bridge over the BN RR @ Hampshire Ave - $3,000,000 (100% of total
estimated costs; construct 2009; currently unfunded)
8. Other Legislative Issues
Group Homes
Senator Ron Latz, Representative Ryan Winkler and Representative Steve Simon worked with
St. Louis Park and Golden Valley last session about the need for cities to have the authority to
establish spacing for group homes with six or fewer residents. Both Sen. Latz and Rep. Winkler
introduced bills to amend the law in 2007, both of which were referred to their appropriate
committees but were not heard. At the present time, only cities of the first class have this
authority.
St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and other cities would like to see this authority extended to first-
ring suburbs and/or cities of the second class. The AMM and the LMC have both adopted
legislative positions and will advocate that the Legislature give cities the ability to establish
minimum distances for group homes with six or fewer residents.
Senator Ron Latz and Representative Ryan Winkler are working to create a broader coalition on
the group home spacing issue and have been holding stakeholder meetings to gain a better
understanding of the needs of cities and of the disabled community.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Transportation – Transparency and Prioritization of Projects
Representative Steve Simon and Senator Ron Latz introduced language last session that would
require MnDOT to be more transparent about their future list of projects and to commit to
funding projects in writing. This language was included in the 2007 state transportation bill that
was vetoed but did have the support of legislators. The City of St. Louis Park would support any
effort to reintroduce the transparency language during the 2008 Legislative session.
The City would also like to see a bill introduced that would require MnDOT to prioritize projects
that receive federal funding through the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Transportation
Solicitation Process for STP funding. Projects that are selected through this process are of
regional significance, they conform to local and regional long-term plans and benefit the region.
While it is MnDOT’s policy to prioritize these projects, they are not required to do so by state
law. St. Louis Park’s funding for Hwy. 7 & Wooddale is in jeopardy because MnDOT has not
committed to moving this project up on their priority list due to budget constraints.
Pawn Shops – Reporting of Customer Data to Law Enforcement
Under state law, pawn shops are required to collect personal information from customers and
record and maintain all transactions for three years. This information must be provided to the
police upon request and by ordinance, St. Louis Park pawn shops are required to report
transaction and customer information to the police department daily.
Senator Don Betzold introduced a bill late in the 2007 legislative session to reduce fees and give
customers the right to share data with third parties. Under the proposed bill, pawn shops would
be required to obtain the consent of customers before sharing their personal information
(including transaction activity) with a third party (i.e. the police). The state could require a pawn
shop to turn over the information without customer consent if it were needed as a part of a
criminal investigation.
This bill has met with strong resistance from the City of Minneapolis and the Police Chief's
Association. The City of St. Louis Park strongly opposes such a bill because it would conflict
with the city’s ability to enforce Pawnshops under Chapter 8, Subd. XII of City Code and it
would hinder law enforcement’s ability to investigate and recover stolen merchandise statewide.
Sober Homes
The City has experienced the location of sober homes in the community. From a regulatory
perspective, these sober homes have been treated as rental property. However, issues of
transiency and other impacts have caused disruption in some of the neighborhood that is not
easily addressed thru rental licensing. The City is interested in possible legislative action to
better address this emerging housing approach.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: 2008 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Additional Items for the LMC and AMM
In addition to the Levy limits and concerns about the state’s distribution of LGA, there are three
other financial issues that the city would like to see addressed:
• No sales tax on city purchases similar to school districts
• Truth-in-taxation notices – state should change the form so it shows change in property
value and increase in city levy
• Market Value Homestead Credit – index the formula for inflation
Meeting Date: January 14, 2008
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:
Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy, Application, and Report Card.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff wishes to discuss and receive feedback on the revised Reinvestment Assistance Program
Policy and Application as well as the corresponding Report Card.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy, Application, and Report Card
acceptable?
BACKGROUND:
At the October 8, 2007 Study Session, the EDA reviewed the proposed Reinvestment Assistance
Program Policy. Staff was asked to incorporate a couple revisions and include a Report Card
similar to the one for evaluating applications for TIF assistance. The proposed Policy received
additional input from the business community through an ad hoc committee meeting of the
TwinWest Chamber on Oct. 26th. Staff incorporated the suggested revisions to the Policy and
prepared a proposed Application as well. The revised Policy, Application and Report Card are
attached for further discussion. If acceptable they will be scheduled for formal adoption by the
EDA.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Reinvestment Assistance Program would provide loans or grants of up to $500,000 to aid
qualified redevelopment projects. The funds would be disbursed from the EDA’s Development
Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Policy is consistent at least in part with the Strategic Directions of Vision St. Louis
Park as it relates to environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy & Application
Reinvestment Assistance Program Report Card
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager & EDA Executive Director
Reinvestment Assistance
Program
POLICY & APPLICATION
Draft 1/14/08
Conformance with the attached Policy does not entitle any applicant to financial
assistance under this program. This Policy states the current minimum and desired
qualifications necessary to approve an application. The St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (EDA) retains the right to accept or deny applications on the
basis of evaluating additional criteria it deems prudent and necessary. All applicants
are subject to approval by the St. Louis Park EDA or its designee(s). This program
may be amended or discontinued at any time without prior notice
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 1
2
For the purpose of this Application, the "City" shall also mean the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (EDA), which conducts various economic development, housing and
redevelopment programs and activities within the City of St. Louis Park. “Redeveloper” shall
mean the business entity undertaking the proposed redevelopment (this may include the property
owner).
GENERAL POLICY: The purpose of this Policy is to establish the City's position
relating to the use of Reinvestment Assistance (loans or grants) from the EDA’s
Development Fund for private redevelopment projects which benefit the City. This
Policy shall be used as a guide in reviewing and processing requests for redevelopment
projects requiring less than $500,000 in financing. The Reinvestment Assistance
Program will generally be considered in situations where the size and cost of the
proposed project do not justify the time and expense needed to create and administer a
tax increment finance (TIF) district.
The primary purpose of the Reinvestment Assistance Program is to encourage the
reinvestment in commercial, industrial, or mixed use areas in St. Louis Park that would
not otherwise redevelop or see significant new investment “but for” the assistance
provided. Grants or loans are to be provided when the economics of property reuse
cannot be overcome with conventional financing alone and where there is a compelling
public interest in seeing the redevelopment/reinvestment occur at the proposed location.
The goal of the Reinvestment Assistance Program is to revitalize neighborhoods by
eliminating or substantially rehabilitating structures that negatively impact surrounding
properties. The resulting redevelopment and/or new investment should bring the
underlying commercial or industrial property to the highest and best use consistent with
the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project should also have the potential to serve as a
catalyst for additional neighborhood reinvestment.
Each project will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the
Qualifications outlined within this document. Whenever possible the City’s preference is
to structure the Assistance in such a way as to allow it to be paid back. It will be at the
EDA’s discretion as to whether the Assistance is provided in the form of a loan or grant.
This program must not be a redeveloper’s sole source of gap financing. It is not to be
utilized in lieu of commercial lending but in participation with such lending sources.
Assistance will be considered upon prior evidence that all other funding sources have
been exhausted. Assistance funds will typically be provided as the sole source of public
financing assistance but may, in exceptional circumstances, be provided in conjunction
with tax increment financing at the sole discretion of the EDA.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 2
3
OBJECTIVES: The EDA will consider providing Reinvestment Assistance to facilitate
private redevelopment projects to achieve one or more of the following purposes:
• Revitalize identified key areas of the city through the replacement of blight,
nonconforming uses and replacement of other negative influences with high
quality, private development.
• Serve as a catalyst to encourage further private "spin-off" development within
tired, deteriorated, or functionally obsolete areas so as to lead to their
economic stabilization and revitalization.
• Expand the municipal tax base.
• Retain local jobs and/or increase the number and quality of jobs (e.g. stable
employment and/or attractive wages and benefits).
• Encourage projects that exhibit efficient urban design; quality architecture and
materials; sustainable “green” design; energy efficiency; enhanced stormwater
management; improved public safety; and decrease the capital and operating
costs of local government.
• Promote principles related to Livable Communities and Transit Oriented
Development so as to create compact, efficient mixed-use developments that
include: attractive design, quality amenities (e.g. public art) as well as
pedestrian and transit friendly environments.
• Fulfill the strategic directions outlined in Vision St. Louis Park.
ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS: Project expenditures considered extraordinary (over
and above what a developer would typically incur in a traditional urban and suburban
development) are eligible for reimbursement with Reinvestment Assistance. These may
include:
• Site-related work including: contamination clean up, soil correction, site
regrading, and pilings
• Utility relocation or upgrades
• Street widening and/or repair
• Environmental studies and regulatory compliance
• Relocation assistance for property owner and/or tenants
• Asbestos abatement
• Vapor mitigation
• Building demolition
• Nonconforming use removal
• Building rehabilitation
• “Green Building” features
• Property writedown to comparable land-only values
• Interest rate write downs
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 3
4
The Revitalization Assistance Program is based upon demonstrated need. A business or
developer must provide the EDA with written evidence (through its proforma and lender
commitment letter) that the requested amount is warranted, necessary and that there are
no other viable financing sources available. In no case shall the total amount of requested
assistance for any one project exceed $500,000.
INELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS: Reinvestment Assistance will not be provided to
projects that:
• Involve an excessive land and/or property price (i.e. where the acquisition
price is substantially in excess of market value as determined by an
independent appraisal of the property).
