HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/02/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
Councilmember Sanger Absent
6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
WESTWOOD ROOM (Box Lunches Provided)
1. Update on Court Mediation with Pawn America
6:25 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Temporary Liquor License Most Holy Trinity Parish
Recommended Action: Motion to approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating
Liquor License for Most Holy Trinity Parish, 4017 Utica Avenue South, for a Fish
Fry Event to be held on February 29 and March 14, 2008.
3. Adjournment
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. Police Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report and 2008 Work Plan
(Commission Present)
3. 6:55 p.m. Police Department Annual Report
4. 7:40 p.m. Vision Strategic Direction Discussion. Focus Area: Investigating the Need and
Purpose for an Energy/Environmental Commission
5. 8:00 p.m. Resolution Requesting Comprehensive Road and Transit Funding
6. 8:10 p.m. Solid Waste Collection Proposals
7. 9:10 p.m. Consideration of Commercial Properties in the Soil Vapor Study Area
8. 9:20 p.m. Communications (verbal)
Written Reports
9. Legislative Update
10. 2007 Housing Activity Report and Introduction to New 2008 Housing Programs
11. Financial Reports (January 2008)
9:30 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: February 25, 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: CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
TITLE:
Update on Court Mediation with Pawn America.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
City Attorney Tom Scott will update City Council and the City Manager in a Closed Executive
Session on the Court Mediation with Pawn America.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: February 25, 2008
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Temporary Liquor License Most Holy Trinity Parish.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Most Holy Trinity Parish,
4017 Utica Avenue South, for a Fish Fry Event to be held on February 29 and March 14, 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the Temporary On-Sales Intoxicating Liquor License so that Most
Holy Trinity Parish can serve intoxicating liquor at their Fish Fry Event?
BACKGROUND:
On February 20, 2008, Most Holy Trinity Parish notified the City they were interested in applying
for a permit to allow alcohol at their upcoming Fish Fry event. Because the event starts next week
on February 29, and City Ordinance 3-57(8) requires council approval of temporary liquor licenses,
a special meeting was needed for council approval. Most Holy Trinity Parish has applied for
temporary liquor licenses in previous years, but the parish staff has changed and they were not
familiar with the timing required. On February 21, the application was received by the City Clerk
and the background check was completed. The Fish Fry is scheduled for 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on
Friday, February 29 and Friday, March 14, 2008.
The Fish Fry is truly a neighborhood event that contributes to the charm of St. Louis Park. It draws
many families from the Browndale and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods, employees from Park
Nicollet pick up large orders to take back to co-workers, and the event attracts fish fry enthusiasts
from all over the Twin Cities.
The Police Department has completed the background investigation on the main principals and has
found no reason to deny the temporary license.
The applicant has met all requirements for issuance of the license and staff is recommending
approval at this time to assure that Most Holy Trinity Parish receives their permit in time for their
event.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The fees for a temporary liquor license are found in Appendix A - Fee Schedule of the City Code.
Total fees for this applicant would be $100.00 ($50 per day).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: February 25, 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 - March 10, 2008.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Monday, March 10, 2008 study session.
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 March 10.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for March 10, 2008
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Monday, March 10, 2008 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. West 36th Street Reconstruction Streetscape Update - Public Works (45 minutes)
Staff will review roadway design and streetscape concepts and is interested in Council’s
feedback on the update.
3. West End Theater – Community Development/Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Staff will present information regarding the West End Theater’s proposal to serve alcoholic
beverages. Does the Council wish to direct staff to work with Duke to pursue options for
serving alcohol in the theater?
4. Hoigaard Village Redevelopment Contract – Community Development (30 minutes)
Does the Council wish to consider providing additional redevelopment assistance to the
Hoigaard Village project? Staff will provide background on this request for Council’s
consideration and discussion.
5. Planning Commission 2007 Annual Report and 2008 Work Plan (No Commission Present)
– Administrative Services (20 minutes)
The City Council will review the Planning Commission’s work plan and annual report at
their study session on March 10, 2008. On March 24, 2008, the Commissioners and staff
liaisons will discuss the Annual Report and Work Plan with Council. Council will be asked
to provide feedback to the Commissioners.
6. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
Redevelopment Agreement – Erv’s
8:50 p.m. End of Meeting
Meeting Date: February 25, 2008
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2007 Housing Activity Report and introduction to new 2008 housing programs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None required.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This is an update on the ongoing and proposed programs that meet City housing goals and VISION
direction.
BACKGROUND:
The annual housing program report is attached along with descriptions of the new housing programs
planned for 2008 implementation.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
2007 housing programs came in within the approved Housing Rehabilitation Fund budget. The
2008 budget includes funds to support the new programs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s ongoing Home Improvement programs and Inspection activities are consistent with the
City’s commitment to provide a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. The Move Up in the
Park Comprehensive loans and services address remodeling and expanding single family owner
occupied homes. The current land trust - affordable home ownership program, is being
supplemented with two additional programs to work toward the strategic housing direction of
providing affordable single-family home ownership throughout the park.
The proposed Green Remodeling program is consistent with the City’s commitment to being a
leader in environmental stewardship, by working with rehab loans to encourage green building
design.
Attachments: 2007 Housing Activity Report and 2008 New Housing Programs
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
2007 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING REPORT
The purpose of this report is to apprise the policy maker of 2007 housing activity including the
City’s vigorous 2007 “Move Up in the Park” activity. The Housing Matrix has been updated with
2007 activity.
1. MOVE UP IN THE PARK ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Again, in 2007, the Move Up program was very active and exceeded last year’s activity. The
comprehensive package of services and loans resulted from the Housing Summit’s emphasis of
facilitating and promoting the expansion of existing homes as the most effective tool to achieve more
family size homes in the city. The Move Up in the Park program successfully kicked off in 2005,
with strong activity in 2006, and again in 2007. A synergy between the marketing of our “Move up
in the Park” programs and services, with strong remodeling interest, has resulted in resident use that
continues to outpace projections.
Chart 1. Resident Investment in 2006 and 2007. Chart 2. 2007 Move Up Activity/Costs
Chart 1. Remodeling activity was very strong in 2007. Final year-end permit numbers show that
residents invested over twenty-two million dollars in renovations to their homes during the year. In
2006, the investment was fifteen million. 102 permits for major expansion projects were issued in
2007, compared to 86 during 2006. The average permit valuation of these projects was almost
$110,000.
Chart 2. Move-up Activity/Cost
Residents invested over 3.2 million dollars in home improvements spurred by the City’s Move-Up
and Discount Loan programs. The city invested $124,000 in services, administrative and discount
loan costs. The cost of move up loans is a revolving loan pool, which will be repaid when borrowers
sell their homes and make repayment. Due to this program’s high participation rates, unused
housing rehab funds were shifted to this program.
2007 Move Up in the Park Activity/Costs
Discount
Loans, City
Cost,
$74,000
2%
Services &
Admin, City
Cost,
$50,000
1%
Move Up
Loans, City
Cost,
$620,000
16%
Resident
Investment,
$3,200,000
81%
Resident Rehab/Remodeling Investment based on
Permit Valuations
$15,200,000
$22,500,000
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
2006 2007
Year$ Amount
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
The Move Up Activity included:
• Twenty-seven homes were significantly expanded using the transformation loan.
• The architectural design service remains popular. There are a limited number of residents
that can use this service, and staff expects the saturation point is being reached. This will
continue to be popular with newer residents seeking to expand their starter homes.
• The discount loan program though not as active as last year was used by fifty residents.
• The remodeling home tour was very successful.
• The “green” home remodeling fair was less well attended this year due to a very snowy day,
and approximately 1,500 - 2,000 folks attended.
• Even with the softened housing market, the private sector is still purchasing and renovating
small homes, and staff has not identified suitable homes for the small home acquisition and
expansion program at a reasonable price point.
Table 1. Move Up Housing Activity January 1 – December 31, 2007
Activity Goal Through December 31, 2007 Annual
Budget
Expended
through
12/31/2007
Move Up -
Transformation Loan
15 27 $500,000 $620,000
Architectural Design
Service
100 62 $22,500 $12,400
Remodeling Advisor 300 179 $39,000 $23,270
Discount Loans 80 50 $150,000 $74,000
1,000 Home Remodeling
Tour attendees
1,000 $5,000 $5,000
Home Remodeling Fair 2,000
attendees
2,000 $0 $0
All parcels have been bid out.
Construction is complete on
two lots. Spring construction is
scheduled for three lots. The
multifamily lots & 2005
Louisiana Ave are on hold due
to lack of interested buyers.
Vacant Public Land for
SF Homes
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
Move Up In the Park Programs & Loans
The initiatives include educational, technical and financial activities designed to motivate and assist
residents with renovation to their homes. The overall initiatives are more successful than projected,
especially for the technical and design assistance, and program costs are being held in line. These
programs are funded from the Housing Rehabilitation Fund.
• Move – Up Transformation Loan
The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median
area income ($92,000 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides
deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost. Loan repayment at 0%
interest is deferred until the home is sold - if the resident remains in the home for 30 years, the
loan will be forgiven. This in effect establishes a revolving loan pool which will continue to fund
future expansions.
This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the
project to selecting contractors. The average loan exceeded $25,000.
o Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost
must exceed $35,000.
o The maximum loan amount is $25,000.
o The City has established a revolving loan pool, administered by a third party.
o The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower.
• Architectural Design Service
This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming
remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions.
Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the American
Institute of Architects and local architects. All homeowners considering renovations would be
eligible for this service regardless of income, however to ensure committed participants, residents
make a $25 co-pay. Resident surveys not only provided ideas to refine the program, but
indicated a high level of satisfaction with the service.
• Remodeling/Rehab Advisor
The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or
value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction
process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys
indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City
contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service.
• Discount Loan Program
This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on
the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) home improvement loans. The MHFA’s
Community Fix-up Fund is restricted to Minnesota residents residing in cities that elect to
participate in the program. Residents with incomes of $63,000 or less qualify for a greater
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 5
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
discount than those with incomes of $89,000 or less. Eligible improvements include most home
improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools and spas. The City’s
Housing Rehabilitation Fund is the funding source for the discount loan program, and CEE is
the loan administrator.
St. Louis Park implemented the discounting of MHFA loans in late 1999 as a pilot project.
Successful marketing efforts have led the City to be third among all Minnesota cities to use the
MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis and St. Paul.