• Give a significant competitive financial advantage over similar projects in the
area due to the use of the Assistance. Redevelopers should provide
information to demonstrate Reinvestment Assistance will not create an undue
competitive advantage.
• Place extraordinary demands on City services.
• Would likely generate environmental problems in the opinion of the local,
state, or federal governments.
• Continue and/or expand nonconforming uses.
• Refinance existing debts.
• Acquire real property held primarily for sale or investment.
• Speculate in any kind of property, real or personal, tangible or intangible.
• Involve business activities that are inconsistent with Vision St. Louis Park
including but not limited to: sexually oriented businesses, pawn shops, tattoo
parlors, tobacco shops, gun shops, check cashing businesses or those
considered to create environmental problems due to the type of operation or
processes involved in the business operation.
QUALIFYING PROJECTS: All proposed redevelopment projects considered by the
City of St. Louis Park must meet each of the following minimum qualifications and will
also be evaluated based on their ability to meet the desired qualifications for assistance.
However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting the qualifications will
automatically be approved. Meeting the qualifications creates no contractual rights on
the part of any potential redeveloper to receive financial assistance.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 4
5
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
A. The proposed redevelopment project must be located within the City of St. Louis
Park and eliminate blight (obsolete, structurally substandard/contaminated
buildings) and/or nonconforming uses; and correct adverse soil conditions.
B. The proposed redevelopment project must be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, or required changes to the Plan and
Ordinance must be under active consideration by the City at the time a
Redevelopment Contract providing the assistance is scheduled for approval.
C. The redeveloper must demonstrate through its proforma that the proposed
redevelopment project is not financially feasible "but-for" the use of
Reinvestment Assistance.
D. The redeveloper must provide a letter of financing commitment from a
commercial lender which also indicates its inability to provide all the necessary
financing to complete the proposed project, the lack of additional financing and
the necessity for the Reinvestment Assistance.
E. The redeveloper must provide market data, tenant letters of intent or other
evidence which support the market potential/demand for the proposed project.
F. Prior to approval of a financing plan, the redeveloper shall provide any requested
market and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring, private lender
commitment, and/or other information as the City or its financial consultants may
reasonably require in order to proceed with an independent review of the
application.
G. The redeveloper must provide adequate financial guarantees to ensure completion
of the project. These may include, but are not limited to: assessment agreements,
letters of credit, personal deficiency guarantees, guaranteed maximum cost
contract, etc.
H. The redeveloper must be able to demonstrate previous successful general
redevelopment capability as well as specific capability in the type and size of
redevelopment proposed. Assistance will not be provided when the redeveloper's
credentials, in the sole judgment of the City, are inadequate due to past track
record relating to: quality and completion of projects, general reputation and/or
bankruptcy, or other problems or issues considered relevant by the City.
I. The redeveloper must retain ownership of the project at least long enough to
complete it, to stabilize its occupancy, and to establish the property management.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 5
6
J. Redevelopment projects must create a higher ratio of property taxes paid before
and after redevelopment. A 1:2 ratio of taxes paid before and after redevelopment
is required.
K. The proposed redevelopment meets many of the performance benchmarks needed
to achieve Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification
for its particular project type. Redeveloper must provide a list of qualifying
activities or project features to be incorporated into the project.
L. The redeveloper must be willing to enter into a redevelopment contract with the
EDA which outlines the requirements and obligations of both parties for the
provision of Assistance.
M. All redevelopment projects are subject to a provision within the redevelopment
contract with the EDA which allows the EDA to review the necessity for the
Reinvestment Assistance upon project completion, leasing and/or sale as well as
the recapture any unneeded Assistance.
DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS:
A. The proposed project should be located within areas of the City envisioned for
reinvestment and/or revitalization.
B. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Strategic Plan and Vision St.
Louis Park.
C. Redevelopment projects should meet public policy objectives as determined by
the City Council. Preference will be given to projects that:
• Include efficient urban architectural design, high quality construction and
materials, additional green space.
• Provide significant improvement to surrounding land uses, the neighborhood,
and/or the City.
• Aim to clean-up contaminated sites and buildings.
• Facilitate the expansion/location of a business or industry with an
environmentally sound track record.
• Provide significant new and/or retained employment that provides wages
and/or benefits above the MSA average.
• Provide the highest and best desired use for the property.
• Fill an unmet market need.
• Consistent with Livable Communities and Transit Oriented Development
principles.
• Qualify for Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certification.
• Reduce demands on City services (i.e. public safety).
• Request multi-year financing.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 6
7
APPLICATION PROCEDURE:
1. Meet with appropriate City staff to discuss the scope of the project, anticipated
extraordinary costs, financial needs, public participation being requested, time
schedule, and other information as may be necessary. The loan/grant request shall be
reviewed by City staff on a preliminary basis as to the feasibility of the project.
2. If, in staff’s judgment, the project appears to meet the Program’s objectives and the
amount of requested assistance appears reasonable, the applicant may elect to file a
formal application for Reinvestment Assistance at which time the developer will be
asked to submit a $2,000 Application Fee and place $5,000 in escrow for related
administrative expenses. Additional funds may be required if expenses are incurred
beyond the $5,000 escrow.
3. If the project is approved and the applicant proceeds with the project, the EDA shall
reimburse the applicant any unused portion of the deposit as of the date of execution
of the redevelopment contract. If the applicant does not proceed with the project, the
EDA shall reimburse the applicant for the unused portion of the deposit as of the date
that the EDA is notified in writing that the applicant desires to withdraw its
application.
4. Applications will be considered by the EDA in Study Session at which staff will
present the proposed project and its findings. The applicant may also make a formal
presentation of the project.
5. Following the necessary financial analysis and preparation of detailed plans, the EDA
will determine whether the proposed project is sufficiently consistent with the Policy
to merit funding. Upon formal approval and submission of qualified costs,
Reinvestment Assistance will generally be disbursed over a multi-year period. Any
request for upfront assistance will be evaluated on its own merit in accordance with
the City’s general financing policies.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 7
8
Reinvestment Assistance Program Application
General Information
1. Business Name:
Address:
Contact Person:
Telephone Number:
Email Address:
2. Brief description of the business:
3. Proposed redevelopment project: business type(s) and/or use(s),
prospective tenants, building(s) square footage, number of units (for
housing projects), and building height and materials. Please provide a
preliminary site plan.
Site Information/Identification
4. Location and address of project. Please provide a map depicting
where project will be located within the city.
5. Size of project area:
6. Is any of the proposed project area blighted, contaminated or
environmentally challenged? If yes, please explain.
7. Present ownership of the site:
8. Does developer control all the parcels required for the proposed
development? Please explain.
9. If the property is to be purchased, what is the proposed closing date?
10. After completion of the proposed development who will own the
project site?
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 8
9
Project Site Analysis
11. Total Estimated Market Value of project upon completion: $
12. Estimated real estate taxes of project upon completion: $
(Please show calculations)
13. Project construction schedule:
a. Estimated construction start date:
b. Estimated construction completion date:
c. If phased project: year % completed
year % completed
14. Name & address of architect, engineer, and general contractor.
15. Describe current conditions of the area surrounding the project site.
Describe how redevelopment will improve conditions in the
surrounding area.
16. Expected general traffic impacts (projected on/off street parking
needs, projected auto/truck counts, traffic flow, peak traffic periods,
proximity to public transit, etc.)
17. What is the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use designation
and zoning of the property? Include a statement as to how the
proposed redevelopment will conform to the current land use
designation and how the property will be zoned or rationale as to why
changes may be necessary.
18. Is the proposed project site located in a City-designated
redevelopment area?
19. Is the proposed project part of a mixed use development?
20. Does the proposed project incorporate principles of Livable
Communities and/or Transit Oriented Development?
21. Will the project incorporate LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) principles? Will it likely achieve certification?
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 9
10
22. Is redeveloper willing to provide the EDA with a list of LEED points
likely achieved?
23. Is there a positive environmental impact associated with this project,
such as ponding or other environmental infrastructure?
Cost/Financial Analysis
24. Please submit project proformas (sources and uses with and without
assistance) indicating total estimated project costs (such as those listed
below) and return on investment.
a. Land Acquisition $
b. Soil Correction/Remediation $
c. Demolition $
d. Site Grading and Excavation $
e. Utilities $
f. Road Improvements $
g. Curb, gutter, parking lot, sidewalks $
h. Building Construction $
i. Parking Ramp (if applicable) $
j. Landscaping $
k. Equipment $
l. Architectural & Engineering Fees $
m. Legal Fees $
n. Financing Costs $
o. Broker Costs $
p. Developer Fee $
q. Contractor Fees $
r. Contingencies $
s. Other (please specify) $
t. TOTAL $
25. Sources of Financing:
a. Equity $
b. Loan Source(s) $
c. Other Sources (explain) $
26. Estimated amount of Reinvestment Assistance required to make
project viable.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 10
11
27. Please submit an itemized list of project costs for which Reinvestment
Assistance is being requested (See above list of eligible costs).
28. Specific reasons why, “but for” the use of Reinvestment Assistance,
this project would not be possible.
29. What other alternative financing sources have been sought and why
are they not adequate or feasible?
Job Creation/Retention
30. How many FTE (Full Time Equivalent) jobs are expected to be
retained in the City as a direct result of this project?
31. What is the expected pay range of these retained positions (without
benefits)?