• Home Remodeling Tour
The 3rd annual Home Remodeling Tour of six recently remodeled homes proved very popular
with an average 400 residents visiting each of the six tour homes. The Tour’s goal is to provide
residents hands-on examples of remodeling and expansion projects of typical St. Louis Park
housing, to motivate and encourage residents to enlarge and enhance their homes.
• Annual Home Remodeling Fair
The cities and community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and
Golden Valley co-sponsored the 2007 Fair. The 2007 Fair had a “green theme” and over 2,000
residents from the four cities attended the one day event, with over half of the attendees living in
St. Louis Park. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors
and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related
to remodeling. The fair is now a self-sustaining event where vendor registration fees more than
cover the costs of the event. The 2008 Fair is Sunday, February 24.
• Vacant Public Land
All parcels have been bid out.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 6
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
2. OTHER HOUSING PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Other city housing activity is outlined in the table with descriptions below:
Table 2. Housing Activity Report, January 1 – December 31, 2007
Activity
Goal
To Date Annual
Budget
Expended
12/31//20
07
Citywide Inspection Rehab
Program (City & MHFA Funds)
200
units
193 homes in
compliance
$295,350
$295,350
Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 1 HIA Wolfe Lake HIA
(130 units)
established and
Westmoreland in
process (72 units)
$10,000 $6,000*
CDBG $204,000 $243,680**
*The City fronts legal, financial and City admin costs which were reimbursed through the HIA loan.
**Actual 2006 CDBG expenditures included CDBG funding from 2004 5 Grant Years.
• Citywide Home Inspection Rehab Program. The City received a $147,000 matching grant
from the MN Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for deferred and discount loans for low income
residents identified by Inspections as requiring exterior maintenance improvements. Of the 200
homes and owners identified as having significant exterior code violations, 193 of the homes
have been improved, nine of which used the $295,350 in state and city funds have been
expended. This program received MN Housing’s Housing Development Choice Award in 2006.
• Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The Wolfe Lake Association HIA was established on
October 1, 2007. $1,268,000 worth of common area improvements would be paid with a 15
year term loan at 5.85% interest rate. The Westmoreland Hills Owner Association anticipates
submitting an HIA soon.
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Activity completed as of December 31, 2007 included activities that were funded with 2006 and
2007 Grant Year funds, and included improvements to the SLP Housing Authority homes, a
park shelter at Ainsworth Park, 20 residents served with emergency repair program, six residents
received major rehab through the deferred loan program, improvements made to Wayside House
apartments, and a West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust home used CDBG funds.
• Housing Trust Affordable Homeownership. The Housing Trust closed on one St. Louis Park
home in May 2007, and used CDBG funds. It was sold to an owner with income below 50%
median area income.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 7
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
3. ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY
The St. Louis Park Housing Authority activity is outlined the tables below:
Table 4. St. Louis Park Housing Authority Assisted Housing Programs
Public Housing
Public Housing Total
Units
1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy
2007
Hamilton House 108 108 98.9%
Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 97.8%
Louisiana Court,
Metropolitan Housing
Opportunity (MHOP)
Units
12
12
98%
Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3
Total 157
Rental Assistance
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
(HUD Approved)
Units Utilization YTD
2007
Tenant-Based 216 98%
Tenant-Based Portability Units* 76 Avg./month
Project-Based: 45 96%
Wayside House 20 90%
Excelsior & Grand 18 100%
Vail Place 7 100%
Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 46
Perspectives Inc. 11 100%
Community Involvement Program (CIP) –
Scattered Site Homes
11
100%
CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 100%
Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 100%
Pillsbury United Communities 8
Total 383
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 8
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
Waiting Lists
Assisted Housing Waiting List as of December 31, 2007
Public
Housing
1-BR 1-BR
Handicap
2-BR 3-BR 3-BR
Handicap
4-BR 5-BR Total
280 1 428 380 24 105 37 1255
Section 8 1129
Housing Matrix: Housing Types, Numbers & Percentages - June 2007
In 2005 the Council approved housing goals that evolved from the 2003-05 Housing Summit.
Along with the goals, strategies were defined for implementation to achieve the goals. One of the
strategies was to develop a matrix of existing housing types including detached/attached,
owner/rental, family/senior, and affordable/market rate with production goals for each. The matrix
is to be a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals.
The attached matrix is updated semi-annually and presented to the City Council, Housing
Authority and Planning Commission. It shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of: housing
types, tenure (owner or rental), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family
homes.
Housing Goals - City of St. Louis Park
Housing Summit 2003-2005
As a means to educate, revisit and consider any necessary changes to St. Louis Park’s current housing
policies, strategies and goals, a series of meetings were held between the City Council, Planning
Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board, County Commissioner and a business
representative regarding the status of housing in St. Louis Park. The discussions that were held at
these meetings and subsequent changes made to the City’s goals, policies and strategies reflect what
is best for the collective good of the entire St. Louis Park community.
The meetings provided an opportunity to:
• Review the status of housing in St. Louis Park (rental and owner occupied),
• Examine historical, current and future housing trends in the city, and metro, state
• Evaluate current and future community needs using 2000 Census data/other available info.
• Examine the effectiveness of current policy/strategies in meeting the community’s needs,
• Allow the Planning Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board and Business
Community to provide input to the City Council.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 9
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
Process
All members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Authority, School Board, the
Hennepin County Commissioner, and a business representative attended an initial meeting to
review general statistical and housing data. A Steering Committee met 6 times to examine specific
housing topics and report back to the entire group at “check-in/progress” meetings. The 4 check-
in/progress review meetings provided an opportunity to review findings and discuss possible policy
changes/initiatives with the entire group. The public input process included conducting a Housing
Survey, a Moving Survey and ten focus groups with resident groups to garner input regarding
housing issues and response to drafted goals. The public input was presented at a final meeting of
the entire group along with a review of the recommended changes to the City’s current housing
policies and goals. The City Council considered and approved housing goals at the March 7, 2005
Council Meeting.
City of St. Louis Park Housing Goals
The Housing Summit resulted in a set of Housing Goals that were approved by the City Council in
April 2005. The goals reflect the city’s housing policy and will serve as guides to direct officials,
staff, and advisory boards now and into the future.
Housing Production
• Promote & facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both
today and in the future.
• The City should establish target numbers of units by housing types needed to ensure life
cycle housing options, with housing types disbursed throughout the city.
• The City acknowledges that there is demand for different types and sizes of housing units,
but due to limitations of available space and other resources, all demands cannot be fully
satisfied. At the present time, the greatest deficit and need is for the creation and
maintenance of detached, owner-occupied single family housing which are large enough to
accommodate families. City housing efforts and resources should primarily address this
need.
Housing Condition and Preservation
• Ensure housing is safe and well maintained.
• Preserve and enhance housing quality through proactive promotional and educational
activities and housing programs related to home rehab, code, and design and safety issues.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 10
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
Owner / Rental Ratio
• The ratio of owner/rental housing should be approximately 60% owner occupied and 40%
rental.
• Explore traditional and non-traditional owner occupied housing options such as, but not
limited to: row houses, courtyard housing, alternative housing, cluster housing, hi-rises, 3-
story homes, multi-generational housing, etc.
Affordable, Workforce and Supportive Housing
• Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of
affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Future affordability goals with
the Met Council should be negotiated to reflect the average percentages for other first ring
suburbs in Hennepin County.
Note: In 2004, the City’s negotiated goal for housing affordability with the Met
Council was that 60-77% of the city’s owner occupied homes should be affordable for
households with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income and that 37-41%
of the city’s rental homes should be affordable for households with incomes at or below
50% of the area median income.
• Mixed income units should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any
one area of the City or any one development.
Large Homes for Families
• Promote and facilitate expansion of existing homes through remodeling which adds more
bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities.
• Promote and facilitate construction of large family-size homes with more bedrooms and
more bathrooms, (e.g. minimum 3+ bedrooms and 2+ bathrooms, 2+ car garage and
additional amenities such as den/fourth bedroom or porch or superior architecture) suitable
for families with children.
Senior Housing
• Promote and facilitate more housing options for seniors.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 11
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
Land Use
• Planning Goals:
o Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals.
o Promote higher density housing near transit corridors & employment
centers.
o Encourage housing density in commercial mixed use districts.
• Explore and, if appropriate promote ordinances to allow development of non-traditional
housing types and increased density in single family neighborhood that is compatible
with surrounding neighborhood.
• Explore and promote reclassification of non-residential properties and designate for
housing and other purposes.
St. Louis Park Housing Types, Numbers and PercentagesHOUSING MATRIX20007Housing TypeUnits added 1/1/07-12/31/07# Units % Units # UnitsSingle Family Detached11,569 50% 9Duplex424 2% 0Condos and townhomes 3313 14% 349Apartments 7526 33% 0COOPs125 1% 0Total22,957 100% 358 14,581 64% 8372 36% 1,115 5% 5,993 26% 1057 5% 946 4% Data source: SLP Community Development, Multiple Residential Developments 1998-2007 and SLP Assessing. Percentages are based on the percentage of the total number of all housing units.0Large Family Homes, Affordable and Senior Housing0Large Family Home - 1,500 sq ft., 3+Bedrooms, 2+ Bath & 2+ Car Garage#1,115Senior Designated00Housing UnitsAffordable Market Rate (includes 2,633 rental & 3360 owner occupied units)Affordable Subsidized (includes 1010 rental & 120 owner occupied units)Owner Occupied Rental0##390188268752611,17523630450Large Single Family Homes: As of Dec 31, 2007, 102 major expansions, 9 new single family homes and 3 "tear down" large homes were issued permits. In 2006, there were 86 major expansions, in 2005 there were 57.2,1251911,1022560836110470Affordable Rental Housing is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% MAI ($39,250 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. Monthly rent of $883, or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is considered affordable.Affordable Owner Occupied Housing is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% MAI ($62,800 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. Homes selling at $201,800 or less, are considered affordable for a family of four with household income of $62,800 or less.Housing Production by Type15##97337125#2/21/2008Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity ReportPage 12
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 13
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
2008 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK NEW HOUSING PROGRAMS
A. VISION STRATEGY - Affordable Homeownership Opportunities
1. Single-Family Affordable Land Trust Homeownership
SLP is proposing to continue partnering with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust
(WHAHLT) to create affordable single family homeownership opportunities in SLP for
low/moderate income families. To date, WHAHLT has acquired, rehabbed and sold three single
family homes in the Park and has a purchase agreement on a fourth home in the Aquila
neighborhood. CDBG funds have been used to assist with the program.