Pay Range
# of FTE
Employees Total Wages
$0 to $14,999 0 $
$15,000 to $24,999 0 $
$25,000 to $29,999 0 $
$30,000 to $44,999 0 $
$45,000 to $59,999 0 $
$60,000 & Up 0 $
TOTAL 0 $
32. How many FTE (Full Time Equivalent) jobs are expected to be
created in the City as a direct result of this project?
33. What is the expected pay range of these new positions (without
benefits)?
Pay Range
# of FTE
Employees Total Wages
$0 to $14,999 0 $
$15,000 to $24,999 0 $
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 11
12
$25,000 to $29,999 0 $
$30,000 to $44,999 17 $
$45,000 to $59,999 0 $
$60,000 & Up 0 $
TOTAL 0 $
34. Please describe any other economic/social impacts this project is
likely to have on the community.
Developer Background
35. Background on the developer’s company, principals, and history.
Please list previous related projects and locations as well as
experience of this particular development team working together.
36. Has developer, developer’s company, partner or related affiliate ever
filed bankruptcy? Yes, No. If yes, please explain.
37. Municipal Reference. Please name any other municipalities wherein
the applicant, or other corporations with which the applicant has been
involved, has completed similar developments within the last five
years.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 12
FINAL GRADE:
1 Minimum Qualifications:
□A. Project is located within St. Louis Park, eliminates blight and/or nonconforming uses, and corrects soil conditions?
□B. Project consistent with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
□C. The project is not financially feasible without Reinvestment Assistance?
□D. A letter of financing commitment is provided?
□E. There is a market potential/demand for the project?
□F. All requested information required for independent review of the application is provided?
□G. Financial guarantees are provided?
□ H. The redeveloper has a successful track record?
□I. Ownership of project is retained by redeveloper until completion?
□J. A 1:2 ratio of property taxes paid before and after redevelopment is created?
□K. Project meets many of the performance benchmarks needed to achieve LEED certification?
1 Ratio of private to RA Investment in project:Points:
Points
-$ 3to1 1
-$ 4to1 2
5to1 3
6to1 4
7to1 5
2 Retained FTE jobs in the City:Points:
Points
Number of FTE employees retained in the City 0 0
1to9 1
10 to 19 2
20 to 29 3
30 to 39 4
40 &Up 5
Report Card for Evaluating Projects Requesting Redevelopment Assistance
RA Request
Private Investment
Private Funds/RA
Ratio of Private/Public Financing
Jobs Retained
St. Louis Park Business and Commercial RA Report 1
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 13
3 New FTE job creation in the City:Points:
Points
Number of new FTE employees as a result of the project 0 0
1to9 1
10 to 19 2
20 to 29 3
30 to 39 4
40 &Up 5
4 Ratio of RA investment to jobs retained & created:Points:
Points
-$ $0 to $7,000 5
$7,001 to $10,000 4
$10,001 to $13,000 3
$13,001 to $16,000 2
$16,001 & Up 1
5 Pay level of FTE jobs (without benefits):Points:
Total Wages Points
$0 to $14,999 0
$15,000 to $24,999 1
$25,000 to $29,999 2
$30,000 to $44,999 3
$45,000 to $59,999 4
$60,000 & Up 5
6 Increase in real estate value:Points:
Points
1 to 1.5 0
1to2 1
1to3 2
1to4 3
1to5 4
1to6+ 5
Before/After
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
New Jobs
RA/Job
RA Request
Total Jobs
RA/Job
TOTAL
Pay Range
Average Wage
Ratio of value before/after redevelopment
Value of site before redevelopment
Value of site after redevelopment
# of FTE Employees
St. Louis Park Business and Commercial RA Report 2
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 14
7 Bonus Points (14 points total)Points:
Avail Awarded
A. Site is located in areas envisioned for reinvestment and/or revitalization?2
B. Project will be consistent with Vision St. Louis Park and its Strategic Plan?2
C. Project will redevelop a previously contaminated or environmentally challenged site?2
D. Project will incorporate Livable Communities and/or Transit Oriented Development principles?2
E. Project will likely achieve LEED certification or medal status?2
F. Project will likely stimulate further economic activity/investment in the neighborhood?2
G. Project will likely have a positive environmental impact and incorporate efficient urban design?2
H. Project will incorporate a business with an environmentally sound track record ?2
I. Project fills an unmet market need?2
J. Project will reduce demands on City services?2
TOTAL 20
8 TOTAL POINTS 0 Grade:
0to10F
11 to 20 D
21 to 30 C
31 to 40 B
41 to 50 A
Total Points
Points
St. Louis Park Business and Commercial RA Report 3
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Revised Reinvestment Assistance Program Policy Page 15
Meeting Date: January 14, 2008
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:
Revised financial assistance request to facilitate redevelopment of the former Erv’s Lawnmower
Repair property located at 7102 & 7104 Lake Street.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff wishes to discuss and receive feedback on the Real Estate Recycling’s (RER) revised
redevelopment plans for the former Erv’s Lawnmower Repair property; and its revised request
for financial assistance. Specific items staff wishes to discuss include:
• Revised site plan.
• Revised request for $400,000 in financial assistance from the city.
• Next steps
Representatives of Real Estate Recycling will be in attendance at the study session to answer any
questions the EDA/City Council may have regarding the revised project and request for financial
assistance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Real Estate Recycling (RER) wishes to purchase, clean up and redevelop the properties at 7102
& 7104 Lake Street (the “subject property” and “site”). The redevelopment is not financially
feasible without grant funding from various agencies and city assistance. Is the EDA willing to
consider providing city funding (i.e. TIF and Reinvestment Assistance) to facilitate the
redevelopment?
BACKGROUND:
At the November 13th Study Session Real Estate Recycling (RER) presented its cleanup and
redevelopment plans for the former Erv’s Lawnmower Repair property prominently located
along the south side of Highway 7. Financial estimates for cleaning up the site in accordance
with MPCA requirements make the proposed project cost prohibitive without financial assistance
from several public agencies and the city. At the Study Session the EDA expressed interest in
working with Real Estate Recycling to clean up and redevelop the contaminated property. Thus
on November 19th the EDA authorized the submission of environmental clean up grant
applications to DEED, the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County for a combined total of
$321,000 to properly address the contamination on the former Erv’s property.
RER subsequently obtained an extension on its purchase agreement with property owner,
Mayflower Hwy 7 Properties LLC, contingent upon receipt of grant funds and city assistance.
RER now is required to close on the property in early February.
Property Description
The former Erv’s property is a 0.4 acre (18,670 SF) site located in the South Oak Hill
Neighborhood between Highway 7 and West Lake Street, and; immediately north of RER’s
recently completed Highway 7 Corporate Center. The subject property poses several
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Redevelopment Assistance for the Former Erv’s Garage Property
redevelopment challenges as the site is small, narrow, and contaminated. For over 60 years, this
site functioned as a gas station and auto or small engine repair shop. Fill soils, which are
attributed in part to the former and adjacent National Lead (NL) site, were placed on site to
improve surface water drainage and make the site suitable for development. The fill soils are the
primary source of soil contamination on the subject property.
Currently, the subject property is occupied by a tired, cinder block building (garage) which
supports two billboards on its roof. The billboards are a nonconforming use under the city’s
zoning ordinance. The unoccupied garage and billboards create a negative visual image along
the Hwy 7 corridor. The site is unpaved with impacted soils exposed. The current use generates
no jobs and minimal tax base for the city. These factors combined have a detrimental impact on
the surrounding neighborhood.
The current owner of the site, Mayflower Hwy 7 Properties LLC, is using the garage for storage,
and receives income from the billboard leases. The current owner has expressed no intention of
cleaning up or redeveloping the site to its highest and best use.
Proposed Redevelopment Plan
Interest was expressed at the November 13th Study Session in seeing the subject property cleaned
up and redeveloped; however, the 1,770 square foot restaurant building proposed for the site was
not favorably received. Real Estate Recycling was asked to consider a higher use for the
property such as an office building. RER subsequently redesigned its site plan and now proposes
to construct a 4,000 square foot office building on the site (see revised site plan). The new
facility would incorporate many “green” features and would be attractively designed to
complement RER’s newly constructed office/showroom building immediately across the street.
Current and Proposed Market Value
The 2007 assessed value for the subject property equals $377,000. This reflects the fact that the
building is aging and usable primarily for storage purposes. Upon redevelopment, the land and
office building would have an estimated assessed value of approximately $1,000,000 which is
$200,000 more than the previously proposed retail building.
Job Creation
RER estimates the proposed office building will provide 21 full-time jobs. The quality of these
jobs would be considerably higher than those that would have been created with the previously
proposed retail uses.
Grant Update
The contamination clean up grant application to DEED was formally approved in their entirety.
The Met Council and Hennepin County will formally consider their brownfield grant
applications in January and February respectively. Staffs from both agencies are recommending
full funding for the Erv’s project. Thus, it appears likely that the EDA and RER will receive the
entire $321,000 they requested to properly address the contamination on the former Erv’s
property.
Revised Request for Financial Assistance
The dilemma RER faces with this project is that the real value of the property is in the building
and billboards. Since the building and billboards are to be removed, they have no economic
value as collateral for a bank loan but nonetheless their value must be reflected in the property
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Redevelopment Assistance for the Former Erv’s Garage Property
purchase price. In addition, the cost of the property can’t be recovered with the proposed project
given that the square footage of the site dictates a very small building. RER revised its project
budget to reflect the new 4,000 square foot office building. Revised total project costs for the
acquisition, cleanup and construction of the proposed commercial building are $1,744,970.