In 2008 City Housing Rehabilitation funds will be leveraged with County Affordable Housing
Incentive and HOME funds along with WHAHLT funding to finance the acquisition and rehab of
the homes. WHAHLT is proposing to acquire two St. Louis Park homes in the next year. The
estimated average cost per home is $268,000 with $20,000 per home from St. Louis Park.
2. Duplex Conversion Affordable Land Trust Homeownership Program
The City is proposing to partner with WHAHLT to acquire and rehab a duplex property to create
two affordable homeownership opportunities for low/moderate St. Louis Park households. The
program would provide affordable homeownership opportunities and at the same time improve an
existing property.
City funding would assist with relocation and acquisition costs, totaling $20,000 per unit. The City
will be applying for funds from Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to assist with the relocation and
rehab costs.
3. Live Where You Work
The City is proposing to explore the development of an affordable homeownership program in
partnership with participating SLP employers. The purpose of the program would be to assist
employees of participating SLP businesses in purchasing a home “near (in SLP)” their place of
employment. Employer benefits include enhanced employee recruitment and retention, reduced
commuting and increased employee loyalty and moral. The community benefits from having
residents who are invested in their community and schools.
Program details are yet to be developed but it is anticipated that the employer would provide a grant
to an eligible employee to purchase a home within the city limits of St. Louis Park. The City would
then provide a matching grant. The grant funds could be utilized for home purchasing costs such as
down payment and closing costs. The grants would be layered with other home buying assistance
and services to encourage employees working in the city to live in the city. Further information will
follow as program details specifics are developed.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 14
Subject: Housing Programs and Housing Activity Report
B. VISION STRATEGY - Encourage Green Building Design
St. Louis Park Green Remodeling Pilot
The green remodeling pilot will use the very recently developed Mn GreenStar Remodeling certification
program. The pilot will include education, technical, marketing and financial components to encourage
residents to implement green remodeling design and practices. As a pilot, program evaluation will be
conducted.
Mn GreenStar Remodeling Program is beginning implementation in spring 2008, - it is the first
certified green remodeling program in Minnesota. Green remodeling is new and unknown to many
residents and sometimes perceived to be expensive and inconvenient. This comprehensive pilot will
address perceptions and provide direction for future community based green remodeling programs.
City Housing Rehabilitation Funds will provide funds for: green remodeling advisor visits;
discounting loans for residents above the income limits for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s
loans. The City’s commitment is $50,000 for the pilot program. The City will contract with the
Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for technical assistance and loan administration. The
City applied to Mn Housing for $56,435. To further leverage and enhance this program the Center
for Energy and Environment has applied to the Mn Pollution Control Agency for technical funds
for green raters and program evaluation. The program will proceed at a lower level if Mn Housing
and MnPCA do not award full funding to the project. Staff will keep Council apprised of grant
awards as they are known.
Meeting Date: February 25, 2008
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
January 2008 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 month of January in the fiscal year, actual revenues and expenditures should generally run
about 8.3% of the annual budget. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 7.6% and
the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 5.8%. Significant variances exceeding budget are
highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion for the variance.
General Fund
Expenditures:
• Finance and Community Development expenditures appear to slightly exceed budget
because both departments have significant portions of staff time that must be allocated to
different departments through a journal entry, which has not been done for 2008.
Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation does not have any departments that are exceeding budget at this time.
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: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
2/20/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:16R5509FDO SLCOUNCIL1
1Page -Expenditure Report by CompanySt Louis Park Monthly Expenditure Council Report
1/31/2008
Description
Annual
Budget
Current Month
Actual
YTD
Balance Balance
Exp.
%
Avail.
%
01000 GENERAL FUND
110 ADMINISTRATION 1,034,327.00 71,709.52 71,709.52 962,617.48 6.9 93.1
120 FINANCE 1,122,763.00 107,640.48 107,640.48 1,015,122.52 9.6 90.4
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 629,674.00 44,010.16 44,010.16 585,663.84 7.0 93.0
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,080,897.00 117,480.88 117,480.88 963,416.12 10.9 89.1
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,187,926.00 47,803.35 47,803.35 1,140,122.65 4.0 96.0
145 TECHNOLOGY & SUPPORT SERVICES 1,460,839.00 67,651.86 67,651.86 1,393,187.14 4.6 95.4
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 287,782.00 11,104.06 11,104.06 276,677.94 3.9 96.1
160 POLICE 6,926,514.00 573,051.91 573,051.91 6,353,462.09 8.3 91.7
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 83,983.00 7,110.70 7,110.70 76,872.30 8.5 91.5
165 FIRE PROTECTION 3,029,118.00 233,684.63 233,684.63 2,795,433.37 7.7 92.3
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 1,852,874.00 159,295.42 159,295.42 1,693,578.58 8.6 91.4
175 PUBLIC WORKS 4,030,178.00 294,543.22 294,543.22 3,735,634.78 7.3 92.7
01000 GENERAL FUND 22,726,875.00 1,735,086.19 1,735,086.19 20,991,788.81 7.6 92.4
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 11)
Subject: January 2008 Financial Report Page 2
2/20/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:04:24R5509FDO SLPCOUCIL2
1Page -Expenditure Report by CompanyExpenditure report for Park & Rec
1/31/2008
Description
Annual
Budget
Current Month
Actual
YTD
Balance Balance
Exp.
%
Avail.
%
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 1,250,699.00 70,506.82 70,506.82 1,180,192.18 5.6 94.4
210 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,377,518.00 90,381.61 90,381.61 1,287,136.39 6.6 93.4
220 ENVIRONMENT 288,982.00 15,763.92 15,763.92 273,218.08 5.5 94.5
230 WESTWOOD 466,678.00 32,811.84 32,811.84 433,866.16 7.0 93.0
240 RECREATION CENTER 1,358,383.00 55,388.82 55,388.82 1,302,994.18 4.1 95.9
250 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,024,290.00 69,087.37 69,087.37 955,202.63 6.7 93.3
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 5,766,550.00 333,940.38 333,940.38 5,432,609.62 5.8 94.2
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 11)
Subject: January 2008 Financial Report Page 3
2/20/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:09:02R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2008
20081/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008
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 14,107,179.00-14,107,179.00-|13,170,348.00-
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,107,179.00-14,107,179.00-|13,170,348.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS
4101 LICENSES 567,115.00- 213,490.80- 213,490.80- 353,624.20- 37.65 |507,700.00-455,005.00- 89.62
4200 PERMITS 2,145,600.00- 127,045.76- 127,045.76- 2,018,554.24-5.92 |2,128,800.00-177,662.29- 8.35
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,712,715.00-340,536.56-340,536.56-2,372,178.44-12.55 |2,636,500.00-632,667.29-24.00
4270 FINES & FORFEITS
4271 MUNICIPAL COURT 300,000.00-300,000.00-|300,000.00-
4273 FORFEITURES/PENALTIES 2,500.00-2,500.00-|6,500.00-
4275 LIQUOR VIOLATION FINES 8,000.00-8,000.00-|3,000.00-
4276 MISC LICENSE VIOLATIONS 100.00-100.00-|100.00-
4277 NON-COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS/FEES 400.00-150.00-150.00-250.00- 37.50 |50.00-
4279 CONTRACT REIMB.-SNOW REMOVAL 20.00-20.00-20.00 |
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,000.00-170.00-170.00-310,830.00-.05 |309,600.00-50.00-.02
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
4310 FEDERAL 45,300.00-45,300.00-|21,255.00
4350 STATE 1,222,205.00-1,222,205.00-|1,189,229.00-5,331.79 .45-
4400 OTHER 441,860.00- 53,227.16- 53,227.16- 388,632.84- 12.05 |439,575.15-90,597.06- 20.61
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,709,365.00-53,227.16-53,227.16-1,656,137.84-3.11 |1,628,804.15-64,010.27-3.93
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES
4601 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 645,675.00-1,757.00- 1,757.00- 643,918.00-.27 |625,028.63-11,369.79 1.82-
4700 PUBLIC SAFETY 109,300.00-1,969.00- 1,969.00- 107,331.00-1.80 |117,800.00-14,633.25- 12.42
4800 HIGHWAYS/STREETS 330,000.00-330,000.00-|303,000.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,084,975.00-3,726.00-3,726.00-1,081,249.00-.34 |1,045,828.63-3,263.46-.31
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 435.05-435.05-435.05
5300 RENT REVENUE 100,000.00-2,500.00- 2,500.00- 97,500.00-2.50 |111,400.00-9,933.34- 8.92
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-2,935.05-2,935.05-97,064.95-2.94 |111,400.00-9,933.34-8.92
4001 REVENUES 20,025,234.00-400,594.77-400,594.77-19,624,639.23-2.00 |18,902,480.78-709,924.36-3.76
6001 EXPENDITURES
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 11)
Subject: January 2008 Financial Report Page 4
2/20/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:09:02R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2008
20081/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008
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
6010 SALARIES 13,618,207.00 1,208,648.23 1,208,648.23 12,409,558.77 8.88 |13,070,190.81 1,103,370.49 8.44
6060 PERA 1,220,873.00 108,479.74 108,479.74 1,112,393.26 8.89 |1,103,634.75 91,546.91 8.30
6075 FICA 667,080.00 61,729.31 61,729.31 605,350.69 9.25 |638,521.59 56,873.55 8.91
6080 INSURANCE 1,706,403.00 165,738.64 165,738.64 1,540,664.36 9.71 |1,676,253.67 153,192.32 9.14
6100 OTHER 425,992.00 55,845.27 55,845.27 370,146.73 13.11 |369,461.25 54,699.55 14.81
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 17,638,555.00 1,600,441.19 1,600,441.19 16,038,113.81 9.07 |16,858,062.07 1,459,682.82 8.66
6210 SUPPLIES
6211 OFFICE SUPPLIES 52,800.00 1,082.46 1,082.46 51,717.54 2.05 |50,550.00 2,992.21 5.92
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 81,050.00 2,125.64 2,125.64 78,924.36 2.62 |82,400.00 1,185.59 1.44
6213 FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 8,250.00 110.00-110.00-8,360.00 1.33- |7,000.00
6214 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 196,825.00 1,490.60 1,490.60 195,334.40 .76 |156,825.00 6,774.71 4.32
6215 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 3,350.00 3,350.00 |3,750.00 178.82 4.77
6217 SMALL TOOLS 5,600.00 5,600.00 |5,200.00 616.80 11.86
6218 MOTOR FUELS 3,200.00 3,200.00 |2,000.00
6221 EQUIPMENT PARTS 21,600.00 98.34 98.34 21,501.66 .46 |21,600.00 2,223.77 10.30
6222 BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 43,530.00 43,530.00 |43,530.00 2,951.95 6.78
6223 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 298,000.00 55,605.87 55,605.87 242,394.13 18.66 |271,000.00 37,540.83 13.85
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,750.00 4,750.00 |6,500.00
6225 SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 5,000.00 5,000.00 |5,150.00 366.31 7.11
6226 CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 34,143.00 2,237.38 2,237.38 31,905.62 6.55 |29,943.00 1,859.26 6.21
6227 MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE |1,000.00
6210 SUPPLIES 758,098.00 62,530.29 62,530.29 695,567.71 8.25 |686,448.00 56,690.25 8.26
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6301 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 10,600.00 909.07 909.07 9,690.93 8.58 |8,500.00 815.36 9.59
6302 POLICE EQUIPMENT 28,250.00 28,250.00 |22,150.00 3,218.69 14.53
6303 OTHER 32,500.00 32,500.00 |31,600.00
6304 FIRE EQUIPMENT |1,700.00
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 71,350.00 909.07 909.07 70,440.93 1.27 |63,950.00 4,034.05 6.31
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6400 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,353,375.00 7,348.37 7,348.37 1,346,026.63 .54 |1,257,925.00 74,001.39 5.88
6700 POSTAGE 147,480.00 3,925.37 3,925.37 143,554.63 2.66 |133,470.00 5,403.46 4.05
6720 DELIVERY 100.00 100.00 |
6830 COMMUNICATIONS 244,490.00 9,097.13 9,097.13 235,392.87 3.72 |232,710.00 18,599.43 7.99
6900 AWARDS/INDEMNITIES 200.00 200.00 |200.00
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 11,000.00 218.08 218.08 10,781.92 1.98 |11,000.00 123.34 1.12
7050 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 47,020.00 47,020.00 |62,760.00 422.20 .67
7100 INSURANCE 116,181.00 9,074.80 9,074.80 107,106.20 7.81 |96,882.00 7,855.72 8.11
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 11)
Subject: January 2008 Financial Report Page 5
2/20/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:09:02R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2008
20081/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
7200 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 423,305.00 13,914.12 13,914.12 409,390.88 3.29 |421,023.00 29,619.03 7.04
7300 UTILITIES 596,500.00 596,500.00 |550,096.00 13,645.72 2.48
7410 COMPUTER SERVICES 517,600.00 297.14 297.14 517,302.86 .06 |504,000.00 1,200.00 .24
7500 RENTALS 24,100.00 1,200.89 1,200.89 22,899.11 4.98 |42,878.00 5,237.77 12.22
7550 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE 424,154.00 424,154.00 |428,024.00 35,668.66 8.33
7600 EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT 309,022.00 25,677.27 25,677.27 283,344.73 8.31 |294,266.00 40,626.31 13.81
7620 TRAVEL/MEETINGS 32,025.00 452.47 452.47 31,572.53 1.41 |31,450.00 655.93 2.09
7650 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 9,000.00 9,000.00 |7,000.00 218.28 3.12
7670 LICENSES 3,320.00 3,320.00 |3,320.00 19.00 .57
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,258,872.00 71,205.64 71,205.64 4,187,666.36 1.67 |4,077,004.00 233,296.24 5.72
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY
6001 EXPENDITURES 22,726,875.00 1,735,086.19 1,735,086.19 20,991,788.81 7.63 |21,685,464.07 1,753,703.36 8.09
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN
8013 CABLE TV 155,063.00-155,063.00-|155,063.00-12,921.92- 8.33
8014 HOUSING REHABILITATION 182,983.00-182,983.00-|192,797.00-16,066.42- 8.33
8017 MSC 8,981.00-8,981.00-|8,746.00-728.83- 8.33
8019 WATER UTILITY 513,141.00-513,141.00-|518,366.00-43,197.17- 8.33
8021 REFUSE UTILITY 332,784.00-332,784.00-|328,351.00-27,362.58- 8.33
8022 STORM WATER UTILITY 307,923.00-307,923.00-|297,180.00-24,765.00- 8.33
8023 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY 720,819.00-720,819.00-|770,333.00-64,194.42- 8.33
8024 PENSION 334,000.00-334,000.00-|384,000.00-32,000.00- 8.33
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,555,694.00-2,555,694.00-|2,654,836.00-221,236.34-8.33
8060 DISPOSAL OF ASSET
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-50.00-50.00-1,450.00-3.33 1,500.00-1,104.61- 73.64
8070.831 Police 500.00-500.00-|500.00-
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-50.00-50.00-1,950.00-2.50 |2,000.00-1,104.61-55.23
8080 BONDS
8084 CAPITAL LEASE
8100 INTEREST
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 325,000.00-325,000.00-|301,099.00-61,228.66 20.34-
8100 INTEREST 325,000.00-325,000.00-|301,099.00-61,228.66 20.34-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 11)
Subject: January 2008 Financial Report Page 6
2/20/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:09:02R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2008
20081/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
8171 REVENUE BOND FEES |5,000.00-
8174 NSF FEES 25.00-25.00-25.00 |1,000.00-1,275.00- 127.50
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 25.00-25.00-25.00 |6,000.00-1,275.00-21.25
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,882,694.00-75.00-75.00-2,882,619.00-0.00 |2,963,935.00-162,387.29-5.48
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT
8580 MISC EXPENSE 650.00 1.08 1.08 648.92 .17 650.00 97.27 14.96
8580.995 Contingency Budget 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,000.00
8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,650.00 1.08 1.08 180,648.92 0.00 |180,650.00 97.27 .05
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 400.00 400.00 |300.00 1,738.21 579.40
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 181,050.00 1.08 1.08 181,048.92 0.00 |180,950.00 1,835.48 1.01
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3.00-1,334,417.50 1,334,417.50 1,334,420.50-**********|1.71-883,227.19 **********
01000 GENERAL FUND 3.00-1,334,417.50 1,334,417.50 1,334,420.50-**********|1.71-883,227.19 **********
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 11)
Subject: January 2008 Financial Report Page 7
2/20/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:09:02R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2008
20081/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008
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 3,750,197.00-3,750,197.00-|3,540,854.00-
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 3,750,197.00-3,750,197.00-|3,540,854.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS
4200 PERMITS 825.00-825.00-825.00 |925.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 825.00-825.00-825.00 |925.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
4400 OTHER 56,402.00-56,402.00-|56,402.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 56,402.00-56,402.00-|56,402.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES
4601 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 90,450.00-4,438.25- 4,438.25- 86,011.75-4.91 |113,150.00-64,272.51- 56.80
4900 PROGRAM REVENUE 967,720.00- 32,009.50- 32,009.50- 935,710.50-3.31 |964,070.00-25,674.71- 2.66
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,058,170.00-36,447.75-36,447.75-1,021,722.25-3.44 |1,077,220.00-89,947.22-8.35
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5200 MISCELLANEOUS
5300 RENT REVENUE 820,061.00- 64,907.26 64,907.26 884,968.26-7.91- |807,061.00-4,203.13- .52
5330 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 3,000.00-3,000.00-|2,000.00-1,910.70- 95.54
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 823,061.00-64,907.26 64,907.26 887,968.26-7.89-|809,061.00-6,113.83-.76
4001 REVENUES 5,687,830.00-27,634.51 27,634.51 5,715,464.51-.49-|5,483,537.00-96,986.05-1.77
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES
6010 SALARIES 2,665,051.00 203,241.05 203,241.05 2,461,809.95 7.63 |2,575,797.79 199,237.67 7.73
6060 PERA 141,773.00 12,848.19 12,848.19 128,924.81 9.06 |131,415.11 11,772.01 8.96
6075 FICA 203,878.00 16,195.29 16,195.29 187,682.71 7.94 |196,435.35 15,762.96 8.02
6080 INSURANCE 316,624.00 30,027.62 30,027.62 286,596.38 9.48 |310,528.22 28,572.98 9.20
6100 OTHER 76,528.00 17,872.52 17,872.52 58,655.48 23.35 |72,151.66 13,244.68 18.36
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,403,854.00 280,184.67 280,184.67 3,123,669.33 8.23 |3,286,328.13 268,590.30 8.17
6210 SUPPLIES
6211 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,950.00 338.59 338.59 7,611.41 4.26 |6,950.00 852.52 12.27
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 195,790.00 6,811.36 6,811.36 188,978.64 3.48 |188,030.00 7,002.23 3.72
6214 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 18,902.00 296.37 296.37 18,605.63 1.57 |18,502.00 496.80 2.69
6216 CONCESSION SUPPLIES 64,000.00 3,567.15 3,567.15 60,432.85 5.57 |64,600.00 2,967.25 4.59
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 11)
Subject: January 2008 Financial Report Page 8
2/20/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:09:02R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2008
20081/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
6217 SMALL TOOLS 6,800.00 194.80 194.80 6,605.20 2.86 |6,550.00 628.79 9.60
6218 MOTOR FUELS 259,600.00 540.08 540.08 259,059.92 .21 |259,000.00 13,532.85 5.23
6219 LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 9,300.00 18.47 18.47 9,281.53 .20 |9,300.00 405.75 4.36
6220 TIRES 14,000.00 14,000.00 |14,000.00 1,807.02 12.91
6221 EQUIPMENT PARTS 122,500.00 8,393.65 8,393.65 114,106.35 6.85 |106,800.00 12,547.93 11.75
6222 BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 35,900.00 258.58 258.58 35,641.42 .72 |36,150.00 138.56 .38
6223 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 47,100.00 2,742.60 2,742.60 44,357.40 5.82 |47,100.00 3,569.67 7.58
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 12,700.00 12,700.00 |11,100.00 10.00- .09-
6226 CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 750.00 568.37 568.37 181.63 75.78 |750.00
6210 SUPPLIES 795,292.00 23,730.02 23,730.02 771,561.98 2.98 |768,832.00 43,939.37 5.72
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 OTHER 4,500.00 508.80 508.80 3,991.20 11.31 |4,500.00 6,991.73 155.37
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,500.00 508.80 508.80 3,991.20 11.31 |4,500.00 6,991.73 155.37
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6400 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 512,360.00 7,302.41 7,302.41 505,057.59 1.43 |502,304.00 50,140.79 9.98
6700 POSTAGE 11,750.00 7.58 7.58 11,742.42 .06 |11,375.00 62.20 .55
6830 COMMUNICATIONS 25,500.00 359.47 359.47 25,140.53 1.41 |25,200.00 2,762.08 10.96
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 250.00 250.00 |200.00
7000 ADVERTISING 8,650.00 8,650.00 |5,650.00 419.85 7.43
7050 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 38,900.00 97.05 97.05 38,802.95 .25 |36,000.00 548.63 1.52
7100 INSURANCE 113,676.00 9,197.07 9,197.07 104,478.93 8.09 |102,146.00 5,356.80 5.24
7200 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 239,550.00 8,787.21 8,787.21 230,762.79 3.67 |239,550.00 27,379.75 11.43
7300 UTILITIES 409,850.00 408.40 408.40 409,441.60 .10 |409,350.00 20,035.59 4.89
7500 RENTALS 6,650.00 6,650.00 |12,280.00 810.06 6.60
7550 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE 128,568.00 128,568.00 |129,026.00 10,751.42 8.33
7600 EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT 34,850.00 2,832.74 2,832.74 32,017.26 8.13 |34,525.00 2,047.08 5.93
7620 TRAVEL/MEETINGS 9,950.00 166.96 166.96 9,783.04 1.68 |11,125.00 109.61 .99
7670 LICENSES 3,400.00 358.00 358.00 3,042.00 10.53 |2,000.00 309.50 15.48
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,543,904.00 29,516.89 29,516.89 1,514,387.11 1.91 |1,520,731.00 120,733.36 7.94
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY
7803 IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
7804 MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 12,000.00 12,000.00 |12,000.00
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 19,000.00 19,000.00 |19,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 5,766,550.00 333,940.38 333,940.38 5,432,609.62 5.79 |5,599,391.13 440,254.76 7.86