Along with RER’s equity, a construction loan from First National Bank of Omaha will cover the
costs associated with the market value of the land and the construction of the new building.
Despite the building revision however RER’s project pro forma reflects a shortfall of $721,000.
RER has proposed to fill the project shortfall with $321,000 in grant funding (to cover cleanup
costs), and $400,000 from the city (to cover a portion of the property cost and removal of the
structures). This is a reduction of $75,000 from RER’s initial request. With the grants and
proposed city assistance RER would achieve a nominal market rate of return.
An appropriate source of funds for the city’s assistance would be the Highway 7 Corporate
Center TIF District. Staff has requested Ehlers & Associates to determine whether this District
or another redevelopment TIF District could support this expenditure. If TIF funds are not used,
the remaining shortfall could be addressed with funding via the Reinvestment Assistance
Program
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
RER has requested $400,000 in financial assistance from the EDA in order to properly cleanup
and redevelop the former Erv’s Repair Garage property thus putting it to highest and best use
consistent with the city’s vision.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Cleaning up and redeveloping the subject site is consistent with the Strategic Directions of Vision
St. Louis Park as it relates to environmental stewardship and community gathering places. The
proposed project is also consistent with the goals expressed in the Redevelopment section of the
city’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments: Revised Site Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager
Site Area Building Area Parking Provided
18,670 sf 4,000 sf19 stalls
Project Information
Site Plan
St. Louis Park, MN
ProposedOffice
I:\M37_7670\Design\Color-CAD\M377670_Site02.psdOwned & Developed By:
December 1, 2007
Meeting Date: January 14, 2008
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
City Council Workshop
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council feedback and input on the topics to be discussed at the upcoming City
Council workshop.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What topics does the City Council feel would be appropriate to discuss at its annual workshop.
BACKGROUND:
For the last several years the City Council has met in a day and one half workshop setting to
enhance relationships and discuss policy related matters. Last year the focus of the workshop
was on the results of Vision St. Louis Park and the development and adoption of the four
Strategic Directions and related Focus Areas that staff has been working on over the last year
(see attached).
This year’s workshop is scheduled for the late afternoon and evening of Friday, February 1 and
during the day on Saturday, February 2. All Department Directors will be available as needed to
participate in the workshop. The workshop is proposed to be held at the Jap’s Olson facility on
Excelsior Blvd and be facilitated by Bridget Gothberg, with assistance from staff. Staff has
visited the facility and found the conference room accommodations to be quite suitable for our
workshop. Jap’s Olson is quite excited to have us use their facility.
In the recent past I have suggested some bigger picture topics/policy related matters that we
should consider discussing at the workshop. In this case I would recommend that we spend time
at the workshop discussing:
• An update on the marketing and branding initiative;
• A report out by staff and a policy discussion by the City Council on the work which has
been done on the four Strategic Directions, related Focus Areas and next steps.
• A policy discussion on long range financial planning.
Based on the estimate of time needed to discuss the above three items, I would expect that we
would have 2 or 3 hours to discuss other items of interest to the Council. I would be interested in
receiving feedback from the Council on the three suggested topics and/or other policy matters it
would like to discuss.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The facility is being provided free of charge and food and refreshments will be brought in. As
such, this should be a low-cost but still productive workshop. Any costs associated with the
workshop are already accounted for in the budget.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: City Council Workshop
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The discussion topics being suggested are very consistent with delivering on the Vision
recommendations from the community
Attachment: St. Louis Park Strategic Directions – 18 Month Guide
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: City Council Workshop
St. Louis Park Strategic Directions
18 month Guide
Adopted March 19, 2007
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Conducting research to determine what makes a neighborhood organization strong,
viable and sustainable with an aim toward increasing and strengthening neighborhoods.
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting
St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
• Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for the
community.
• Increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility
throughout the community.
• Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use.
• Directing the Human Rights Commission to examine the Diversity section of Vision St.
Louis Park and develop goals/recommendations for actions
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus will be on:
• Expanding energy efficiencies in the City’s operations.
• Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best
practices.
• Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects, permits etc,
encourage (and provide incentives where appropriate) green building design (LEED),
creation of open spaces, environmental innovations etc.
• Preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks.
• Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
Focus will be on:
• Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied homes.
• Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics.
• Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the city.
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics
in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
January 14, 2008 Meeting Date:
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: January 14, 2008
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:
November 2007 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This is a written report for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues
and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds
should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the
discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
For the first eleven months of the year, actual revenues and expenditures should generally run
about 91.7% of the annual budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 89%
and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 98.7%. Significant variances exceeding
budget are highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion for the variance.
General Fund
Expenditures:
• Finance Dept. expenditures appear to exceed budget because two contract employees
hired to help fill vacancies left by the departure of staff have not been allocated out to
departments. The Finance employees who left were allocated to the enterprise funds and
EDA.
• Human Resources expenditures are slightly over budget due to additional advertisements
for open positions and personnel testing/assessments.
• Community Development appears to exceed budget in expenditures due to costs incurred
for professional services. Some of these costs were paid to a consulting group and will
be reimbursed through the Community Planning Grant the City was awarded in 2007. As
a result of this reimbursement, the department will be in line with budget through
November.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• Park Maintenance is slightly exceeding budget due to some fall final cleanup and
contractual payments for the Hutch Spur/Cedar Lake Trail.
• The Environmental Budget is high because we are continuing to experience a lot of tree
removal work due to Dutch Elm. This will be partially offset by resident billing revenue.
• Vehicle Maintenance is exceeding budget due to several large fuel purchases.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: November 2007 Monthly Financial Report
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None required at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Assistant Finance Director
Reviewed by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:17:27R5509FDO SLCOUNCIL1
1Page -Expenditure Report by CompanySt Louis Park Monthly Expenditure Council Report
11/30/2007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current Month
Actual
YTD
Balance Balance
Exp.
%
Avail.
%
01000 GENERAL FUND
100 GENERAL 21.50 21.50-.0 .0
105 LEGISLATIVE 50.00 50.00 50.00-.0 .0
110 ADMINISTRATION 982,930.60 113,882.07 869,286.19 113,644.41 88.4 11.6
120 FINANCE 1,053,032.00 92,737.79 1,022,286.83 30,745.17 97.1 2.9
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 568,372.46 46,482.61 532,924.54 35,447.92 93.8 6.2
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,024,954.14 155,938.73 970,512.98 54,441.16 94.7 5.3
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,164,367.24 114,776.29 968,128.47 196,238.77 83.1 16.9
145 TECHNOLOGY & SUPPORT SERVICES 1,490,175.71 121,883.09 1,354,947.12 135,228.59 90.9 9.1
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 218,751.47 16,429.55 170,243.63 48,507.84 77.8 22.2
160 POLICE 6,676,103.09 538,912.94 5,743,919.72 932,183.37 86.0 14.0
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 116,397.35 5,952.58 104,603.50 11,793.85 89.9 10.1
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,756,522.00 253,260.86 2,494,114.61 262,407.39 90.5 9.5
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 1,793,306.00 150,316.80 1,583,470.39 209,835.61 88.3 11.7
175 PUBLIC WORKS 3,840,552.01 299,940.25 3,475,674.04 364,877.97 90.5 9.5
01000 GENERAL FUND 21,685,464.07 1,910,563.56 19,290,183.52 2,395,280.55 89.0 11.0
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 3
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:18:41R5509FDO SLPCOUCIL2
1Page -Expenditure Report by CompanyExpenditure report for Park & Rec
11/30/2007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current Month
Actual
YTD
Balance Balance
Exp.
%
Avail.