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 11)
Subject: January 2008 Financial Report Page 9
2/20/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:09:02R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2008
20081/31/2008 <==========================================>20072008
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
8011 GENERAL 75,000.00-75,000.00-|100,000.00-
8010 TRANSFERS IN 75,000.00-75,000.00-|100,000.00-
8060 DISPOSAL OF ASSET
8100 INTEREST
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 1,600.00-1,600.00-|8,000.00-
8100 INTEREST 1,600.00-1,600.00-|8,000.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 9,100.00-100.00-100.00-9,000.00-1.10 9,100.00-
8130.980 Fee assistance 2,000.00-2,000.00-|7,500.00-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 11,100.00-100.00-100.00-11,000.00-.90 |16,600.00-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES
8001 OTHER INCOME 87,700.00-100.00-100.00-87,600.00-.11 |124,600.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT
8511 GENERAL 8,981.00 8,981.00 |8,745.73 728.83 8.33
8510 TRANSFERS OUT 8,981.00 8,981.00 |8,745.73 728.83 8.33
8580 MISC EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |405.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8,981.00 8,981.00 |8,745.73 1,133.83 12.96
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1.00 361,474.89 361,474.89 361,473.89-*********|.14-344,402.54 **********
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 1.00 361,474.89 361,474.89 361,473.89-*********|.14-344,402.54 **********
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 11)
Subject: January 2008 Financial Report Page 10
Meeting Date: February 25, 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:
Police Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report and 2008 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes work performed by the Police Advisory Commission (“PAC”) in 2007 and
outlines the intentions of PAC for work to be performed in 2008. PAC requests feedback and
guidance from Council regarding both reports.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council reviewed the PAC 2007 Annual Report and 2008 Work Plan at the February 11,
2008 study session. Members of the PAC will meet with Council at the February 25th study session
for discussion and guidance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The 2008 PAC Work Plan contemplates participation in several focus areas of the Vision Process
Attachments: Police Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report
Police Advisory Commission 2008 Work Plan
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject:: Police Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
2007 POLICE ADVISORY COMMISSION (PAC) ANNUAL REPORT
The purpose of the PAC Annual Report for 2007 is to advise Council of work performed during
2007 and propose a work plan for 2008 initiatives.
The Police Advisory Commission Mission
The mission of the Police Advisory Commission is:
• To enhance the awareness of the police department’s capabilities and services
• To provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services
• To encourage exchange between the police department and the community
2007 Highlights
The following are highlights of the 2007 work performed by PAC:
Police Citizens Academy
• Commissioners assisted Officer Czapar in critiquing previous classes.
• Feedback from commissioners was used to make adjustments in the structure and content of
the academy.
• Commissioners served as “greeters” for the spring and fall academies and received positive
feedback on adjustments made to the academy.
In April, Commissioners Lanenberg and Markgraf met with police staff and Jamie Zwilling to
provide input on community education related to the impact on graffiti.
Crime Mapping Program
• At the May meeting, Commissioners reviewed a proposed crime mapping program
• After the demonstration, Commissioners provided insight on what residents would like to
see in the mapping program and how residents would use and react to information provided
by the mapping program.
• Commissioners made several suggestions on improving the mapping program and indicated
they felt it would be useful and well received.
Traffic Sub-Committee
• Commissioner Widmer has been attending bi-monthly Traffic Advisory Meetings hosted by
City staff.
• Commissioner Widmer has provided citizen input on traffic-related issues and street
projects.
• Commissioner Widmer has also been working with City staff to develop a user-friendly
mechanism for citizen input on traffic problem areas.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject:: Police Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Public Relations Sub-Committee
• Organized the inaugural St. Louis Park Crime Fund Golf Tournament.
• The purposed of this tournament is to bring the department and the business community
together for a day of fun and fundraising.
• The tournament was held on September 7th and raised about $2,500 for the St. Louis Park
Crime Prevention Fund.
• PAC plans to sponsor the tournament again in 2008.
HRC Liaison
• One of Pac’s goals is to build a strong partnership with HRC and work cooperatively on
police related issues.
• Commissioner Pat Swiderski has been attending HRC meetings.
• Commissioner Swiderski is participating in HRC activities and encouraging HRC members
to participate in PAC activities.
• In November, HRC member Shelly Taylor attended the PAC meeting to discuss
collaborative projects for 2008.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject:: Police Advisory Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
PAC 2008 WORK PLAN
• Work with HRC on follow-up to Somali forum with the goal of providing training and
information about police activities and services.
• Continue working with the City’s Traffic Advisory Committee regarding traffic concerns
and complaints with the goal of developing a user friendly mechanism for citizen input on
traffic related issues.
• Plan, organize and host the 2nd Annual St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund Golf
Tournament with the goal of growth in participation and fundraising.
• Participate in the Vision St. Louis Park process through involvement in at least the following
focus areas:
- Conducting research to determine what makes a neighborhood organization strong,
viable and sustainable with an aim toward increasing and strengthening
neighborhoods.
- Work with HRC to examine the Diversity section of Vision St. Louis Park and
develop goals/recommendations for actions.
Meeting Date: February 25, 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:
Police Department Annual Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff officers from the St. Louis Park Police Department will meet with the City Council to discuss
activities involved in 2007 service delivery. Staff members will detail some of the highlights, trends,
challenges and strategies related to 2007 activity.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
The police department’s written annual report will be completed by mid May. Brief staff
presentations at the study session, including some highlights from the written report, will be made
addressing each of the following categories:
• Deputy Chief Kirk DiLorenzo: Communications Center/Communications Van, ERU, Drug
Task Force
• Lieutenant Chad Kraayenbrink: Patrol Operations
• Lieutenant Mike Harcey: Support Services Operations (Investigations, School Liaison/DARE)
• Lieutenant Lori Dreier: Information Management, Community Outreach, Neighborhood
Liaison
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: February 25, 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:
Vision Strategic Direction discussion. Focus area:
• Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council provide direction on which option to continue to explore regarding the need
and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council see a need to create an additional commission to address environmental issues?
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 2007, the Council adopted the Vision Strategic Directions – 18 month guide. Since
adoption of the 18 month guide, Vision team members have been working on the focus areas in the
strategic directions. As discussed at the Council work session in February, staff will present
information for Council consideration on each Vision focus area now through September 2008.
The following will be discussed:
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 area:
• Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission.
Staff has been gathering information from other cities in the metro area population 25,000 to
100,000. We also reviewed our current structure of boards and commissions in our city (listing
attached). After review of data, looking at our existing commissions and conversations with staff we
are recommending 3 options to consider (in random order):
Option A: Current system and number of commissions seems to be working well. Council
can create task forces for specific needs to address this area as they arise.
Option B: Expand existing scope of Park and Recreation Advisory Commission or Planning
Commission (or modify another commission) to also address energy/environment along with
their current duties.
Option C: Create a new commission. The focus could be Natural Resources, Energy,
Healthy or Clean Environment. For example, we can have a discussion and explore if there
is a role for “healthy” environment and advisory commissions and/or a stand-alone energy
commission and talk about the focus of that group.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Vision Update – Investigating the Need and Purpose for an Energy/Environmental Commission
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This is about the Vision Strategic Direction: St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all
areas of city business.
And the focus area:
• Investigating the need and purpose for an energy/environmental commission
Attachments: Listing of Boards and Commissions for St. Louis Park
Chart of what other cities are doing
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Vision Update – Investigating the Need and Purpose for an Energy/Environmental Commission
ST. LOUIS PARK BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)
The Board of Zoning Appeals acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council. BOZA may hear and make
recommendations on matters referred to them or by which it is required under the Zoning Ordinance. The
Board shall hear and decide on variances to be granted in regard to the Zoning Ordinance and other
applicable State laws. The Board may also hear and decide on appeals from any order, requirement, permit
decision, refusal, or determination from the Zoning Administer or interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendations, reports, and records from the Board are communicated to the City Council.
• BOZA consists of 5 members.
• Meets the fourth Thursday of every month at 6:00 p.m.
• Staff from Community Development provides support this board.
Charter Commission
The Commission’s mission is to evaluate and propose changes which are warranted in the City Home Rule
Charter as provided by State Statute. The commission also monitors legislative activities on an on-going basis.
The commission is composed of fifteen members who serve on a volunteer basis and staff liaison that provides
assistance to record minutes, prepare agendas, and perform other ministerial duties.
• The Charter Commission is citizens’ group comprised of 15 members appointed by the Chief Judge
of Hennepin County District Court.
• Meetings are held as needed.
• Staff from Administrative Services provides support to this Commission.
Community Education Advisory Council (CEAC)
CEAC makes recommendations on programming, budgeting and funding sources for St. Louis Park
community education programs for all ages, children and seniors alike. Its members represent various
interests in the community including the School Board, City Council, service organizations, parks and
recreation, health providers and businesses.
• CEAC has 19 members, 4 of these are citizens, 2 are Council appointments.
• Meetings are on the third Tuesday of every month.
Fire Civil Service Commission
The Commission is vested with the authority to regulate and supervise the employment, promotion,
discharge and suspension of all sworn fire positions of full-time status of the St. Louis Park Fire Department.
• The Fire Civil Service Commission is a three person commission appointed by the City Council.
• The commission meets as needed throughout the year.
• Staff from Administrative Services provides support to this Commission.
Housing Authority (HA)
The Housing Authority assists and advises the City Council in matters concerning all types and levels of
housing in the city such as Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, Public Housing, and TRAILS (a
self-sufficiency program).
• The Housing Authority consists of five members.
• Meeting held on the second Wednesday of each month at 5:00 p.m.
• Staff from Community Development/Housing provide support to this Commission.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Vision Update – Investigating the Need and Purpose for an Energy/Environmental Commission
Human Rights Commission (HRC)
The Human Rights Commission advises the City Council on how to ensure equal opportunity and
participation in housing, employment, public service, public accommodations and education.
• The Commission consists of eleven regular members, one of which is an attorney and another that is
appointed by the School Board. The commission also may have two voting youth members.
• Meetings are held on the third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m.
• Staff from Police Department/Neighborhoods provide support to this Commission
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRC)
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission considers matters pertaining to long-range park and
recreation plans; and may offer recommendations in new development areas in relation to park and recreation
space. The City Council may request the Commission to study and advise on other related items.
• The Commission consists of seven regular members and one voting youth member.
• Meetings are held the third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m.
• Staff from Parks and Recreation provides support to this Commission.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission advises the City Council in matters concerning comprehensive planning, zoning,
platting, street changes, and general planning and development. This Commission may also hold public
hearings on certain issues.
• The commission consists of seven regular members and one nonvoting youth member.
• Meetings are held the first and third Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m.
• Staff from Community Development provides support to this Commission.
Police Advisory Commission (PAC)
The commission recently formed as a means to enhance awareness of police department capabilities and
services; provide an opportunity for citizen involvement and input in police services and encourage exchange
between the police department and the community. The work of the commission changes as the needs of the
community change. Commissioners design and create their own initiatives each year.
• The commission consists of eleven regular members and one voting youth member.
• Meetings are held the first Wednesday every other month at 7:00 p.m.
• Staff from Police Department provides support to this Commission.
Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC)
This Commission advises Council regarding the existing and future cable TV franchises and related services in
St. Louis Park. It receives citizen comments or complaints about cable service, recommends improvements to
the system, and studies other technologies as directed by the Council.
• The commission consists of seven regular members, one voting youth member, one ex-officio
member.
• This Commission meets 4 or more times per year and on an as needed basis.
• Staff from Information Resources provides support to this Commission.
Environmental Commissions - Survey of Cities Comparable to St. Louis Park
City Population Environmental Comm Purpose and Duties
Andover 30000 Open Space Commission The Open Space Commission is responsible for making recommendations related to open space, park
land dedication, gifts of land, and other matters related to open space management.
Apple Valley 48480 No Environmental matters dealt with by existing commissions.
Bloomington 85172 Advisory Board of
Health
The Advisory Board of Health is appointed by the City Council to research and evaluate issues
concerning health and the environment within the city. The board advises and makes recommendations
to the City Council concerning such issues. Comment: Bloomington is unique in that it has its own
public health division with public health nurses.
Blaine 54000 Natural Resources
Conversation Board
The Natural Resources Conservation Board is charged with developing a Natural Resource Plan, which
will contain criteria for all future open space acquisition. The plan will also include Environmental
Policy and Guidelines for the maintenance and preservation of Blaine's existing and future open space
and natural areas. The Board is an advisory committee to the City Council of Blaine, Minnesota. The
Board makes recommendations for action concerning land acquisition and environmental policy to the
City Council, which will make final decisions.
Brooklyn Center 29172 No Park and Recreation staff handle environmental issues.
Brooklyn Park 71225 No Park Advisory Board deals with environmental matters.
Burnsville 61500 Parks & Natural
Resources Commission
Charged with making recommendations on issues related to park, recreation and open space needs of
the community and the protection of Burnsville's natural resources. Typical issues include park
development, priority setting for capital improvements and park use policies. Comment: This
commission fits with Option B, combining environmental functions with an existing commission.
Coon Rapids 62177 No Staff handles environmental issues.
Cottage Grove 32500 Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources
Commission
Purpose: The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission aids and assists the City Council in
formulating and following sound conservation and land use management. It also assists the Planning
Commission in the preparation and implementation of park and open space plan of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Commission reviews site plans for new and existing parks and open space
area, conservancy and scenic overview, and also includes making recommendations regarding the care,
maintenance and development of city parks.
Duties
1. Review all preliminary plats for commercial, industrial, and residential development within the City.
2. Ensure environmental significant areas are preserved from urban development.
3. Act as a liaison between City Council and other City organizations that provide recreational
programs.
4. Provide feedback about existing recreational programs.
5. Review equipment needs of the City parks and playgrounds and make recommendations to the City
Council on those needs.
Comment: This commission fits with Option B, combining environmental functions with an existing
commission.
Eden Prairie 60000 Conservation
Commission
The Conservation Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council. The goal is to advance
and support the health and development of the citizens and natural environment of Eden Prairie. The
commission will accomplish that by examining and recommending the best practices for energy
conservation. It will establish a 'Green' Building code and even promote a healthy community be
encouraging a community designed for walking, exercise and recreation.
The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission advises the City on matters of development
and use of parks and recreation facilities, leisure services, recreation programming, preservation of
natural resources and promotion of environmental awareness. Comment: This commission fits with
Option B, combining environmental functions with an existing commission.
Edina 46100 Community Health
Committee and Energy
Environment
Commission
The Community Health Committee researches, studies and evaluates the needs concerning the health
and environment of the City of Edina. The group advises the City Council (Board of Health) of its
findings relating to the needs of the health and environment of the residents of the City of Edina.
Comment: Edina has a department that deals with environmental health.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update - Investigating the Need and Purpose for an Energy/Environmental Commission Page 5
Environmental Commissions - Survey of Cities Comparable to St. Louis Park
The Energy and Environment Commission is responsible for looking at sustainability. Duties of the
commission include examining and recommending best practices for energy conservation, city
purchases and green buildings. They are also responsible for evaluating and monitoring the city's solid
waste and recycling programs, environmental education and air/water quality. This commission fits with
Option C, creating a new commission.
Fridley 27500 Environmental Quality
and Energy Commission
The Environmental Quality and Energy Commission (EQEC) consists of seven members. The EQEC
advises on a broad range of environmental policies and programs and the management of the City's
environmental resources. It attempts to provide the City Council with accurate information to assist in
making and implementing sound environmental policy in such areas as solid waste abatement
programming, environmental education, waste reduction and water resource management. This
commission fits with Option C, creating a new commission.
Inver Grove Heights 31050 Environmental
Commission
The Environmental Commission is a nine member citizen commission appointed by the City Council to
review review environmental issues including Land Alteration Permits, Wetland Replacement
Applications, landfill issues and other miscellaneous items that the Council deems necessary for review.
This commission fits with Option C, creating a new commission.
Lakeville 50000 Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources
Committee
The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee makes recommendations to the City Council
regarding recreation and the parks, trails system and issues pertaining to Lakeville’s environmental and
natural resources. Activities include long-range planning, review of new developments and
recommendations for improvements.
Maple Grove 60000 Arbor Committee &
Lake Quality
Commission
The Arbor Committee is an eleven member citizen advisory committee which focuses on the
beautification of the City through tree planting and the preservation of the natural environment and
urban forest. The committee's mission includes the preservation and protections of existing forests,
encouragment of citywide natural resource planning, public education and awareness of natural
ecosystems.
The Lake Quality Commission is concerned with activities adjacent to the lakes as they affect water
quality and with the surface use of the lakes.
Maplewood 35600 Environmental and
Natural Resources
Commission
(1) Establish environmental priorities for the city.
(2) Recommend to the Community Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council
changes necessary to existing policies, operating procedures and ordinances that control, protect,
preserve and enhance the city’s environmental assets.
(3) Recommend to the Community Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council
new policies, operating procedures and ordinances that control, protect, preserve and enhance the city’s
environmental assets.
(4) Actively participate in and support the mission and goals of the Maplewood Nature Center and
Neighborhood Preserves by promoting environmental awareness through educational programs,
communications and co-sponsored activities.
(5) Pro-actively promote greater use and appreciations of the city’s environmental assets.
(6) Review the role of other city groups and how they might assist, support and advise the
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission.
(7) Sponsor environmental projects to enhance, repair, replace or restore neglected or deteriorating
environmental assets of the city.
(8) Develop educational programs and materials that foster the mission to the Environmental and
Natural Resources Commission.
(9) Develop and promote the use of “sustainable practices” for city policies and procedures.
This commission fits with Option C, creating a new commission.
Minnetonka 51658 No Planning Commission deals with land use, conservation easements, wetland and tree preservation, etc.
Park Board deals with open space preservation, natural resources management. Staff also responsible
for handling environmental issues. Comment: This commission fits with Option B, combining
environmental functions with an existing commission .
Oakdale 26653 Environmental
Management
Commission
The Environmental Management Commission promotes matters relating to solid waste, recycling,
composting, water quality, wetland conservation, air quality, tree preservation, and energy conservation.
This commission fits with Option C, creating a new commission.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update - Investigating the Need and Purpose for an Energy/Environmental Commission Page 6
Environmental Commissions - Survey of Cities Comparable to St. Louis Park
Plymouth 70238 Environmental Quality
Committee
The EQC makes recommendations to the City Council on a variety of environmental issues, including
surface water quality. This commission fits with Option C, creating a new commission.
Richfield 34000 Advisory Board of
Health
The Advisory Board of Health is charged with monitoring health programs in the City to ensure that the
services are addressing the health needs of Richfield's citizens. As part of this responsibility, the Board
prepares an annual "Community Health Services Plan" which analyzes Richfield's health needs and how
the present personal and environmental health programs meet those needs. This plan also serves as the
City's application for state funding that helps support the health services
Roseville 33690 Public Works,
Environment and
Transportation
Committee
Advises the City Council, City Manager and the Director of Public Works on public works,
environmental and transportation matters. Maintains an interest in and an understanding of the
Roseville Public Works Department and in federal, state, county, regional and other services that impact
the city's public works functions.