%
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 1,223,354.00 81,552.46 1,138,313.23 85,040.77 93.0 7.0
210 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,333,381.73 114,165.75 1,285,214.84 48,166.89 96.4 3.6
220 ENVIRONMENT 276,597.52 57,334.51 504,919.30 228,321.78- 182.5 82.5-
230 WESTWOOD 452,084.59 36,300.66 420,625.22 31,459.37 93.0 7.0
240 RECREATION CENTER 1,319,599.56 79,150.44 1,193,780.71 125,818.85 90.5 9.5
250 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 994,373.73 116,968.96 981,783.37 12,590.36 98.7 1.3
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 5,599,391.13 485,472.78 5,524,636.67 74,754.46 98.7 1.3
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 4
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:31:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2007
200711/30/2007 <==========================================>20062007
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
4011 CURRENT AD VALOREM 13,170,348.00-5,455,700.17- 7,714,647.83- 41.42 |13,001,118.00-6,073,616.51- 46.72
4012 DELINQ AD VALOREM 104,876.01- 104,876.01 |27,494.57-
4013 FISCAL DISPARITY 733,188.15- 733,188.15 |523,752.49-
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST 5,696.97-5,696.97 |1,841.57-
4018 MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT |987,893.68
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 13,170,348.00-6,299,461.30-6,870,886.70-47.83 |13,001,118.00-5,638,811.46-43.37
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS
4101 LICENSES 507,700.00-3,522.00- 560,869.50- 53,169.50 110.47 |491,700.00-317,716.70- 64.62
4200 PERMITS 2,128,800.00- 146,130.26- 2,231,235.56- 102,435.56 104.81 |2,233,800.00-2,486,231.55- 111.30
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,636,500.00-149,652.26-2,792,105.06-155,605.06 105.90 |2,725,500.00-2,803,948.25-102.88
4270 FINES & FORFEITS
4271 MUNICIPAL COURT 300,000.00- 20,290.71- 216,425.53- 83,574.47- 72.14 |300,000.00-269,705.88- 89.90
4273 FORFEITURES/PENALTIES 6,500.00-5,139.13-1,360.87- 79.06 |6,500.00-2,461.72- 37.87
4275 LIQUOR VIOLATION FINES 3,000.00- 14,000.00- 14,000.00- 11,000.00 466.67 |3,000.00-7,000.00- 233.33
4276 MISC LICENSE VIOLATIONS 100.00-35.00-65.00- 35.00 |100.00-140.00- 140.00
4277 NON-COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS/FEES 930.00-930.00 |
4279 CONTRACT REIMB.-SNOW REMOVAL 70.00 70.00-|
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 309,600.00-34,290.71-236,459.66-73,140.34-76.38 |309,600.00-279,307.60-90.22
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
4310 FEDERAL |12,888.00-94,263.01- 731.40
4350 STATE 1,189,229.00-5,356.79- 1,491,592.81- 302,363.81 125.43 |1,335,706.00-2,259,769.62- 169.18
4400 OTHER 439,575.15-400,752.36- 38,822.79- 91.17 |411,120.00-404,179.03- 98.31
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,628,804.15-5,356.79-1,892,345.17-263,541.02 116.18 |1,759,714.00-2,758,211.66-156.74
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES
4601 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 625,028.63-3,122.38- 443,454.84- 181,573.79- 70.95 |603,339.32-551,331.33- 91.38
4700 PUBLIC SAFETY 117,800.00-8,722.02- 92,009.56- 25,790.44- 78.11 |117,800.00-96,132.41- 81.61
4800 HIGHWAYS/STREETS 303,000.00-135,324.23- 167,675.77- 44.66 |284,000.00-220,678.02- 77.70
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,045,828.63-11,844.40-670,788.63-375,040.00-64.14 |1,005,139.32-868,141.76-86.37
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5102 CURRENT 1,195.07-1,195.07 |804.51-
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1,195.07-1,195.07 |804.51-
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 5
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:31:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2007
200711/30/2007 <==========================================>20062007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 98.40-244.60-244.60 225.10-
5300 RENT REVENUE 111,400.00-7,083.33- 92,133.31- 19,266.69- 82.70 |101,400.00-94,316.67- 93.01
5330 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS |5,000.00-8,633.92- 172.68
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 111,400.00-7,181.73-92,377.91-19,022.09-82.92 |106,400.00-103,175.69-96.97
4001 REVENUES 18,902,480.78-208,325.89-11,984,732.80-6,917,747.98-63.40 |18,907,471.32-12,452,400.93-65.86
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES
6010 SALARIES 13,070,190.81 1,142,217.69 11,761,590.05 1,308,600.76 89.99 |12,429,864.67 11,262,350.05 90.61
6060 PERA 1,103,634.75 95,528.16 991,020.35 112,614.40 89.80 |957,521.77 877,429.01 91.64
6075 FICA 638,521.59 54,960.29 589,763.70 48,757.89 92.36 |603,690.84 561,393.59 92.99
6080 INSURANCE 1,676,253.67 153,351.26 1,500,832.06 175,421.61 89.53 |1,677,294.84 1,458,321.61 86.94
6100 OTHER 369,461.25 33,191.03 378,088.78 8,627.53- 102.34 |353,734.54 371,853.77 105.12
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 16,858,062.07 1,479,248.43 15,221,294.94 1,636,767.13 90.29 |16,022,106.66 14,531,348.03 90.70
6210 SUPPLIES
6211 OFFICE SUPPLIES 50,550.00 3,592.69 39,778.35 10,771.65 78.69 |47,200.00 37,609.39 79.68
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 82,400.00 3,263.94 47,225.89 35,174.11 57.31 |82,760.00 54,438.70 65.78
6213 FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 7,000.00 259.53 1,106.24 5,893.76 15.80 |5,000.00 3,534.28 70.69
6214 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 156,825.00 6,902.97 80,738.55 76,086.45 51.48 |132,600.00 73,952.69 55.77
6215 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 3,750.00 871.44 2,878.56 23.24 |3,500.00 832.11 23.77
6217 SMALL TOOLS 5,200.00 171.12 2,394.90 2,805.10 46.06 |4,536.00 4,873.82 107.45
6218 MOTOR FUELS 2,000.00 168.50 1,831.50 8.43 |1,500.00 106.68 7.11
6221 EQUIPMENT PARTS 21,600.00 167.54 11,383.84 10,216.16 52.70 |24,400.00 11,644.38 47.72
6222 BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 43,530.00 2,144.54 14,612.46 28,917.54 33.57 |34,750.00 14,825.46 42.66
6223 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 271,000.00 8,505.38 258,288.15 12,711.85 95.31 |268,000.00 225,445.71 84.12
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 6,500.00 17,136.83 35,421.90 28,921.90- 544.95 |6,500.00 2,590.95 39.86
6225 SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 5,150.00 413.76 3,059.93 2,090.07 59.42 |5,000.00 3,424.07 68.48
6226 CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 29,943.00 446.33 17,057.42 12,885.58 56.97 |28,643.00 19,211.03 67.07
6227 MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE 1,000.00 1,125.00 125.00- 112.50 |
6210 SUPPLIES 686,448.00 43,004.63 513,232.57 173,215.43 74.77 |644,389.00 452,489.27 70.22
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6301 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 8,500.00 454.39 21,394.01 12,894.01- 251.69 |8,770.00 5,649.64 64.42
6302 POLICE EQUIPMENT 22,150.00 1,261.21 16,747.27 5,402.73 75.61 |23,160.00 18,357.76 79.26
6303 OTHER 31,600.00 8,169.39 21,422.24 10,177.76 67.79 |43,860.00 99,913.14 227.80
6304 FIRE EQUIPMENT 1,700.00 1,700.00 |5,700.00 2,945.90 51.68
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 63,950.00 9,884.99 59,563.52 4,386.48 93.14 |81,490.00 126,866.44 155.68
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 6
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:31:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2007
200711/30/2007 <==========================================>20062007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
6400 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,257,925.00 135,398.22 1,124,161.75 133,763.25 89.37 |1,257,704.38 916,529.94 72.87
6700 POSTAGE 133,470.00 1,391.81 128,133.99 5,336.01 96.00 |130,715.00 105,612.99 80.80
6720 DELIVERY |39.35
6830 COMMUNICATIONS 232,710.00 10,219.19 165,411.05 67,298.95 71.08 |213,425.00 182,714.35 85.61
6900 AWARDS/INDEMNITIES 200.00 200.00 |200.00 23.94 11.97
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 11,000.00 1,333.14 5,498.17 5,501.83 49.98 |13,000.00 5,008.78 38.53
7000 ADVERTISING 100.00 100.00-|
7050 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 62,760.00 11,785.03 58,107.99 4,652.01 92.59 |54,758.00 42,008.58 76.72
7100 INSURANCE 96,882.00 9,074.80 98,472.56 1,590.56- 101.64 |96,882.00 86,190.99 88.96
7200 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 421,023.00 41,119.59 266,152.15 154,870.85 63.22 |360,820.00 244,484.26 67.76
7300 UTILITIES 550,096.00 61,831.67 484,094.42 66,001.58 88.00 |419,496.00 358,631.67 85.49
7410 COMPUTER SERVICES 504,000.00 51,027.22 474,190.73 29,809.27 94.09 |493,000.00 442,980.75 89.85
7500 RENTALS 42,878.00 2,819.91 34,461.22 8,416.78 80.37 |737,951.00 670,438.12 90.85
7550 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE 428,024.00 35,668.66 392,355.26 35,668.74 91.67 |419,447.00 384,493.12 91.67
7600 EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT 294,266.00 9,375.14 217,965.19 76,300.81 74.07 |266,564.00 202,278.63 75.88
7620 TRAVEL/MEETINGS 31,450.00 7,111.13 34,725.04 3,275.04- 110.41 |30,695.00 21,098.52 68.74
7650 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 7,000.00 6,080.67 919.33 86.87 |5,718.00 11,797.67 206.33
7670 LICENSES 3,320.00 270.00 2,393.00 927.00 72.08 |3,220.00 2,257.00 70.09
7699 CAPITAL LEASE PAYMENT |5,584.34
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,077,004.00 378,425.51 3,492,303.19 584,700.81 85.66 |4,503,595.38 3,682,173.00 81.76
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY
7803 IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 95.30 95.30-|
7805 OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 3,694.00 3,694.00-|
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,789.30 3,789.30-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 21,685,464.07 1,910,563.56 19,290,183.52 2,395,280.55 88.95 |21,251,581.04 18,792,876.74 88.43
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN
8013 CABLE TV 155,063.00- 12,921.92- 142,141.12- 12,921.88- 91.67 |155,063.00-142,141.12- 91.67
8014 HOUSING REHABILITATION 192,797.00- 16,066.42- 176,730.62- 16,066.38- 91.67 |199,211.00-182,610.12- 91.67
8017 MSC 8,746.00-728.83- 8,017.13-728.87- 91.67 |41,575.00-38,110.38- 91.67
8019 WATER UTILITY 518,366.00- 43,197.17- 475,168.87- 43,197.13- 91.67 |483,516.00-443,223.00- 91.67
8021 REFUSE UTILITY 328,351.00- 27,362.58- 300,988.38- 27,362.62- 91.67 |312,171.00-286,156.75- 91.67