Shakopee 27500 Environmental Advisory
Committee
The Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) assists the City Council in reviewing land use and
development proposals and recommends policies, ordinances, and procedures to enhance water
conveyances, water quality, wetlands, woodlands, grasslands, soils, wildlife habitat and a healthy urban
forest. The EAC provides direction for the creation of greenways and protection of cultural and
ecological assets within the community and provides guidance concerning community-wide education
programs.
This commission fits with Option C, creating a new commission.
Shoreview 27000 Environmental Quality
Committee
The Environmental Quality Committee provides recommendations to the City Council on issues relating
to the environment, water quality, and solid waste. The Committee's duties include reviewing
development proposals for environmental concerns, storm water quality, and forestry, providing input
into the local watershed planning process, studying solid waste disposal and recycling, and providing
educational programs and information to the public on environmental issues.
This commission fits with Option C, creating a new commission.
Woodbury 54346 Environmental Advisory
Commission and the
Energy Conservation
Task Force
The Environmental Advisory Commission is an nine-member commission of Woodbury residents who
advise the City Council regarding policies and procedures related to sustainability issues, including solid
waste, air, water, land, energy and other natural resources. The commission also serves as a forum for
the citizens of Woodbury to voice their opinions regarding environmental education
Energy Conservation Task Force -- created in 2005 to study efficiency in city buildings/operations, their
purpose has been expanded to address sustainability in the broader context of sustainable development.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Vision Update - Investigating the Need and Purpose for an Energy/Environmental Commission Page 7
Meeting Date: February 25, 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:
Resolution Requesting Comprehensive Road and Transit Funding.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council directed staff bring back the February 19, 2008 resolution (attached) for discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support the attached resolution urging the legislature to pass a comprehensive
funding bill for transportation? The proposed resolution is identical to the formal resolution
adopted by the Council last year on March 19, 2007. The resolution was adopted on a 6-0 vote
(Councilmember Basill was absent).
BACKGROUND:
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) is urging local government to let legislators know that
transportation funding is very important. Transportation maintenance and improvement costs are
contributing to increasing property taxes and the lack of funding has delayed critical improvement
projects and repairs needed for both safety and economic vitality, including TH 100. St. Louis Park
stands to benefit from dedicated transportation funding this legislative session if a comprehensive
transportation bill is passed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This resolution is consistent with the Council’s commitment to being a Connected and Engaged
Community and promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Resolution Requesting Comprehensive Road and Transit Funding
RESOLUTION NO. 08____
RESOLUTION REQUESTING
COMPREHENSIVE ROAD AND TRANSIT FUNDING IN 2008
WHEREAS, all Minnesota communities benefit from a sound, efficient and adequately
funded transportation system that offers diverse modes of travel; and
WHEREAS, due to budget constraints, cities are increasingly deferring maintenance on the
over 39,000 lane miles under municipal jurisdiction of the 277,607 total lane miles in Minnesota;
and
WHEREAS, local cost participation requirements for trunk highway and county projects
such as TH100 and Highway 7 and Wooddale Ave. in St. Louis Park are onerous and are
contributing to strains on city budgets; and
WHEREAS, existing local funding mechanisms, such as Municipal State Aid (MSA),
property taxes, special assessments and bonding, have limited applications, leaving cities unable to
adequately address growing transportation needs; and
WHEREAS, the recently approved constitutional amendment that phases in dedication of
100 percent of the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) for transportation purposes will address only a
portion of the transportation funding needs in Minnesota, and total MVST revenues are not
meeting projections; and
WHEREAS, transportation analysts in consultation with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) estimate Minnesota will have to invest an additional $1.5 billion per year
in transportation infrastructure for the next ten years in order to meet identified needs; and
WHEREAS, transportation infrastructure maintenance and improvement costs contribute
to rising property taxes; and
WHEREAS, lack of state funding has delayed or will likely delay regionally significant road
construction and reconstruction projects such as the TH100 Full Build Project and the construction
of the Highway 7 and Wooddale Ave interchange and transit projects such at the Southwest Transit
Corridor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota’s transportation system is failing to meet the capacity needs
necessary to sustain population growth and promote economic development; and
WHEREAS, congestion, inefficient transportation systems and lack of transportation
choices lead to greater dependence on foreign oil, increased environmental degradation, and
economic disadvantages for Minnesota’s businesses and residents; and
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Resolution Requesting Comprehensive Road and Transit Funding
WHEREAS, congestion on TH100 and other major arterials in St. Louis Park moves thru-
traffic off of highways and onto local collector streets in neighborhoods, increasing traffic and wear-
and-tear on local roads; and
WHEREAS, current funding for roads and transit systems, across all government levels in
Minnesota is inadequate, and this under-investment hinders Minnesota’s progress as a national
business, economic and civic leader.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1) The City Council requests that in 2008 the Minnesota State Legislature pass a comprehensive
transportation funding package that permanently increases dedicated funding for transportation; and
2) The City Council requests that in 2008 Governor Tim Pawlenty allow a comprehensive
transportation funding package that permanently increases dedicated funding for transportation that
is passed by the Legislature to become law.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council _________, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: February 25, 2008
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:
Solid Waste Collection Proposals.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This study session item is meant to present Council with contractor proposals and staff
recommendations for solid waste collection contracts for the next five-year period (October 1, 2008
to September 30, 2013), provide Council an opportunity to ask any questions they might have, and
to provide direction to staff on next steps.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The Council will need to consider and provide direction regarding the following questions:
1. Are multiple contracts / contractors acceptable for these services?
2. Are there concerns with contracts or contract costs which could change due to the City
assuming certain future risks (i.e., pass through yard waste disposal costs, fuel surcharges,
revenue sharing)?
3. Should the City hire a full-time employee to provide field inspection services?
BACKGROUND:
History
Staff and Council have met numerous times over the past nine months to discuss solid waste
program changes, delivery and contracting options for collection services, and environmental
stewardship.
At the December 10, 2007 Study Session staff presented Council with draft Request for Proposals
(RFP’s) for delivery of residential solid waste collection services for the next five-year contract period.
During the meeting, staff identified several key issues and answered Council questions. The key
issues included: how best to staff the quality assurance field position; the need for including ex parte
communication language in the contract; whether it would be necessary to follow the Organized
Collection statute [MN Statute 115A.94] for any or all of the RFP’s; and changing the responsibility
for public education from contractors to the city. At that time it was decided to move forward with
RFP’s for residential recycling collection services and residential refuse / yard waste collection
services and with provisions to obtain costs to evaluate the cost effectiveness of contracting out the
quality assurance field position. It was also determined that a separate process would need to be
followed for refuse and recycling collection services for businesses and multi-family dwellings,
adhering to the Organized Collection statue noted above.
Meeting of: February 25, 2008 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Proposal
Most recently, at the December 17, 2007 study session, Council officially authorized staff to solicit
proposals for residential recycling collection services and residential refuse & yard waste collection
services for the next 5-year contract period (October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2013).
RFP Process
Staff contacted all licensed haulers in the City and other haulers doing business in the metro area to
inform them of our intent to request proposals for residential recycling collection services and
residential refuse / yard waste collection services over the next 5-years. RFP’s were sent to all parties
that expressed interest. Contractors were required to submit a Notice of Intent by January 8, 2008 if
they intended to submit a proposal. The City received notice from four (4) contractors indicating
interest in proposing on recycling services and from three (3) contractors indicating interest in
proposing on refuse / yard waste services. Contractors proposing on both recycling services and
refuse / yard waste services were also allowed to submit a combined proposal for all the services. As
part of the RFP process, Contractors were required to submit in writing any questions they had
regarding the RFP’s by January 10, 2008. On January 16, 2008, staff sent out written responses to
all Contractor questions received. Proposals were due and were received by January 25, 2008.
During the proposal review staff requested Contractors provide written follow-up to information to
clarify or complete their proposals. The City received all follow up information on February 13,
2008. On February 15, 2008 city staff met with each Contractor to review their proposal(s) to
verify that each Contractor fully understood what services were being requested and that their costs,
as proposed, reflected compensation for these services. It was explained this was the last opportunity
for each contractor to revise any of the terms or costs in their proposal(s). Based on these final
clarifications and submittals, staff has prepared six (6) proposal summary documents which are
supplements to the report.
Please note that Supplements A, B, C, D, E and F are considered private (non-public) information as
determined by the City Attorney and state statute until the City has awarded contracts for these services.
General Proposal Information
Many factors go into making the decision to award a contract for solid waste collection services. The
City desires Contractors that will provide high levels of service, be responsive to customers, and
participate in resident education - all at cost effective rates.
The RFP’s are comprehensive and include most of the same requirements that will be included in
the final agreements with selected Contractor(s). Major components in the RFP’s include
requirements for: collection services; personnel; customer service expectations and resident response
timeframes; penalties for non-compliance; required reports and meetings with the city; public
education assistance; involvement with community events; references and contacts at municipalities
where similar work is being performed; contract transition details; discussion of past contract
problems and any litigation experienced in the past 5-years; contracts lost in the past 5-years; extra
services required during a disaster; and the Contractor selection process. The final RFP’s and
complete Contractor proposals are available to Council members upon request.
Meeting of: February 25, 2008 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Proposal
Proposals Received
Recycling Services - four (4) contractors (Allied - formerly BFI, Eureka, Veolia, and Waste
Management) submitted proposals providing for residential recycling collection services. It is staff’s
belief that all four (4) contractors have demonstrated that they can provide these services for the
City. Staff has prepared a contractor comparison, Supplement “A”, and a cost summary,
Supplement “B”, providing information on these four proposals.
Refuse / Yard Waste Services - three (3) contractors (Allied - formerly BFI, Veolia, and Waste
Management) submitted proposals providing for residential refuse / yard waste collection services. It
is staff’s belief that all three (3) contractors have demonstrated that they can provide these services
for the City. Staff has prepared a contractor comparison, Supplement “C”, and a cost summary,
Supplement “D”, providing information on these three proposals.
Recycling, Refuse, and Yard Waste Services - two (2) contractors (Veolia and Waste
Management) submitted proposals providing for residential recycling, refuse, & yard waste
collection services. Staff has prepared a cost summary, Supplement “E”, providing information on
these two proposals.
Evaluation of Proposals
Proposal Costs – staff has prepared a simple cost summary overview (Supplement F) of the
various options and projected / estimated costs that are provided in more detail in the other cost
summaries (Supplements B, D and E).
The following proposal stipulations could cause the costs listed above to change over the course of
the contract:
1. Eureka “projected contract costs” could decrease slightly as they are based on a CPI increase
each year capped at 3%. The maximum 5-year contract cost is shown above.
2. Eureka “projected revenue sharing” could increase or decrease based on the market for
recycled materials. We are in a fairly high market now.
3. Waste Management and Veolia costs are subject to increase, as they both require a fuel
surcharge in new contracts.
4. Yard waste disposal costs for all three (3) contractors in all proposals are only fixed for the
first year. Years two through five will be market based and are unknown at this time, but
will most likely increase.
Meeting of: February 25, 2008 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Proposal
Other Proposal Considerations - the following is a list of other items, which may be considered
in evaluating these proposals:
1. Waste Management will collect these additional recyclable items (beyond current) -
aluminum foil and pop & beer cartons.
2. Eureka will collect these additional recyclable items (beyond current) - milk cartons, juice
boxes, clothes, linens, and pop & beer cartons.
3. Waste Management provides longer office / customer service hours.
4. Eureka was the only contractor to provide recycle material end market information. All
others declined based on confidentiality needs.
Community Considerations - besides provisions contained in the proposals, the following items
presented to Council earlier in this process should also be considered in making a decision on which
contractor(s) to choose:
1. Environmental Aggressiveness - reducing waste, improving recycling and finding the best
way to recycle organics should be the environmental goal. Improving recycling means more
than simply increasing recycling tonnage or resident participation. More and better use of
recycled materials should also be considered.
2. Financial Implications - Should the cheapest cost be our goal or should it be to provide
environmentally acceptable high quality services at the lowest possible cost.
3. Quality of Service - residents expect seamless service between contracts and during the life of
the contract. Regardless of the quality, size and experience of a contractor, residents will
experience some initial collection and customer service problems whenever a new contractor
is selected. Having more than one contract(or) will add complexity and difficulty when
dealing with service issues and complaints. Staff will work diligently to monitor, enforce,
and stress quality of service, but more contractors will complicate service delivery quality.
4. Risk / Program Stability - people do not like change (or they do not like it very often). The
amount of change and the frequency of change in our program and services will affect
residents.
5. Staffing Implications - depending upon the contracting option chosen, staffing may be
impacted. Space at city hall is limited so office facilities, equipment, and supervisory
considerations will need to be reevaluated.
Recommendations
Based on the above information staff recommends Council consider the following:
1. Award a contract to Eureka for residential recycling services - net 5 year projected cost of
$1,352,496
2. Award a contract to Waste Management for residential refuse / yard waste collection services
- estimated 5 year cost of $5,917,794
3. City to hire and staff the On-Site Supervisor position - this will save at least $250,000 over
the life of the contract plus this position should be able to perform duties currently being
performed by other public works staff. If further consideration of this is necessary, the
contracts could be awarded March 3 with the right reserved to exercise this option no later
than May 1, 2008.
Meeting of: February 25, 2008 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Proposal
Next Steps
• Award contracts March 3, 2008
• Equipment procurement (Eureka) March - October 2008
• Public education for program / contractor changes May - October 2008
• Fill the On-Site Supervisor position May - September 2008
• Implementation of new contract October - 2008
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As noted in previous meetings, this approach (separate contracts and expanded services) could result
in additional staffing needs. However, there will not be any cost implications to the General Fund
resulting from any program or staffing changes, as the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and related
collection fees will cover these costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the City
Council:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Community
members are responsible stewards of the environment and realize their actions today influence
the greater ecology inherited by future generations.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best
practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Supplements: Please note that Supplements A, B, C, D, E and F are considered private
(non-public) information as determined by the City Attorney and state
statute until the City has awarded contracts for these services.
Supplement “A” Recycling Contractor Proposal Comparison
Supplement “B” Recycling Proposal Cost Summary
Supplement “C” Refuse & Yard Waste Contractor Proposal Comparison
Supplement “D” Refuse & Yard Waste Proposal Cost Summary
Supplement “E” Combined Proposal Cost Comparison
Supplement “F” Cost Summary Overview
Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: February 25, 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:
Consideration of Commercial Properties in the Soil Vapor Study Area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to direct staff to identify possible public funding mechanisms to assist
commercial/industrial property owners with mitigation costs of VOC soil vapor intrusion?
BACKGROUND:
The EPA is expanding the study area for the soil vapor study. The expansion area includes both commercial
and residential properties. The EPA will pay for testing costs for both residential and commercial properties.
However, only residential properties are eligible for costs associated with remediation of indoor VOC levels
exceeding the state screening level.
Some commercial properties in the initial sample areas A & B have not signed access agreements. One
reported concern is the financial implications of installing a remediation system in the business if necessary.
Now that the EPA has expanded the study area, which includes additional commercial properties, staff is
concerned that more commercial property owners may opt of having the property sampled. It is in everyone’s
best of interest, both from a health and groundwater study perspective, that as many properties be sampled as
possible.
Timing is critical since the EPA will begin their last round of sub-slab sampling the week of March 17, 2008
and will need to have signed access agreements from affected property owners at that time. Unless they sign
agreements at this time, they will not be eligible for U.S. EPA testing in the future.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish staff to pursue the following possibilities?
1. Federal assistance for commercial property owners through Congressman Keith Ellison and Senator Amy
Klobuchar’s offices. This would be outside of the appropriation process.
2. Should staff develop funding options (i.e., state or local) for grant or loan programs for these commercial
property owners faced with mitigation system costs?
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: February 25, 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:
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: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: February 25, 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:
Legislative Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. Staff is providing this update for informational purpose only.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council support the direction staff is taking on legislative matters?
BACKGROUND:
St. Louis Park’s elected officials met with the City Council on January 14, 2008 to discuss this year’s
legislative initiatives. This is an update for the Council on the issues discussed at the Council
meeting and some other pieces of legislation that may be of interest to the Council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. The city’s legislative activities are a 2008 budgeted item.
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 Update
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Legislative Update
2008 Legislative Update
Federal Legislation
FY2009 Trans-HUD Bill
Staff is in process of submitting FY2009 requests for funding for three projects:
Glencoe Railroad Mitigation Project ($2.5 million)
Highway 7 & Wooddale Ave. Grade Separated Crossing ($9.2 million)
TH 100 & I-394/Xenia Avenue/Park Place Boulevard Collector-Distribute Road
Improvement Project ($1.8 million)
Once the requests have been submitted, congressional and senate staff will review the requests and by
July 2008, staff should know whether or not our requests have been included in either the House or
Senate versions of the Trans-HUD bill. Concurrently, staff is working with the City of Glencoe to
identify economic development grants for this project.
2008 State Legislative Session
HF 2813 – Amendment to the Statewide Transportation Plan
Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Representative Ryan Winkler testified on behalf of an amendment to state
statute which would require MnDOT to prioritize projects that have Surface Transportation Funds
(such as Hwy 7 & Wooddale Ave.) awarded through the Metropolitan Council’s regional
solicitation process. While the bill has bi-partisan authorship, it is opposed by MnDOT;
Metropolitan Council has not taken a position on the bill at this time. It will be included in the
larger transportation bill rather than as a stand-alone bill. Similar legislation is proposed in the
Senate.
Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue – request for $9 million for MnDOT
Last year, Representatives Simon, Winkler and Senator Latz successfully introduced legislation
asking for $9 million in state funding for Hwy. 7 & Wooddale. While this bill is still alive, staff
believes is it unlikely that this request will be funded through the state bond. Staff submitted this
request to the Department of Finance for consideration earlier this year and it was not included in
the Governor’s budget.
TH100 Full Build Project
Staff submitted a request to the Department of Finance for $10 million to cover our local share of
the TH100 Full Build project. As expected, the city’s request was not included in the Governor’s
budget this year. However, this project is still listed in MnDOT’s 10 year transportation plan, with
a schedule bid let for 2014.
Grade Separated Crossing Project at Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue
The Highway 7/Louisiana Project’s score ranked at the top of its category (Principal Arterials) in the
Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Advisory Board through their regional solicitation process.
Although there are still a couple of procedural steps in the process, the project appears to be assured
of being awarded $7.2 million in federal funds. The Metropolitan Council will likely make a final
decision in March.
Meeting of February 25, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Legislative Update
Transportation – MnDOT Transparency Bill
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 and is still alive this session. It is expected that this language
will be included in the transportation omnibus bill this session.
Dan Patch Corridor
There is an active discussion at the legislature about amending legislation passed almost five years
ago prohibiting the “Commissioner Transportation, Metropolitan Council, or any Regional
Railroad Authority from expending funds for any studies, planning, preliminary engineering, final
design, or construction in the Dan Patch Corridor.”
Staff is working with our lobbyist to learn more about this proposed change and will update Council
with our findings. Council will likely be asked by our legislators what your position is on this piece
of legislation.
Minnesota Valley Regional Rail Authority
The Minnesota Valley Regional Rail Authority has a capital bond request for $30 million to upgrade
rail from Winthrop, the location of an ethanol facility, to Hamburg, Minnesota. The upgrade to the
track, which is 90 years old, would allow for the storage of ethanol tankers at the facility in
Winthrop, and would eliminate the storage of ethanol tankers in other communities, such as St.
Louis Park and Minnetonka and provide for more efficient and safer transport of ethanol. Twin
Cities and Western Railroad will be attending a study session in March and can provide more
information about the legislation at that time.
Group Homes
The cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park have been working closely with Representative
Winkler and Senator Simon on the group home issue. Our elected officials believe that working
directly with the state and county on licensing issues with respect to the clustering of homes is the
appropriate route and it is supported by the disabled community. There are no plans to submit
legislation to change state statute this session because of the unintended effect the legislation could
have on licensing in general and the strong opposition to making change to statute from the disabled
community. Staff will update Council as more information becomes available.
Source Separated Organics
Hennepin County, among others, are working to change the state statute to allow for source
separated organics such as food scraps, paper towels, milk and juice cartons, pizza boxes, etc., to be
collected with yard waste (Co-Collected Organics) and composted. Hennepin County estimates
that approximately 25% of the solid waste stream is made up of source separate organics. This
statute needs to be amended for St. Louis Park to cost effectively add organics collection (CCO) to
the city’s solid waste/recycling services.