8022 STORM WATER UTILITY 297,180.00- 24,765.00- 272,415.00- 24,765.00- 91.67 |311,671.00-285,698.38- 91.67
8023 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY 770,333.00- 64,194.42- 706,138.62- 64,194.38- 91.67 |722,612.00-662,394.37- 91.67
8024 PENSION 384,000.00- 32,000.00- 352,000.00- 32,000.00- 91.67 |384,000.00-352,000.00- 91.67
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,654,836.00-221,236.34-2,433,599.74-221,236.26-91.67 |2,609,819.00-2,392,334.12-91.67
8060 DISPOSAL OF ASSET
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 7
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:31:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2007
200711/30/2007 <==========================================>20062007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
8065 SALE OF SALVAGE 10,063.00- 10,063.00 |
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-1,042.34-457.66- 69.49 1,000.00-2,022.53- 202.25
8070.831 Police 500.00-1,308.88-808.88 261.78 |484.04-
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-2,351.22-351.22 117.56 |1,000.00-2,506.57-250.66
8080 BONDS
8084 CAPITAL LEASE
8100 INTEREST
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 301,099.00-60,971.18 362,070.18- 20.25- |173,500.00-178,859.42- 103.09
8102 OTHER INTEREST |.33-
8100 INTEREST 301,099.00-60,971.18 362,070.18-20.25-|173,500.00-178,859.75-103.09
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 9,800.00-9,800.00 7,119.50-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 9,800.00-9,800.00 |7,119.50-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 2,500.00-
8171 REVENUE BOND FEES 5,000.00-5,000.00-100.00 |5,000.00-
8174 NSF FEES 1,000.00-125.00- 1,800.00-800.00 180.00 |1,000.00-1,096.33- 109.63
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 6,000.00-125.00-6,800.00-800.00 113.33 |6,000.00-3,596.33-59.94
8200 MISC REVENUE 328.55-328.55 |141.00-1,417.79- 1,005.52
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,963,935.00-221,361.34-2,401,971.33-561,963.67-81.04 |2,790,460.00-2,585,834.06-92.67
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 11.10 11.10-|315.66
8580 MISC EXPENSE 650.00 3.00 275.81 374.19 42.43 473.00 525.21 111.04
8580.995 Contingency Budget 180,000.00 4,789.04 175,210.96 2.66 |445,580.00 15,061.50 3.38
8580.996 Uncollectable Debt 170.00 2,193.55 2,193.55-|650.00
8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,650.00 173.00 7,258.40 173,391.60 4.02 |446,053.00 16,236.71 3.64
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 300.00 28.58 13,397.01 13,097.01- 4,465.67 |300.00 15,440.72 5,146.91
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,950.00 201.58 20,666.51 160,283.49 11.42 |446,353.00 31,993.09 7.17
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1.71-1,481,077.91 4,924,145.90 4,924,147.61-**********|2.72 3,786,634.84 *********
01000 GENERAL FUND 1.71-1,481,077.91 4,924,145.90 4,924,147.61-**********|2.72 3,786,634.84 *********
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 8
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:31:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2007
200711/30/2007 <==========================================>20062007
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
4011 CURRENT AD VALOREM 3,540,854.00-1,770,427.00- 1,770,427.00- 50.00 |2,887,292.00-1,322,053.80- 45.79
4012 DELINQ AD VALOREM |5,986.80-
4013 FISCAL DISPARITY |114,006.04-
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST .92-.92 |402.06-
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 3,540,854.00-1,770,427.92-1,770,426.08-50.00 |2,887,292.00-1,442,448.70-49.96
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS
4200 PERMITS 50.00- 6,200.00-6,200.00 |7,135.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 50.00-6,200.00-6,200.00 |7,135.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
4350 STATE |50,000.00-26,500.00- 53.00
4400 OTHER 56,402.00-8,256.92- 31,570.25- 24,831.75- 55.97 |44,702.00-50,011.32- 111.88
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 56,402.00-8,256.92-31,570.25-24,831.75-55.97 |94,702.00-76,511.32-80.79
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES
4601 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 113,150.00- 76,705.23- 236,076.49- 122,926.49 208.64 |148,700.00-259,582.30- 174.57
4900 PROGRAM REVENUE 964,070.00- 38,784.94- 975,596.64- 11,526.64 101.20 |999,188.00-944,841.52- 94.56
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,077,220.00-115,490.17-1,211,673.13-134,453.13 112.48 |1,147,888.00-1,204,423.82-104.93
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5102 CURRENT 27,569.35- 27,569.35 |34,794.67-
5103 DELINQUENT |537.62-
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 27,569.35-27,569.35 |35,332.29-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS
5300 RENT REVENUE 807,061.00- 89,674.11- 595,816.47- 211,244.53- 73.83 |681,072.00-533,510.26- 78.33
5330 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 2,000.00-2,059.20- 10,792.03-8,792.03 539.60 |2,000.00-4,077.99 203.90-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 809,061.00-91,733.31-606,608.50-202,452.50-74.98 |683,072.00-529,432.27-77.51
4001 REVENUES 5,483,537.00-215,530.40-3,654,049.15-1,829,487.85-66.64 |4,812,954.00-3,295,283.40-68.47
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES
6010 SALARIES 2,575,797.79 188,947.18 2,384,476.12 191,321.67 92.57 |2,161,008.62 2,005,260.84 92.79
6060 PERA 131,415.11 11,484.70 124,435.20 6,979.91 94.69 |101,694.45 98,461.42 96.82
6075 FICA 196,435.35 14,371.82 184,251.45 12,183.90 93.80 |164,380.53 153,799.68 93.56
6080 INSURANCE 310,528.22 28,626.14 281,609.60 28,918.62 90.69 |262,438.32 232,160.84 88.46
6100 OTHER 72,151.66 8,877.78 110,788.00 38,636.34- 153.55 |50,148.53 74,086.41 147.73
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 9
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:31:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2007
200711/30/2007 <==========================================>20062007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,286,328.13 252,307.62 3,085,560.37 200,767.76 93.89 |2,739,670.45 2,563,769.19 93.58
6210 SUPPLIES
6211 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6,950.00 703.96 6,684.20 265.80 96.18 |5,900.00 5,707.30 96.73
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 188,030.00 17,937.65 157,924.76 30,105.24 83.99 |159,880.00 134,673.31 84.23
6214 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 18,502.00 393.84 12,777.78 5,724.22 69.06 |16,002.00 22,413.35 140.07
6216 CONCESSION SUPPLIES 64,600.00 1,095.54 64,239.90 360.10 99.44 |64,900.00 56,357.16 86.84
6217 SMALL TOOLS 6,550.00 9.40 4,050.55 2,499.45 61.84 |3,550.00 3,254.68 91.68
6218 MOTOR FUELS 259,000.00 40,040.48 283,592.52 24,592.52- 109.50 |9,000.00 11,935.47 132.62
6219 LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 9,300.00 12,587.70 3,287.70- 135.35 |
6220 TIRES 14,000.00 4,908.78 23,930.03 9,930.03- 170.93 |
6221 EQUIPMENT PARTS 106,800.00 12,940.18 103,441.98 3,358.02 96.86 |2,500.00 231.00 9.24
6222 BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 36,150.00 5,760.22 39,078.95 2,928.95- 108.10 |33,400.00 25,210.55 75.48
6223 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 47,100.00 45,168.25 1,931.75 95.90 |47,000.00 58,384.87 124.22
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 11,100.00 898.14 9,943.59 1,156.41 89.58 |12,000.00 11,633.22 96.94
6226 CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 750.00 318.43 1,018.39 268.39- 135.79 |655.03
6210 SUPPLIES 768,832.00 85,006.62 764,438.60 4,393.40 99.43 |354,132.00 330,455.94 93.31
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6301 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 200.00 200.00-|590.28
6303 OTHER 4,500.00 8,029.09 3,529.09- 178.42 |4,500.00 3,864.95 85.89
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,500.00 8,229.09 3,729.09-182.87 |4,500.00 4,455.23 99.01
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6400 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 502,304.00 14,626.84 510,940.59 8,636.59- 101.72 |525,779.00 533,494.31 101.47
6700 POSTAGE 11,375.00 797.52 12,578.71 1,203.71- 110.58 |10,275.00 10,631.02 103.46
6830 COMMUNICATIONS 25,200.00 2,004.91 19,662.77 5,537.23 78.03 |23,550.00 19,755.98 83.89
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 200.00 200.00 |
7000 ADVERTISING 5,650.00 191.50 5,650.17 .17- 100.00 |5,650.00 10,197.44 180.49
7050 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 36,000.00 11,574.44 35,932.15 67.85 99.81 |36,000.00 34,395.41 95.54
7100 INSURANCE 102,146.00 9,197.07 89,646.99 12,499.01 87.76 |58,346.00 58,884.90 100.92
7200 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 239,550.00 69,554.25 470,185.60 230,635.60- 196.28 |162,550.00 397,778.22 244.71
7300 UTILITIES 409,350.00 26,849.87 354,933.97 54,416.03 86.71 |448,783.00 373,982.55 83.33
7500 RENTALS 12,280.00 456.99 4,972.69 7,307.31 40.49 |240,617.00 221,113.32 91.89
7550 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE 129,026.00 10,751.42 118,265.62 10,760.38 91.66 |112,575.00 103,193.86 91.67
7600 EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT 34,525.00 1,264.83 26,587.84 7,937.16 77.01 |27,385.00 22,850.92 83.44
7620 TRAVEL/MEETINGS 11,125.00 356.82 4,291.83 6,833.17 38.58 |10,725.00 5,151.74 48.03
7670 LICENSES 2,000.00 154.00 1,761.68 238.32 88.08 |1,000.00 440.00 44.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,520,731.00 147,780.46 1,655,410.61 134,679.61-108.86 |1,663,235.00 1,791,869.67 107.73
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 10
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:31:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2007
200711/30/2007 <==========================================>20062007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
7803 IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 7,000.00 304.96 6,695.04 4.36 |4,500.00
7804 MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 12,000.00 9,849.20 2,150.80 82.08 |10,000.00
7806 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 378.08 843.84 843.84-|117.16
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 19,000.00 378.08 10,998.00 8,002.00 57.88 |14,500.00 117.16 .81
6001 EXPENDITURES 5,599,391.13 485,472.78 5,524,636.67 74,754.46 98.66 |4,776,037.45 4,690,667.19 98.21
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN
8011 GENERAL 100,000.00-100,000.00-|
8010 TRANSFERS IN 100,000.00-100,000.00-|
8060 DISPOSAL OF ASSET
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES |25.00-
8100 INTEREST
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00-1,569.64- 19.62
8100 INTEREST 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00-1,569.64-19.62
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 9,100.00-11,634.42-2,534.42 127.85 10,000.00-28,673.73- 286.74
8130.980 Fee assistance 7,500.00-592.52 1,811.90 9,311.90- 24.16- |4,300.00-890.00 20.70-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 16,600.00-592.52 9,822.52-6,777.48-59.17 |14,300.00-27,783.73-194.29
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES
8200 MISC REVENUE |185.63-
8001 OTHER INCOME 124,600.00-592.52 9,822.52-114,777.48-7.88 |22,300.00-29,564.00-132.57
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT
8511 GENERAL 8,745.73 728.83 8,017.13 728.60 91.67 |
8510 TRANSFERS OUT 8,745.73 728.83 8,017.13 728.60 91.67 |
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 65.42 65.42-|24.14
8560 SCHOLARSHIP PAYMENTS |500.00
8580 MISC EXPENSE
8580.995 Contingency Budget |59,217.00
8580.996 Uncollectable Debt 20.00 1,336.50 1,336.50-|530.75
8580 MISC EXPENSE 20.00 1,336.50 1,336.50-|59,217.00 530.75 .90
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 11,948.59 11,948.59-|12,579.73
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 11
1/8/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:31:27R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2007
200711/30/2007 <==========================================>20062007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8,745.73 748.83 21,367.64 12,621.91-244.32 |59,217.00 13,634.62 23.02
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES .14-271,283.73 1,882,132.64 1,882,132.78-**********|.45 1,379,454.41 *********
02000 PARK AND RECREATION .14-271,283.73 1,882,132.64 1,882,132.78-**********|.45 1,379,454.41 *********
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 7)
Subject: November Financial Report Page 12
Meeting Date: January 14, 2008
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:
Paint the Park Pilot Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Study Session report only. No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City implement a pilot program for neighborhood public art based on the painting of
the pavement at selected intersections within the community? Given this is a “report” item,
please let staff know if you have concerns with this proposed pilot initiative.
BACKGROUND:
Paint the Park is proposed to be a pilot project based on successful public art programs for
intersection painting in the Minnesota cities of Rochester and St. Paul. Each has initiated a pilot
effort to provide public art on the pavement within the intersection of two low-volume streets.
To date, there has been one intersection painted in Rochester and three in St. Paul. Intersection
pavement painting is somewhat common in Portland, Oregon; it is from Portland that the idea
originated in St. Paul and Rochester. Attached are examples of the intersection painting from
both St. Paul and Rochester.
St. Paul’s program has been successfully driven by neighborhood residents who wished to see
the intersection art in their neighborhood. Involvement from immediate neighbors near the
artwork along with surrounding residents within the neighborhood boundaries and neighborhood
association made the project a great community/neighborhood building event.
Projects would be started by neighborhood groups or neighborhood associations. City Staff
would only provide logistical support. The Community Liaison would be the contact person and
coordinator of the program. Prior to conducting such a project in St. Louis Park, it would be
required that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a framework for the pilot program.
The neighborhood would be expected to follow these 10 Basic Steps to conduct a “Paint the
Park” project (modeled largely after St. Paul’s program):
1. Talk to your neighbors about Paint the Park, including what kind of neighborhood they
would like to live in. If people are interested, have them start talking to other neighbors
and their neighborhood association to spread the idea.
2. Contact the Community Liaison to confirm the intersection/areas that are eligible for
painting, find out the street reconstruction/recoating schedule, and gain an understanding
of other miscellaneous issues.
3. Work with your Neighborhood Association to let them know you are starting to plan a
project. This will help them connect you to other neighbors that may be interested in
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program
being involved. This project should be supported by the neighborhood association before
moving forward. Work with the Community Liaison if your neighborhood is not
formally organized.
4. Hold gatherings with your neighbors, ideally within a two block radius. Talk about
shared values, the value of public gathering spaces and neighborhood livability. Work
together to design and then create your street painting.
5. Form a project team that will work to usher the entire project through completion. The
project team should plan a process where as many neighbors as possible have input and
involvement in the various aspects of Paint the Park. The project team will also be
responsible for organizing neighborhood participation in the project and overseeing usage
and maintenance of the new public place.
6. Create your intersection design! Create a design following requirements of the City of
St. Louis Park which will be approved by the city.
7. Start fundraising and organizing supplies for the painting day. What can be borrowed,
what must be purchased? Some funding may be available through the City’s
Neighborhood Grant Program by talking to your neighborhood association.
8. Complete and submit the required documents, including a petition form with signatures
from your neighbors. The Community Liaison will return a copy of the agreement if
your project is approved, or contact you if they have questions about your submission.
Neighbor approval would be required as follows:
a. Neighbors directly adjacent to the artwork: 100% approval
b. Neighbors within 750 feet of artwork: 80% approval
9. Paint your pavement! Plan a day-long event that includes a community celebration.
Involve as many of the talents and skills of local residents as possible in the process of
construction, installation, and during celebration events and performances. Make sure to
set a rain date.
10. Look to the future. After your day of installation and celebration, your group should
review its work and plan for ongoing work on a regular basis to ensure proper use and
maintenance of your painting and to maintain relationships developed through the course
of the project. Your group may want to create regular programming around the painted
area, create new improvements around the area, etc. The city will not maintain the
painted intersection.
Public Works staff, including Traffic, Engineering, and Operations, has met to discuss Paint the
Park and is open to the idea of painting art in an intersection. Implementation of Paint the Park
will be implemented through the Public Works permit program, because the art is being painted
in a city intersection. Public Works will identify the low traffic intersections that would be best
suited for this pilot program as well as specify conditions associated with working in the streets
(i.e., safety, material, maintenance, etc.). The Community Liaison will be the contact person for
these projects; however, permit approval, location, and other specifics will be approved by
Public Works. The design of the artwork will be determined by the neighborhood, but will be
reviewed by Public Works to ensure that it does not pose a traffic safety hazard.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program
The Paint the Park idea has been presented to Friends of the Arts director Margaret Rog who was
very interested in the project. Ms. Rog brought the idea to the Friends of the Arts Board at the
December 2007 meeting and the board was enthusiastic and supportive of the idea and interested
in partnering on the project. Friends of the Arts sees Paint the Park as valuable and relevant and
a great way to build communities through the arts.
The next step planned for Paint the Park is to share the information with the neighborhood
association leaders at the January 31, 2008 Neighborhood Forum. Support at the neighborhood
level is imperative for a successful Paint the Park pilot program; therefore, soliciting feedback
from neighborhood leaders is an important step in this process. The goal is to have one or two
neighborhoods pursue a “Paint the Park” project as a test or pilot project. Afterwards an
evaluation will be undertaken to decide whether to continue or expand the program.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Because this program would be predominately volunteer-driven, Staff does not anticipate any
financial or budgetary impacts at this time. The Community Liaison would coordinate the
program. City support would be provided only through the temporary use of roadblocks and
staff assistance with coordination of volunteers in cooperation with Friends of the Arts. Existing
Neighborhood Grant funds could be used to assist with a project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Council adopted two Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions that directly relate to Paint
the Park. “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” is the first
Strategic Direction this project addresses. Paint the Park is a neighborhood driven project that
enhances community connections by bringing neighbors together to work on a shared project.
Neighbors will work together from concept to completion which will help build strong
community connections and involvement in their neighborhood.
The pilot program also meets the Vision Strategic Direction that “St. Louis Park is committed to
promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives,
including implementation where appropriate.” Because only low-volume intersections would be
painted, the program brings art to neighborhood areas where civic works of art would typically
not be found.
Attachments: Graphics: St. Paul’s “Paint the Pavement” & Rochester’s “Neighbors”
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org
St. Paul: Paint the Pavement
Meeting of Jaunary 14, 2008 (Item 8)
Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Attachments Page 1 of 3
Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org
Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org
Meeting of Jaunary 14, 2008 (Item 8)
Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Attachments Page 2 of 3
Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org
Image courtesy of rneighbors.org
Rochester: RColorful Corners
Meeting of Jaunary 14, 2008 (Item 8)
Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Attachments Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date: January 14, 2008
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:
2008 Grant Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds - Proposed Allocation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City needs to decide how to use its annual allocation of HUD CDBG Funds at its February
19th meeting. As this is a report item, please let staff know if you have any questions or concerns
regarding the recommended allocations.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s allocation is based on the HUD formula using the City’s share of three factors for
Urban Hennepin County: 1) population; 2) number of persons with incomes at or below poverty;
and 3) overcrowded housing units. The national objectives of the program are:
• Benefit low and moderate-income persons (moderate is defined as up to 80% of median
income or $59,600 for a family of four, and low is defined as up to 50% of median income or
$39,250 for a family of four in 2007).
• Prevention or elimination of slum or blight.
• Meet a particular urgent community development need.
The City Council has typically focused CDBG funds on “sticks and bricks” improvements to the
housing stock for low-income families, both single-family owners and multifamily housing
residents. In the past years a small portion of funds have also been allocated to support services
for St. Louis Park Housing Authority residents. The proposed 2008 allocation is consistent with
the past approach, with over 95% of funding proposed for “sticks and bricks” and about 4%
proposed for park programs for low and moderate income children.
The St. Louis Park Housing Authority (SLPHA) reviewed and discussed the proposed allocation
at its January 9, 2008, meeting. The commissioners’ comments are included in the multifamily
rehab section of this report.
Proposed 2008 CDBG Allocation
The proposed activities for the allocation of CDBG funds reflect the priorities described in
Vision St. Louis Park; the 1997 Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and
Business, and the City’s approved housing goals (via the Housing Summit process). The
proposed allocation continues the focus on sticks and bricks improvements to housing for low
income residents. Also included is minimal public service funding for the City’s Park and
Recreation Department to assist with summer park programming at Ainsworth and
Meadowbrook Manor Parks.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: 2008 CDBG Proposed Allocation
Table 1: Proposed 2008 CDBG Allocation
Project Activity
Proposed
Budget Activity Status
Single Family Housing Rehab
Emergency Repair Grant $45,000 ongoing
Low Income SF Deferred Loan $55,000 ongoing
Subtotal $100,00
Multi Family Housing Rehab
Community Involvement Program - renovation of a bldg $21,200 ongoing - new site
Wayside House treatment facility $32,200 ongoing - new site
SLPHA - renovation of 2 scattered site homes $22,000 ongoing - new site
Perspectives Apartments $16,100 new for 2008
Subtotal $92,500
Public Service (up to $30K can be used for Public Service)
Park programming at Ainsworth & Meadowbrook Parks $7,500 ongoing
Total $200,000
* If the actual allocation is less than the estimated $200,000, the MF Housing Rehab projects will be decreased.
Single Family Housing Rehab - $100,000
Emergency Repair Program – Single Family $45,000
This program is consistent with the Council’s focus on stick and bricks and has proven its
responsiveness to low income seniors and vulnerable residents with annual incomes of 50% or
less of the median area income, and assets less than $25,000. It provides grants of up to $4,000
for emergencies such as leaking roofs and water heaters. Community Action Partners for
Suburban Hennepin County (CAPSH) currently administers this program for the City. This is an
ongoing CDBG activity.
Low Income Single Family Deferred Loan Program- $55,000
This is the primary ongoing CDBG rehab loan program targeted for homeowners with annual income
of 50% or less of the median area income, or $38,850 for a household of 4, and assets less than
$25,000. The rehab focuses on improvements to bring homes into code compliance and provide long-
term maintenance free housing. The maximum loan amount is $25,000 and is forgiven after 15 years.
Repayment is required if homeowners sell the property before the 15-year period expires.
This activity is also funded as deferred loans are repaid. This program is administered by Hennepin
County Housing staff.
Multifamily Housing Rehab – $92,500
These projects are consistent with the focus of CDBG funds to assist with capital improvements
of housing for low-income residents. Generally, the lowest income residents live in housing
provided by private non-profit affordable and supportive housing providers and the St. Louis
Park Housing Authority. Funding for housing for the lowest - income renters concurs with
Hennepin County’s CDBG highest funding priority.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: 2008 CDBG Proposed Allocation
In 2007, staff contacted all the affordable housing providers in St. Louis Park, with the intention
of making them aware that CDBG funds can be allocated to assist with improvements to their
buildings. Four providers responded: Community Involvement Programs, Wayside House,
Perspectives Inc., and the SLP Housing Authority. Staff recommendations for funding each is
noted below. Staff also recommends that if the federal allocation is less than estimated, the
amount for the multifamily rehab projects be reduced.
1. Community Involvement Programs provides housing for individuals with mental health
disabilities whose incomes are below 30% of the median income. They have nine buildings
(29 units) scattered throughout the city.
With 2007 funding from the City’s CDBG dollars and Hennepin County funds six of their
properties are undergoing renovation. In 2008 they propose to make improvements to three
additional properties with a total cost of $84,200. Staff recommends that CDBG fund one
project, at 1452 Idaho Ave S, at a cost of $21,200 to renovate a bathroom and the kitchen.
2. Wayside House provides housing for recovering chemically dependent women and their
children, whose incomes are at or below 50-80% of the median income. They have
requested funds to make improvements to the treatment facility. In their grant request they
noted that “Due to the impending move at the treatment center, capital repairs have been
deferred over the past 10 years. This has led to a near crisis situation in which there are
frequent water pipes leaking and roof leaks. Also last winter there was a 10 day period
without heat in the Wayside’s media room…..Wayside’s treatment center is at risk of
interruption in services due to the capital repairs required.” The site development committee
has determined that there will be no immediate move and that it could be as long as 7-10
years at the current location – therefore they have shifted their focus to making necessary
repairs to the building.
In 2007 CDBG funds of $15,000 were allocated for improvements to Wayside’s Jersey
Avenue apartments. Wayside has recently secured state funding and is contracting for the
work.
The first priority repair for the treatment facility is roof repair at a cost of $154,500; and
plumbing repairs are the second priority item at a cost of $32,200. The total budget for the
priority repairs is $390,700, which will be funded by refinancing the existing mortgage.
Staff recommends funding the plumbing repairs, as it fits our budget and addresses
Wayside’s second priority.
3. The SLP Housing Authority provides housing to low income residents that are typically
below 50% median income. The HA owns and manages 37 scattered site homes throughout
the city. The HA requested $22,000 for window replacements at two sites. Staff
recommends funding the window replacements.
In 2007, CDBG funds of $22,000 were allocated for improvements at two sites and
improvements are complete.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: 2008 CDBG Proposed Allocation
4. Perspectives Supportive Housing Program with five buildings is located at Louisiana Court.
They serve 52 families that had been homeless and the clients have a history of chronic
substance abuse. All clients are at or below 30% of the median area income when upon
entry.
Perspectives is undergoing rehab of all 5 buildings with work targeted primarily at the two
newest buildings acquired in 2001. The $835,000 project includes PUD requirements
addressing retaining wall repairs, moving the parking lot entrance, increasing green space,
and exterior, mechanical, electrical and carpentry work. Hennepin County is providing
$260,000 and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is providing $531,398 for these repairs.
Perspectives has requested $61,200; staff recommends using $16,100 of CDBG funds to
assist Perspectives with this project.
During the Housing Authority’s discussion on January 9, limited resources and the ongoing
need for funds was discussed. It was noted that the amount allocated to Perspectives is
minimal compared to the project budget. HA Commissioners’ vocalized two perspectives:
1) the small amount allocated to Perspective would make a bigger impact if used to serve
four single family households with emergency repairs; and 2) that Perspectives is such a
valuable housing provider in our city, and that ongoing support to their efforts is important.
Staff suggested that in the event the estimated 2008 allocation of $200,000 is reduced, the
amount the Perspective’s allocation would first be reduced.
Public Service – SLP Park and Rec. Programming at Meadowbrook Manor and Ainsworth
Park - $7,500
The Park & Rec. Department provides park programming to children at the Meadowbrook
Manor Apartment Community. The $7,500 would provide an enhanced level of programming at
both the Meadowbrook Manor and Ainsworth Park neighborhoods in 2009. Ainsworth Park
abuts Perspective’s property at Louisiana Court and is used by residents from Perspectives’ and
Project for Pride in Living’s apartments.
Next Steps:
The following actions are required to receive 2007 CDBG funds:
February 19, 2008 Public Hearing and passage of Resolution outlining proposed activities.
February 22, 2008 Deadline for submission of CDBG Application to Hennepin County.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City will receive an estimated $200,000 in federal CDBG funds in 2008 through Hennepin
County. This is approximately four percent less than in 2007. The 2008 CDBG year runs from
July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009. St. Louis Park has consistently expended CDBG
funds in a timely manner, and did so again with 2006 funds. The 2007 funds are currently being
expended.
In the event the final allocation is less than estimated, staff recommends proportionately reducing
the allocations to the multifamily housing providers. Staff will keep Council apprised of actual
funding amounts.
Meeting of January 14, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 5
Subject: 2008 CDBG Proposed Allocation
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City Councils adopted Strategic Direction related to housing is, “St. Louis Park is committed
to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The use of CDBG funds for the
proposed allocation is consistent with this direction.
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager