The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008/09/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 Mayor Jacobs Absent 6:20 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chamber 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Public Hearing 2a. Public Hearing - On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License for Rasoi, Inc., dba Taste of India Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve an On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License to Rasoi, Inc. dba Taste of India, located at 5617 Wayzata Boulevard for the license term through March 1, 2009. 3. Adjournment 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION, Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning -- October 6, October 13 and October 14, 2008 2. 6:35 p.m. Twin Cities & Western Railroad Officials – Update to Council 3. 7:20 p.m. Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update 4. 8:05 p.m. Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update -- Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects, permits etc.; encourage (and provide incentives where appropriate) green building design (LEED), creation of open spaces, environmental innovations, etc. 5. 8:25 p.m. Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update -- Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best practices 6. 8:45 p.m. City Manager’s 2008 Performance Evaluation 7. 9:00 p.m. Communications (Verbal) Written Reports 8. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Mid-Year Update 9. August 2008 Monthly Financial Report 10. Comcast Franchise Fee Audit for 2005, 2006 & 2007 9:10 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: September 22, 2008 Agenda Item #: 2a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Public Hearing - On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License for Rasoi, Inc., dba Taste of India. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve an On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License to Rasoi, Inc. dba Taste of India, located at 5617 Wayzata Boulevard for the license term through March 1, 2009. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve the On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License to Rasoi, Inc., new ownership of Taste of India located at 5617 Wayzata Boulevard? BACKGROUND: The City received an application from Rasoi, Inc. for new ownership of an On-sale Wine and 3.2 Malt liquor license for Taste of India located at 5617 Wayzata Boulevard within the Park Place Plaza. The restaurant has been in existence since 1995 and is on the east side of the triangular complex and encompasses approximately 4,272 square feet of the building. The establishment name, manager, and staff will remain the same. Rasoi, Inc. was organized as a Minnesota Corporation on December 17, 2007. The main principals involved on this application are Amrit Pal Singh, President and Gurdial Singh Setia, Vice President. The Police Department has run a full background investigation and has found no reason to deny the liquor license based on the investigation. The application and Police report are on file in the Office of the City Clerk should Councilmembers wish to review the information prior to the public hearing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The fees for new liquor licenses are found in Appendix A - Fee Schedule of the City Code. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable Attachments: None Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 22, 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 – October 6, October 13, and October 14, 2008. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the special study session proposed for Monday, October 6, 2008, the regularly scheduled study session on Monday, October 13, 2008, and a special study session proposed for Tuesday, October 14, 2008. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas 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 proposed special study sessions on October 6, 2008 and October 14, 2008, and the regularly scheduled study session on October 13, 2008. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for October 6, October 13 and October 14, 2008 Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Future Study Session Agenda Planning Tentative Discussion Items Special Study Session, Monday, October 6, 2008 – 6:00 p.m. (Box Lunches) 1. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Increasing Use of New and Existing Gathering Places – Community Development (30 minutes) Staff will provide the Council with an update on the following Vision Strategic Direction: “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community…Increasing the use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility throughout the community.” 2. Vision Strategic Directions Update -- Expand Network of Sidewalks and Trails – Community Development (45 minutes) Staff will provide the Council with an update on the following Vision Strategic Direction: “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community…developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.” End of Meeting: 7:15 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items Study Session, Monday, October 13, 2008 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Decision Resources – Residential Survey Update – Administrative Services (30 minutes) Staff and Decision Resources will provide an update to Council on the 2008 residential survey. Does the Council wish to direct staff to make any changes to the survey content areas? 3. Surface Water Management Plan Update – Public Works (30 minutes) Staff will provide the Council with an update on the Surface Water Management Plan. 4. 2009 Budget – Finance (60 minutes) The Finance Director and the Department Directors will review the programs and services they provide and discuss the proposed 2009 budget. Does the Council want to direct staff to make any changes prior to the adoption of the budget in December? 5. Bader Development Company Redevelopment Contract – Community Development (30 minutes) Staff to discuss the business terms for the Bader Development Company Redevelopment contract (Al’s Bar Site). Does the Council agree with the proposed terms? Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning 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: Business Licenses - Inspections End of Meeting 9:15 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items Study Session, Tuesday, October 14, 2008 – 6:30 p.m. 1. Financing City Facilities – Buildings, Infrastructure and Parks – Admin/Finance (120 minutes) Does the Council wish to hold a special study session to discuss future financing considerations for significant infrastructure and building improvements? The City Manager and Finance Director would facilitate this discussion with Council. End of Meeting: 8:30 p.m. Meeting Date: September 22, 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: Twin Cities & Western Railroad Officials – Update to Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None required at this time. Twin Cities & Western Railroad (TCW&R) President Mark Wegner and General Manager of Operations Bob Suko will update the Council on operation plans for their short-line railroad. POLICY CONSIDERATION: How do the operations of the TCW&R fit into the City’s plans or initiatives? BACKGROUND: Staff met with TCW&R officials in August to discuss the Glencoe Railroad Switchyard, existing and future rail operations and Southwest LRT. TCW&R officials will provide a similar overview to Council about existing and future operations and they are interested in hearing the City Council’s thoughts on these and other issues. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: None Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 22, 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: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council is requested to provide direction to staff on the DEIS scoping process POLICY CONSIDERATION: What environmental considerations and community effects of the three transit alternatives need further study in the DEIS? BACKGROUND: Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) has been given the green light to begin the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process. One of the first steps is to hold “scoping” meetings with the public. Three are scheduled as follows: • Tuesday, Oct 7th at the Hennepin County Government Center, 2 PM open house and 3 PM public hearing; • Tuesday, Oct 14th at the St Louis Park City Hall, 5 PM open house, 6 PM public hearing; • Thursday, Oct 23rd at the Eden Prairie Community Center, 5 PM open house, 6 PM public hearing. Scoping meetings will include a one-hour open house followed by a formal public hearing. The HCRRA will be the agency conducting the hearing. Comments may also be submitted via email, mail or fax. The Scoping Booklet is attached for your review, and additional details are available at the website: (www.southwesttransitway.org). Also attached is a “frequently asked questions” handout available on the website. This provides much basic information. • A memo from St. Louis Park Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Jim Brimeyer and Sue Sanger and the St. Louis Park Community Advisory Committee members is also attached. This memo outlines ideas to include in comments during the scoping process. It includes a number of measures that were identified in the 1999 Railroad Task Force Study, as well as additional ideas that would “include an assessment of the feasibility and costs of alternative strategies that would eliminate the diversion of freight rail traffic through St. Louis Park.” Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: The City Council adopted a Strategic Direction and focus area that is applicable to this issue. Strategic Direction: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus Area: Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources effecting SLP including but not limited to Hwy 100 and SWLRT. Attachments: Frequently Asked Questions Memo from Jim Brimeyer and Sue Sanger, SWLRT PAC reps from St. Louis Park, Lisa Miller, Bob Tift, Bill James, and Shawn Klein, CAC reps from St. Louis Park Scoping Information Booklet Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update From southwesttransitway.org: Frequently Asked Questions How can I voice my opinions regarding the Southwest LRT? We want to hear from you. Your comments will be shared with local elected officials and will become part of the public record. Please submit your comments via email or Southwest Corridor, Hennepin County Transit, 417 North 5th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401. What is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement? The purpose of a DEIS is to provide a full and open evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Southwest LRT line to ensure that decision- makers and the public are aware of the impacts and of reasonable alternatives, to avoid or minimize adverse consequences prior to implementing the transit line. During the DEIS, the public is invited to review and comment on the elements, which include the following: • Identify and explain the purpose and need for improved transit to serve the area • Develop and describe the alternatives for the proposed action being considered • Identify the environmental and community effects of the three LRT alternatives and measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts of their implementation • Describe agency and public coordination efforts • Serve as the basis for a decision to move forward with the Southwest LRT line • Allow opportunities for public and agency input Where will the LRT line go? The specific route for the Southwest LRT line has not been finalized. There are currently three routes under consideration: • Route 1A: Downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie via the Kenilworth corridor and the HCRRA property. • Route 3A: Downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie via the Kenilworth corridor and the Opus/Golden Triangle area. • Route 3C: Downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie via Nicollet Avenue, the Midtown corridor, and the Opus/Golden Triangle area. Have other routes been considered? Yes. The first studies of the Southwest LRT line occurred in the mid-1980s. More recent studies occurred in 2002 with the Southwest Rail Transit Feasibility Study and in 2007 with the Southwest Alternatives Analysis (AA). Through these studies, more than 20 routing options have been considered to serve the southwest metro area with a high-frequency, high-amenity transit line. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update How will the Southwest LRT connect to the existing and future Twin Cities transit system? The Southwest LRT line will connect to other rail lines (Hiawatha, Central, Northstar) and high-frequency bus routes in downtown Minneapolis, providing access to the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, Mall of America, the State Capitol, and downtown St. Paul. How many people will be expected to ride on the Southwest LRT? Depending upon the route selected, there will be an estimated 23,500 to 28,100 rides per day by year 2030, which is comparable to current ridership on the Hiawatha LRT line. When can I ride the Southwest LRT train? At this time, the Southwest LRT is projected to open in 2015. How often will the trains run? Service will be same as on the Hiawatha LRT - every 7 1/2 minutes during peak times (6-9:45am and 3-7:15pm), every 10 minutes during midday and evenings, and every 30 minutes from 4-6am and 9pm-1am. Southwest LRT trains will run 20 hours per day, 7 days per week. If LRT is built what will happen to the trails? Hennepin County and its partners are committed to ensuring that a connected system of trails is retained throughout the southwest metro area. Currently, there are four trails that may be affected by a Southwest LRT line. They are the Southwest LRT trail, the Kenilworth trail, the Cedar Lake Park trail, and the Midtown Greenway. These trails are all located on property owned by the HCRRA. The existing walking and biking trails will be maintained; there is plenty of space for light rail and the existing trails. Currently, rails and trails safely coexist in more than 60 areas of the United States. What are some examples of rails and trails safely coexisting? The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy recently reported that there are more than 60 cases of trails coexisting with rail operations in 30 states nationwide. These “Rails- with-Trails,” defined as bicycle/pedestrian paths located directly adjacent to active railroad corridors, vary in characteristics from a few slow-moving freight trains to high-frequency commuter trains traveling as fast as 150 miles per hour. What is the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy? The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy is a nonprofit organization, with more than 100,000 members, whose purpose is to create a nationwide network of public trails from former rail lines and connecting corridors. There are three examples of Rails-with- Trails corridors in Hennepin County. The Cedar Lakes Trails is located in Minneapolis, the Kenilworth Trail also located in Minneapolis, and the Southwest Trail where rails coexist with trails occurs in the cities of St. Louis Park and Hopkins. All three of these Rails-with-Trails corridors have active freight rail service adjacent to the biking/pedestrian trail. Who will design and build the Southwest LRT? Who will operate it? Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update In the Twin Cities region, the Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit is the lead agency in the designing and building of transitways, including light rail, commuter rail, and busways. Metro Transit currently operates the Hiawatha line and will operate the Central Corridor and the Southwest LRT. How much will it cost to build and operate the Southwest LRT? Capital Costs in 2015 dollars are estimated at: $865 million - $1.4 billion. Operating Costs in 2015 dollars: $12 - 17 million. Who will pay for the construction of the Southwest LRT? At this time, it is assumed that Southwest LRT funding for capital costs will come from four sources: the transit sales tax in the metro area (30 percent), the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (10 percent), the State of Minnesota (10 percent), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (up to 50 percent). Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update UNIQUE CONCERNS OF ST. LOUIS PARK REGARDING SWLRT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCLUSIONS INTO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT To: All members of the SWLRT Policy Advisory Committee, Community Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority staff and consultants working on SWLRT From: Jim Brimeyer and Sue Sanger, SWLRT PAC reps from St. Louis Park, Lisa Miller, Bob Tift, Bill James, and Shawn Klein, CAC reps from St. Louis Park Cc: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Councilmembers John Basill, Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, and Loran Paprocki, Sen. Ron Latz, Reps. Steve Simon and Ryan Winkler, and City Manager Tom Harmening Date: July 11, 2008 Purpose of memo: • To describe the unique concerns and impact of SWLRT development on St. Louis Park neighborhoods • To identify St. Louis Park issues which must be included within the scope of the DEIS and assessed prior to final route selection • To request an amendment of the current RFP for the DEIS, in order to identify these key issues for study • To identify possible means to eliminate the rerouting of freight rail north through St. Louis Park neighborhoods, which should also be included and assessed within the scope of the DEIS Background: One north-south and two east-west sets of railroad tracks cross St. Louis Park. A minimum of two dozen trains (sometimes more, varies daily and seasonally), some one mile in length, run through St. Louis Park each day, negatively affecting residents of 13 neighborhoods and vehicle traffic at numerous at-grade crossings. As gas prices rise, it is anticipated that transportation of freight will increasingly utilize inter-modal transport as a means of freight movement through our community. We understand two of the potential SWLRT routes (# 1A and 3A) would include a short segment (less than ¼ mile) near W. Lake St. where freight trains currently travel, and which is currently too narrow to accommodate the SWLRT parallel to the existing freight rail tracks and bike trail. If either of these routes is selected and the narrow bottleneck is not widened or other steps are not taken to accommodate all three modes of transportation, then the freight rail would have to be diverted elsewhere. Due to the scarcity of north-south tracks within Hennepin County, that diversion could likely be through St. Louis Park, on the CP alignment. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Railroad Study In 1999 the City of SLP initiated the Railroad Task Force to study the impact of freight rail traffic on our community and the impact on our neighborhoods if freight rail would be rerouted from its present tracks along Highway 7/25 to the north-south tracks in SLP. Such diversion would add significant train traffic to our neighborhoods, which include many homes within 50 ft. of the tracks, sometimes even closer. It would also result in a substantial increase of freight rail traffic immediately adjacent to St. Louis Park High School and would significantly interfere with vehicle traffic on many already-congested streets, including Excelsior Blvd. The Task Force included reps from the affected neighborhoods, the St. Louis Park City Council, Hennepin County, and the TC & W railroad. The Task Force acknowledged that SWLRT will be beneficial for our community and expressed a strong preference that freight rail not be rerouted through St. Louis Park neighborhoods. It acknowledged that such rerouting nevertheless might occur and reached consensus on many principles which should govern in that event: • Rail traffic should run smoothly, entering and leaving SLP as efficiently and safely as possible • No de-coupling or switching of rail cars should take place in SLP • Noise, vibration, and other adverse impacts on adjacent neighborhoods must be minimized to the extent feasible • Safety of at-grade rail/street intersections must be improved for pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists • Funding must be made available to accomplish these principles, as part of the development of the SWLRT Measures to implement these principles were identified and include: • Construct rail interconnections from the east-west line both north and south to the north- south tracks, without obstructing SWLRT operations, which will require construction of bridges • Reconstruct the interconnection between the north-south line and the BNSF east-west line (east of Dakota Park) • Construct noise walls, landscaped berms, soundproofing insulation and/or other measures to mitigate negative impacts of rail traffic on the hundreds of homes and the St. Louis Park Senior High School which are located immediately adjacent to the freight rail tracks • Consideration should be given to purchasing of adjacent homes within the usual and customary distances to the rail lines, to create a green buffer for other nearby homes and provide adequate space to construct noise barriers. • Reposition and eliminate the rail “wye” in the Elmwood/Oxford neighborhood, which currently permits trains to back up and be de-coupled and reconfigured, This is a noisy and lengthy (often one hour or more per train) process which occurs at all hours of the day, including late at night. • Evaluate the possibility of moving the current rail switching and blocking operations (which occur in SLP, Hopkins and Minnetonka) to Glencoe. • Install signalized crossing guards at all at-grade rail/street intersections. • Upgrade tracks and railroad bridges to permit trains to safely and efficiently travel through SLP. Cost estimates for the above improvements are included in the 1999 report. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 8 Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Although the task force issued its’ report in 1999, the above issues, principles and mitigation requirements remain valid concerns for SLP residents and motorists. In addition, another concern has more recently become visible. A new bike/walking trail has been proposed in Edina, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and perhaps other cities, which may run approximately adjacent to the north-south freight rail tracks. We understand that Three Rivers Park District will soon begin a feasibility study for a north-south trail. Any freight rail diversion should be examined for issues concerning mitigation with trail construction. We believe the above measures need to be considered as part of the DEIS process. Mitigation Options We recognize that the costs and regulatory requirements necessary to implement the above measures will be significant. We therefore urge that the DEIS include an assessment of the feasibility and costs of alternative strategies that would eliminate the diversion of freight rail traffic through St. Louis Park. We further urge consideration of the following measures: • Purchase sufficient right-of-way adjacent to the “bottleneck” at W Lake St. to accommodate SWLRT, freight rail, and the bike trail • Reroute or elevate the bike trail to permit SWLRT and freight rail within the “bottleneck” at West Lake Street Conclusion The full costs of rerouting freight rail traffic must be evaluated as part of route selection for SWLRT. The above provides an overview of the types of improvements which will be necessary, and which require analysis as part of the DEIS process. During earlier PAC meetings we received assurances that these issues would be reviewed as part of this process and it is our request that the DEIS process incorporate our concerns. We additionally request that the DEIS process include a meeting within SLP to discuss these unique issues. We recognize that many recipients of this memo may not be fully familiar with the issues surrounding freight rail operations, the implications of rerouting them, or the St. Louis Park neighborhoods that are adjacent to rail tracks. We will be happy to discuss these issues further and to provide tours of the affected areas. Scoping Information Booklet in support of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Southwest Transitway Project Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) September 2008 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 9 Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 What is a draft environmental impact statement, and what is scoping? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Tell me more about the project; why is a Southwest Transitway needed?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Has the Southwest Transitway been studied before?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 What alternatives are being considered? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 How can I be part of the process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 When, where, and how can members of the public comment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 How can I be involved after the scoping period? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 How will my comments affect the process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 What government agencies are involved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 What environmental topic areas will be considered?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Scoping Comment Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Hennepin Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 10 Scoping Information BookletSouthwest Transitway • September 2008 1 Introduction The Southwest Transitway is a proposed transit project intended to improve mobility in the southwest part of the Twin Cities metro area including the cities of Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis. It is the intent of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) to partner with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as lead agencies to develop the Southwest Transitway as a major transit capital investment. As the public agency responsible for completing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the HCRRA is required to comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (Minn. Stat. §116D.04 and 116D.045). The project will also pursue federal funding from the FTA. As a result, the FTA is required to undertake environmental review in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FTA, as the federal lead agency under NEPA, and HCRRA, as the state lead agency under EQB, have determined that the Southwest Transitway project may have signiﬁ cant environmental impacts. To satisfy both NEPA and EQB requirements, the HCRRA and the FTA are preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Southwest Transitway project. This Scoping Information Booklet contains a description of the scoping process, an overview and status update of the Southwest Transitway project DEIS, and information on how the public can get involved in scoping. What is a draft environmental impact statement, and what is scoping? A DEIS documents the potential social, economic, and environmental beneﬁ ts and impacts of a proposed project or action and proposed measures to mitigate any adverse impacts in compliance with NEPA. The DEIS is released to the public and interested agencies for review and comment. The DEIS and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) compose the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA. Scoping is the ﬁ rst step in the NEPA/EIS process. Scoping is designed to inform the public, interest groups, affected tribes, and government agencies of the DEIS (including opportunities for public involvement) and to present the purpose and need for the project, the proposed alternatives to address the needs identiﬁ ed, and potential beneﬁ ts and impacts for public and agency review early in the NEPA/EIS process. The purpose of scoping is to conﬁ rm the purpose and need for the project, identify appropriate alternatives for addressing the needs, and identify the potentially signiﬁ cant environmental issues associated with the proposed alternatives that should be analyzed in depth in the DEIS. The scoping process is also intended to eliminate detailed study of issues that are not signiﬁ cant and/or have been addressed by prior studies. This scoping process includes three (3) formal public meetings at which anyone may have their verbal comments recorded and/or provide written comments. Scoping comments should focus on the purpose and need for the project, the proposed alternatives, and the potentially signiﬁ cant environmental beneﬁ ts and impacts that should be analyzed in the DEIS. An overview of the purpose and need for the project can be found on page 2 of this document, descriptions including a map of the proposed alternatives can be found on page 4 of this document, and the list of environmental areas that will be analyzed for potential environmental beneﬁ ts and impacts can be found on page 8 of this document. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.] was signed into law on January 1, 1970. The Act establishes national environmental policy and goals for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment, and it provides a process for implementing these goals within the federal agencies. NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) plays a vital role in Minnesota’s environment and development. The board develops policy, creates long-range plans, and reviews proposed projects that would signiﬁ cantly inﬂ uence Minnesota’s environment. The EQB writes the rules for conducting environmental reviews. The EQB’s environmental review duties are directed by Minnesota Environmental Policy Act Laws 1973, Chapter 412 (MEPA) Minnesota Statutes 116D.04. “ Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 11 Scoping Information Booklet Southwest Transitway • September 20082 Tell me more about the project; why is a Southwest Transitway needed? The Southwest Transitway is a proposed 14-mile light rail transit (LRT) line in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region, connecting downtown Minneapolis to the high growth areas to the southwest. The LRT line will add system capacity in an area of high demand, respond to travel demand created by existing and planned residential and employment growth, provide a competitive travel option that will attract choice riders, and serve transit dependent populations. This line will also be an expansion of the region’s transitway system (Hiawatha LRT line, Northstar Commuter Rail (under construction), and Central Corridor LRT line (proposed). Overview of the purpose and need for the project Three primary factors make the Southwest Transitway project important for people who live and work in the southwest metro area: 1) growing roadway congestion; 2) lack of competitive, reliable transit options for choice riders and transit dependent persons; and 3) lack of reverse commute transit service. Mobility: The study area is experiencing signiﬁ cant roadway congestion resulting from high residential and employment growth and limited infrastructure improvements. In terms of travel, currently 27 percent of all regional trips begin or end in the corridor, and 65 percent of all trips originating within the study area stay within the study area—people who live in the study area, also work in the study area. The study area is also home to many major employers. Downtown Minneapolis is the region’s largest employment center with over 140,000 jobs (78 jobs/acre), and the Golden Triangle is the region’s sixth largest employment center with over 50,000 jobs (10 jobs/acre). In addition to the high employment growth, this area has also experienced high residential growth with over 31,200 new residences since 1980—new homes in Eden Prairie accounted for more than half of this number. As a result of this strong residential and employment growth, travel on area roadways has increased between 80 and 150 percent in the past 25 years. A number of study-area roadways—TH 100, TH 169, TH 62, I-494, I-394, and TH 7— have been identiﬁ ed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) as having a high mobility deﬁ ciency rating. According to Mn/DOT’s long-range transportation plan, the Transportation System Plan (TSP), there are no plans for major expansions or improvements to roadways in the study area. Suburban express bus ridership in the area served by SouthWest Transit and Metro Transit has more than doubled in the past 10 years and surpassed 1 million annual riders for the ﬁ rst time in 2007. Transit advantages, including bus shoulder-lanes, park-and-ride lots, and ramp meter bypass lanes have been implemented throughout the area, but bus speeds remain limited, even on shoulder-lanes, to a maximum of 35 miles per hour (mph) under congested conditions. Due to lack of planned highway capacity additions and transit facility capacity limitations in downtown Minneapolis, future demand increases for autos and buses will not be adequately met. Lack of competitive, reliable transit options for choice riders and transit dependent persons: Due to congested roadways—the same roadways used by the bus system—it is difﬁ cult to provide the signiﬁ cant travel time advantages that would attract choice riders (who have a choice between transit and driving) to the transit system and to adequately serve transit-dependent people in and around downtown Minneapolis. The study area roadway network is oriented north-south/east-west whereas development patterns have radiated outward from downtown Minneapolis on a diagonal. This causes additional travel time to be added to vehicle and transit trips due to the geography of the roadway system. In an attempt to reduce travel time for transit, the Twin Cities has become a national leader in the use of bus shoulder lanes. Currently, the Twin Cities has over 250 miles of operating bus shoulder lanes. These facilities provide buses with a travel time advantage over the private automobile during peak travel periods, but state law limits their use to situations where the roadway is operating at 35 mph or lower and the bus cannot travel more than 15 mph above the speed of the roadway. As stated previously all major roadways in the study area are identiﬁ ed by Mn/DOT as experiencing Mobility deﬁ ciency rating. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Metro District, which is responsible for transportation investments within Metro District’s eight-county metropolitan area, categorizes all highways as having a high, medium, or low deﬁ ciency rating. Because most of the highway system experiences congestion, the severity (miles and duration) of congestion for a highway is a critical factor for prioritizing and selecting mobility enhancement projects. Bus shoulder-lanes look and operate like any other roadway shoulder, but Mn/DOT permits certain buses to use the shoulders to bypass congestion, and to provide faster and more reliable transit commutes in congested corridors. Ramp meters are trafﬁ c signals on freeway entrance ramps that allow trafﬁ c onto the freeway in a measured or regulated amount. Ramp meter bypass lanes offer incentives to carpools and bus riders and present the possibility for time savings, and ultimately reductions in vehicle miles traveled. “ Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 12 Scoping Information BookletSouthwest Transitway • September 2008 3 mobility deﬁ ciencies during peak travel periods. This negatively affects the ability of the bus transit system to provide the travel time advantage that would attract choice riders from suburban locations to the transit system. The number of transit-dependent people is growing in the study area, primarily in and around downtown Minneapolis. The areas of growth include the North Loop, Harrison, and Bryn Mawr neighborhoods. The geography of the roadway network in these areas, especially Harrison and Bryn Mawr, makes it difﬁ cult to provide competitive transit travel times. The roadway network through these neighborhoods is circuitous and has many one-way streets. In many cases, people who live only a few miles from downtown Minneapolis have transit travel times ranging from 9 minutes to 13 minutes because of the roadway network used by the bus system. Lack of reverse commute transit service: In addition to the strong job growth in downtown Minneapolis, the other cities have experienced, and are projected to continue to experience, substantial job growth into the future. This trend is evidenced by the 65 percent of the trips generated in the study area remaining within the study area. Many of these trips are reverse commute trips from the near-downtown neighborhoods to job centers in suburban locations. Currently these job centers are largely inaccessible by transit. Has the Southwest Transitway been studied before? In the early 1980s, the Southwest Transitway was considered a potential LRT line to serve communities from Minneapolis to Hopkins. Mobility issues in this corridor, as described in the previous section, have been well documented since the early 1980s. Previous studies include: • Comprehensive LRT System Plan for Hennepin County (1988) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement Hennepin County Light Rail Transit System (1988) • 29th Street and Southwest Busway Feasibility Study (2000) • 29th Street and Southwest Corridors Vintage Rail Trolley Study (2000) • Transit 2020 Master Plan (2000) • Twin Cities Exclusive Busway Study (2000) • Transit 2025 Master Plan for Transit (2001) • Southwest Rail Transit Study (2003) • Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis (2007) More recently, the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, the region’s long-range transportation plan, identiﬁ ed the Southwest Transitway for implementation prior to 2030. Furthermore, each of the study area communities has referenced the Southwest Transitway within their local comprehensive plans. Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis, 2007 In 2007, the HCRRA completed a federally required study called an Alternatives Analysis, which was a continuation of the Southwest Rail Transit Study, 2003. The Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis (AA) compared the beneﬁ ts, costs and impacts of a range of transitway alternatives (modes and routes) to identify those which would meet the needs of the communities as expressed in the Purpose and Need Statement. The transitway alternatives were evaluated to determine if they met the ﬁ ve goals. After evaluating one bus alternative, two bus rapid transit alternatives, and eight light rail transit alternatives, it was concluded that LRT was the preferred mode of transit and three of the eight LRT routes could meet the ﬁ ve established goals. In addition, the bus alternative, called the Enhanced Bus, was retained, even though it did not perform as well as the LRT alternatives, to continue to evaluate the possibility of addressing the increasing mobility needs of the area through improved bus service rather than LRT. The AA concluded that mobility improvements could best be addressed through the development of one of three possible LRT alternatives that would connect the residential, commercial, employment, and entertainment activity centers within the study area. A choice rider is someone who does not need to use transit for daily trips, but who chooses to use it because of convenience, time savings, cost savings (no parking fees), or some combination of these factors. A transit-dependent person is someone who must rely on public transit for daily trips. The Federal Transit Administration deﬁ nes transit-dependent persons as those 1) without private transportation, 2) elderly (over age 65), 3) youths (under age 18), and 4) persons below poverty or median income levels deﬁ ned by the U.S. Census Bureau. Reverse commuting means that you live in the center city and work in the suburbs. This is the opposite of the regular commute where a person lives in the suburbs and travels to work in the city. “ To aid in determining which alternatives met the area needs, ﬁ ve goals tiered by importance were developed. 1. Improves mobility. 2. Provides a cost–effective, efﬁ cient travel option. 3. Protects the environment. 4. Preserves the quality of life. 5. Supports economic development. ! Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 13 Scoping Information Booklet Southwest Transitway • September 20084 The AA is the starting point for the DEIS and forms the basis for this scoping process. What alternatives are being considered? Based upon the AA, three LRT alternatives and one Enhanced Bus alternative are proposed for inclusion in the DEIS. The alternatives include proposed station locations, park and ride facilities at stations, and routings between stations. An LRT maintenance and storage facility is assumed, but a location is yet to be determined. Light Rail Transit 1A: This alternative would operate from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie (TH 5) via an extension of the Hiawatha LRT tracks on 5th Street, past the downtown Minneapolis Intermodal Station to Royalston Avenue, to the Kenilworth Corridor through Minneapolis and the HCRRA property through St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie terminating at TH 5 and the HCRRA’s property. Stations are proposed at Royalston Ave., Van White Blvd., Penn Ave., 21st St., West Lake St., Beltline Blvd., Wooddale Ave., Louisiana Ave., Blake Rd., downtown Hopkins, Shady Oak Rd., Rowland Rd., TH 62, and TH 5. Alternative 1A is shown in Figure 1. Light Rail Transit 3A: This alternative would operate from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie (Mitchell Road/TH 5) via an extension of the Hiawatha LRT tracks on 5th Street, past the downtown Minneapolis Intermodal Station to Royalston Avenue, to the Kenilworth Corridor through Minneapolis, the HCRRA property in St. Louis Park and Hopkins, to new right-of-way through the Opus/Golden Triangle area, the Eden Prairie Major Center area terminating at TH 5 and Mitchell Road. Stations are proposed at Royalston Ave., Van White Blvd., Penn Ave., 21st St., West Lake St., Beltline Blvd., Wooddale Ave., Louisiana Ave., Blake Rd., downtown Hopkins, Shady Oak Rd., Opus, City West, Golden Triangle, Eden Prairie Town Center, ﬁ gure 1 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternatives Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 14 Scoping Information BookletSouthwest Transitway • September 2008 5 SouthWest Station, and Mitchell Rd. Alternative 3A is shown in Figure 1. Light Rail Transit 3C: This alternative would operate from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie (Mitchell Road/TH 5) via Nicollet Mall to Nicollet Avenue (tunnel from Franklin Avenue to 28th Street), the Midtown Corridor through Minneapolis, the HCRRA property in St. Louis Park and Hopkins, to new right-of-way through the Opus/ Golden Triangle, the Eden Prairie Major Center area terminating at TH 5 and Mitchell Road. Stations are proposed at 4th St., 8th St., 12th St., Franklin Ave., 28th St., Lyndale Ave., Hennepin Ave., West Lake St., Beltline Blvd., Wooddale Ave., Louisiana Ave., Blake Rd., downtown Hopkins, Shady Oak Rd., Opus, City West, Golden Triangle, Eden Prairie Town Center, SouthWest Station, and Mitchell Rd. Alternative 3C is shown in Figure 1. Enhanced Bus: The Enhanced Bus alternative, also known as the Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, is designed to provide lower cost, operationally-oriented improvements to address the project’s purpose and need as much as possible without a major transit investment. It includes minor modiﬁ cations to the existing express service, and would augment Metro Transit and SouthWest Transit service between Minneapolis and Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, and St. Louis Park. This alternative will serve as the New Starts Baseline against which the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project will be measured, and includes improvements identiﬁ ed in the No-Build Alternative. The Enhanced Bus Option is shown in Figure 2. No-Build Alternative: The No-Build Alternative includes all roadway and transit facility and service improvements (other than the proposed project) planned, programmed, and included in the Financially Constrained Regional Transportation Policy Plan to be implemented by the Year 2030. It includes minor transit service expansions and/or adjustments that reﬂ ect a continuation of existing service policies as identiﬁ ed by the Metropolitan Council. The No-Build Alternative serves as the NEPA baseline against which the potentially signiﬁ cant ﬁ gure 2 Enhanced Bus Alternative Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 15 Scoping Information Booklet Southwest Transitway • September 20086 environmental beneﬁ ts and impacts of other proposed alternatives, including the proposed project, will be measured. How can I be part of the process? Anyone who has an interest in the Southwest Transitway and the potentially signiﬁ cant environmental beneﬁ ts and impacts is encouraged to take part in the scoping process. Comments should be provided during the scoping period, which ends on November 7, 2008 at 5:00 PM. To participate in the process, ﬁ rst read this booklet to learn more about what is being proposed. Second, attend a scoping meeting to learn more and share your thoughts, ideas, and comments. Third, provide input regarding the proposed alternatives to be studied, any potentially signiﬁ cant social, economic, or environmental impacts for evaluation in the DEIS, and comments on the purpose and need for the proposed project. Comments can be presented verbally to the HCRRA at any of the three (3) formal scoping meetings or submitted in writing via U.S. mail, fax, or email no later than 5:00 PM. on November 7, 2008. For your convenience a public comment sheet is attached to this report. Comments may also be submitted directly via the Southwest Transitway Web site, www.southwesttransitway.org. A comprehensive Public Involvement Program and a Coordination Plan for public and interagency involvement that address how the Southwest Transitway project will involve the public and agencies throughout the DEIS process will be available at the scoping meetings and is also available on the Southwest Transitway Web site or by contacting Ms. Katie Walker, Transit Project Manager. When, where, and how can members of the public comment? The formal comment period for the Southwest Transitway DEIS will end on November 7, 2008 at 5:00 PM. During that timeframe, the public and agencies are encouraged to submit comments in writing via U.S. mail, fax, e-mail, or Web site (see contact information below) or verbally at three scheduled formal scoping meetings. Formal scoping meetings are scheduled for the following dates and locations: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 2:00 PM open house 3:00 PM public hearing Hennepin County Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:00 PM open house 6:00 PM public hearing St. Louis Park City Hall 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Thursday, October 23, 2008 5:00 PM open house 6:00 PM public hearing Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Please note: During the open house portion of the formal scoping meeting, project staff will be available to answer questions. Formal testimony before the HCRRA will begin with the public hearing portion of the scoping meeting. To ensure that all those who wish to address the HCRRA are given the opportunity each person will be given three (3) minutes to address the HCRRA. Auxiliary aides, services and communication materials in accessible formats and languages other than English can be arranged if notice is given at least 14 calendar days before the meeting by contacting Ms. Katie Walker at the address, telephone number, or e-mail address below. Comments may also be submitted in writing by: Mail: Ms. Katie Walker, AICP, Transit Project Manager, Hennepin County, Housing, Community Works & Transit, 417 North 5th Street, Suite 320, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax: 612-348-9710 E-mail: Katie.Walker@co.hennepin.mn.us Web site: www.southwesttransitway.org Telephone: 612-348-9260 Comments must be received by 5:00 PM on November 7, 2008. For more information on the scoping process, contact Ms. Katie Walker at the address, telephone number, or e-mail address above. Written materials, project updates, and materials used at the public scoping meetings will be available on the Southwest Transitway project Web site: www.southwesttransitway.org. Government agencies will be invited to a separate scoping meeting. Make comments on: • Alternatives to be studied, • Any signiﬁ cant social, economic or environmental issues for evaluation, and • Purpose and Need statement. TO DO: • Read this booklet • Attend a scoping meeting (optional) • Tell us what you think should be studied. ! ! Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 16 Scoping Information BookletSouthwest Transitway • September 2008 7 How can I be involved after the Scoping Period? Although the formal scoping period ends November 7, 2008, opportunities for public involvement in the DEIS will continue. Involvement opportunities will include ongoing meetings with members of the public, tribes, business and community groups, and government agencies. Opportunities for community interaction and input will occur during important periods throughout the study process (see DEIS Schedule on page 8). How will my comments affect the process? Public and agency comments will ensure that the purpose and need for the project is adequately deﬁ ned, that appropriate alternatives are being evaluated, and that the potentially signiﬁ cant environmental beneﬁ ts and impacts are being considered before a decision to proceed with the project is made. Comments can be made during the scoping period on the purpose and need for the project, the proposed alternatives, and the environmental topic areas that will be analyzed for potentially signiﬁ cant environmental beneﬁ ts and impacts. The scoping period will end on November 7, 2008. After the scoping period has concluded, the DEIS lead agencies (the HCRRA and the FTA), in consultation with the participating agencies, will review all comments received, respond to those comments, and use those comments to ﬁ nalize the purpose and need, reﬁ ne the proposed alternatives and identify all environmental topic areas to be analyzed in the DEIS. The comments received, responses, and their impact on the DEIS will be documented in a Scoping Report which will be made available to the public and participating agencies. What government agencies are involved? At a minimum, the following government agencies will be asked by the lead agencies to participate in the preparation of the DEIS: Federal Agencies: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/ Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Homeland Security. State Agencies: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Indian Affairs Council, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Ofﬁ ce of the State Archaeologist, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Department of Commerce, State Historic Preservation Ofﬁ ce, and the Minnesota Historical Society. Regional Authorities: Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, Three Rivers Park District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, and the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. Hennepin County: County Administrator. Hennepin Conservation District Local Government: City of Minneapolis, City of St. Louis Park, City of Hopkins, City of Edina, City of Minnetonka, and City of Eden Prairie. Others: Native American Tribes, and school districts. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 17 Scoping Information Booklet Southwest Transitway • September 20088 What environmental topic areas will be considered? The purpose of the DEIS process is to explore in a public setting the effects of the proposed alternatives on the physical, human, and natural environment. We will evaluate all of the potentially signiﬁ cant environmental, social, economic, and transportation beneﬁ ts and impacts of the proposed alternatives, which include the following topic areas: • Ecosystems and natural resource beneﬁ ts and impacts including geology and soils, air quality, water resources including hydrology and water quality, noise, and vibration; • Land use, zoning, and economic development; • Demographics and socioeconomic factors; • Displacements and relocations; • Neighborhood compatibility, community facilities and services, and environmental justice; • Visual quality and aesthetic characteristics; • Cultural resource beneﬁ ts and impacts, including those related to historical and archaeological resources, traditional cultural resources, and parklands/recreation and Section 4(f) resource areas; • Hazardous materials; • Energy use; • Construction effects; and • Transportation beneﬁ ts and impacts (including transit, roads and highways, railroads, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities). The schedule for the DEIS is shown below. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate all adverse impacts will be identiﬁ ed and evaluated. ! In addition to documenting the potential beneﬁ ts and impacts to the physical, human and natural environment, the DEIS will also reﬁ ne capital and operating cost estimates, ridership forecasts, and the station locations as well as identifying a location for the required LRT maintenance and storage facility. ! Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 18 Scoping Information BookletSouthwest Transitway • September 2008 9 Scoping Comment Form Southwest Transitway Project Please help us determine the scope of what will be evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Southwest Transitway project. You can comment on: the purpose and need for the project; the alternatives to be studied; and any potential social, economic, environmental and transportation impacts. The scoping period will end at 5:00 PM CST on Friday, November 7, 2008, All comments must be received by that date. Please include a return mailing address with all comments. A summary of scoping comments received will be available on the Southwest Transitway Web site: www.southwesttransitway.org My comments are about purpose and need for the project alternatives environmental beneﬁ ts and impacts other Name Address City/State/Zip Telephone E-mail Thank You! ! Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 19 fold here Ms. Katie Walker, AICP, Transit Project Manager Hennepin County, Housing, Community Works & Transit 417 North 5th Street, Suite 320 Minneapolis, MN 55401 fold here Place Stamp Here Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transit Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Update Page 20 Meeting Date: September 22, 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 St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update. Focus Area: • Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects, permits etc.; encourage (and provide incentives where appropriate) green building design (LEED), creation of open spaces, environmental innovations, etc. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests City Council feedback on the following recommendations being made by staff related to this focus area. 1. Continue to encourage the incorporation of sustainable features within redevelopment and City buildings. 2. Continue to explore incentives for green redevelopment for city funded projects. 3. Continue the City’s Pilot Green Remodeling Program to evaluate cost effective green remodeling incentives and to assist with developing green housing policy. 4. Continue educating staff and officials on green building and design by: a. including a study session presentation to Council by a sustainable building & development expert b. providing LEED certification opportunities for at least two staff; one in Inspections and one in Community Development, 5. Continue participation in the development of the Minnesota “GreenStar Cities” Initiative in conjunction with green building and land use and its appropriateness as a framework for developing the City’s comprehensive green policy. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The area of residential and commercial rehab and new construction is only one piece of the green picture. As the Vision evolves it is becoming apparent that developing municipal “green policy” needs to be a comprehensive effort. St. Louis Park along with communities statewide are looking to provide leadership on ways to “go green” through meaningful local actions. But what is green? And how is a “greener city” made a reality through practical, meaningful and measurable actions at the local level? The Mn GreenStar Cities Initiative (see attachment) can become the framework for how SLP can be more “green.” City officials and staff are participating with this pilot statewide effort to develop comprehensive guides for cities. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update – Green Building & Development BACKGROUND: Vision On March 19, 2007, the Council adopted the Vision Strategic Directions – 18 month guide. Since the adoption of the 18 month guide, Vision team members (staff) have been working on each of the Strategic Directions and related focus areas. The following Strategic Direction and related focus area will be discussed at the meeting: 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. Focus Area: • Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects, permits etc, encourage (and provide incentives where appropriate) green building design (LEED), creation of open spaces, environmental innovations etc. The team addressing St. Louis Park’s commitment to environmental stewardship includes Brian Hoffman, John Tilton, Kathy Larsen, Adam Fulton, Kimberly Bretza, and Reg Dunlap, and has met seven times to determine what is being done and to develop recommendations to continue environmental stewardship in building and development. DISCUSSION: The Vision focus area for this discussion is “Working in areas such as the rehab loan program, development projects etc, encourage and provide incentives for appropriate green building design, creation of open spaces and environmental innovations, etc.” Quite the catch-all! From the range of possibilities the staff team focused on recognizing the success of current programs and actions and the previously noted recommendations to move forward with refinement and expansion. What has been done: 1. The City Green Remodeling Pilot program began this early summer, and almost 50 households attended kick-off workshops to learn about green remodeling. Another workshop is scheduled for September 25th. Green remodeling advisory visits and applications to the certification program have been made and rebates for the highest efficiency furnaces and water heaters have been issued. 2. The bidding of the city owned land at 2600 Natchez required that the home be “green certified.” The first Mn GreenStar certified new construction home is being built on this site. Upon completion, this home will be open for tour by officials, staff and residents. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update – Green Building & Development 3. Several staff training initiatives have taken place: a. Staff has actively been exploring the topic of sustainable development and various related certification programs. Community Development staff have attended seminars on the topic, toured LEED-certified buildings and Mn Green Star-certified homes, obtained publications and is monitoring trends related to green development. b. Staff from CD, Inspections, Public Works, Park & Rec. and Admin. attended an “Intro to Green Concepts and Building” conducted by one of the State founders of LEED and Mn GreenStar. c. Staff is actively researching what programs and policies other cities have adopted relative to green development and is contacting the staff in selected cities to obtain their perspectives on what initiatives appear promising. 4. The City’s TIF Policy report card and Reinvestment Assistance Program encourage green development. Within their respective criteria both programs provide bonus points that encourage development that: achieves LEED certification; incorporates Livable Communities and Transit Oriented Development; has a positive environmental impact and incorporate efficient urban design; incorporate a business with an environmentally sound track record, and reduces demands on city services. a. Staff has met with developers and experts in the green building field in an effort to continue to refine and improve our policies for city assisted projects. b. Staff is looking to retain LHB Architects (a firm with much expertise in green buildings) to develop reasonable guidelines for encouraging sustainable development within the community. LHB has contributed to the state’s Sustainable Buildings Guidelines and St. Paul’s Port Authority’s green building requirements, among others. 5. In an effort to explore how a redevelopment project can be green, staff has requested the current redeveloper of the Al’s Liquor property to submit a checklist of items to be included in the project redevelopment that would qualify for LEED certification. LHB Architects will review how consistent the proposed project is with LEED standards, and explore possibilities of additional green components. This exploration of a real-life redevelopment project could evolve to future consideration of using the LEED’s certification tool on City projects. 6. CD staff has reviewed several national best practices related to the concept of “green development.” In an attached handout, several best practices currently underway at the City are noted. The handout also includes a list of other potential best practices that the City could adopt in the future. The land use information, developed by the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, includes three levels of achievement: bronze, silver and gold. For each level of land use achievement there are three actionable steps: a. Removal of obstacles, b. Creation of incentives, c. Enactment of new standards. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update – Green Building & Development The Vision Team does not recommend any specific items. Instead, the list is provided to inform the City Council so a recommendation can be developed about which items should be reviewed in greater depth. It should be noted that any of the items on the attached handout would require future Council action to adopt. 7. The City is participating in the development of the Mn GreenStar Initiative funded through the Mn Pollution Control Agency. Staff is working on the Advisory Committee, Green Building Committee and Land Use Committee to help craft a framework for cities to grow green. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: • The Green Remodeling Pilot is funded through the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Fund with leveraged funds from Mn Housing, Mn Pollution Control Agency and the Center for Energy & Environment. The City’s 2008 funding for this pilot is $50,000. • Training of staff to achieve LEED certification is $1,000 per person. • Securing the services of LHB as a consultant to EDA staff is being negotiated. VISION CONSIDERATION: This Vision report back addresses the strategic direction that the City will be a leader in environmental stewardship. Attachments: The Minnesota “GreenStar Cities” Initiative Concept Paper July 2008 Options for Creating a Framework for Sustainability Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 1 “GreenStar Cities” is the working title for the program described in this paper but the name for the program may change as we gather further input. The Minnesota “GreenStar Cities” Initiative A voluntary program to identify, support and recognize sustainable actions by local governments Concept Paper July 2008 Communities all across Minnesota are looking to provide leadership on ways to “go green” through meaningful local actions. But what is green? And how is a “greener city” made a reality through practical, meaningful, and measurable actions at the local level? “Green” covers a wide umbrella, including reducing carbon emissions, increasing energy security, and simply using resources wisely. For communities, being green may entail everything from rethinking land use planning and stormwater ordinances to improving residential, business, and government building energy efficiency. Ultimately, it is about making decisions to create strong, healthy, ecologically sound, and economically-viable communities for present and future generations. But what are the “best practices” to achieve these goals? The “GreenStar Cities”1 Initiative is a voluntary program to identify, support and recognize implementation of a set of sustainable development best practices that lead cities beyond compliance and encourage a culture of innovation. Specifically, the GreenStar Cities Initiative seeks to: • Provide a “pathway to sustainability”—cost-effective and pragmatic best practices for local governments to achieve superior outcomes in a broad range of sustainable practices, including energy, water, buildings, transportation, and development • Provide indicators and benchmarks to assess progress and achievements • Recognize local governments for their efforts and achievements • Help direct local governments to tools for financial, educational, and technical assistance and identify where additional assistance is necessary • Help local governments lead the way and be a model to inspire their residents, businesses, schools, congregations, and other organizations and associations to take action Partners Initiated by the volunteers and staff of the Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs) partnership (www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org), the development of the Minnesota GreenStar Cities program is led by the Green Institute as a collaborative effort, continuously expanding, that currently includes the following organizations: • League of Minnesota Cities • University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships • Minnesota Office of Energy Security, Department of Commerce • Pollution Prevention and Assistance Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • The Minnesota Project • The Green Institute • Center for Energy and Environment • Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development • Southwest Regional Development Commission • Urban Land Institute MN Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 4) Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update -- Green Building & Development Page 5 GreenStar Cities Initiative Concept Paper July 2008 - 2 - Program Design With initial seed money provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the GreenStar Cities Initiative is beginning program development. Broad participation in developing the program design will be essential to its success. To accomplish this, a stakeholder group will be convened to help develop the program. We anticipate having a draft of the program design by early 2009, and starting to pilot the program with selected local governments in mid-2009. Legislation passed in May 2008 (SF 3096) requires a report back to the legislature on progress by February 2009. Included voluntary actions We anticipate the program to include voluntary actions in the following areas that local governments control or influence, although these areas will be finalized based on stakeholder input: • Increased energy efficiency and conservation in city buildings and other infrastructure (e.g., LED traffic and street lighting) • Use of renewable sources for energy generation • Sustainable landscape design and management • Parks, open space, habitat, and other recreational facilities • Brownfields redevelopment • Urban forestry and street greening • Public outreach, education, and involvement programs • City green purchasing and investment policies • Surface water protection and stormwater management • Healthy community programs • Adoption of green building standards for city buildings and promotion of green building for city residential and commercial buildings • Transportation, city fleets, and transit options (e.g., increased vehicle efficiency, etc.) • Bike and walking trails and other infrastructure • Promotion of local foods and agriculture • Land use planning and development policies and practices • Creation of sustainability management (e.g., coordinator, committee) • Recycling/waste prevention • Efforts to track and benchmark progress • Regional collaboration (promote multi-city planning, ordinances, etc.) Questions to be addressed We anticipate that the program design might include some minimum best practices and some optional items across the broad range of categories. For the program design, some key questions that will need to be addressed by the project team and stakeholders include: • What categories of activities will be covered (energy, water, development, etc.)? • What are the best practices for each? • How will individual best practices be weighed or compared against one another and updated? • Who will administer the program (including monitoring and verification)? • How will GreenStar Cities fit with other certification programs? • What technical and financial assistance will be necessary for cities to implement this program, and who will provide that assistance? • What funding currently exists to help cities with their initiatives? • How can state funding be aligned to support cities in becoming greener? • Will there be different programs or requirements for different sizes of cities, or different types of cities (e.g., based on size or amount of development)? Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 4) Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update -- Green Building & Development Page 6 GreenStar Cities Initiative Concept Paper July 2008 - 3 - Relation to other programs GreenStar Cities is envisioned to be similar in function to other challenge and rating programs such as the US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED program; although no such program currently exists that serves local governments. Recently, ICLEI, in partnership with the USGBC, started development of a national local government program called “Star Communities Index.” While this effort, like ours, is just getting off the ground, we would strive to work in conjunction with national partners to best meet the needs of Minnesotans. The GreenStar Cities program will be shaped specifically to meet Minnesota Cities’ conditions and needs. GreenStar Cities is intended to be the first initiative of a broader effort—GreenStar Communities—to work with cities, local businesses, schools, congregations, and other community institutions on local actions to become more sustainable. GreenStar Cities is thematically identified with the Minnesota GreenStar Certified Homes and Remodeling program for residential housing, as well as the Environmental Audit Program (EAP) Green Star Awards, although both are separate from GreenStar Cities. Contact Questions or comments can be directed to: Carl Nelson Associate Director, Green Institute 612-278-7117, cnelson@greeninstitute.org Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 4) Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update -- Green Building & Development Page 7 Options to Experience “Sustainable Zoning” in the Park Though there are many future opportunities for sustainability, St. Louis Park has already taken steps to incorporate the concept of “sustainability” into its Zoning Ordinance, such as: • Creation of a mixed-use zoning district with some guidance in the Comprehensive Plan • Provisions requiring bicycle spaces with all new development and redevelopment • Tree replacement and protection ordinance to preserve and enhance the City’s tree canopy • Provisions requiring sidewalk construction in any new subdivision • Parking lot design standards including walkways and landscape islands in vast parking areas • Architectural standards requiring the use of high quality materials in new construction Supplemental opportunity areas • Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction • Renewable Energy: Solar • Renewable Energy: Wind Provided by the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute: Sustainable Community Development Code Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Achievement Level Bronze (Good) Silver (Better) Gold (Best) Remove Obstacles • Allow mixed-use by right in selected zoning districts • Permit solar and wind by- right in certain zones • Allow live-work and accessory dwelling units • Reduce lot-width requirements in appropriate areas • Reduce parking requirements in mixed-use districts • Reduce strict height requirements for wind turbines • Reduce regulations limiting a homeowner’s ability to create a garden at home • Require new single-family developments to include accessory dwelling units • Permit duplex or multi- family development by right in more districts Create Incentives • Offer density bonuses for green roofs • Give zoning bonuses for energy efficiency in building design • Create density bonuses for infill development • Increase minimum density or use intensity standards along major transportation / transit corridors • Offer height increases, other flexibility for use of permeable pavement • Encourage low-energy maintenance landscaping by giving additional landscape credit • Adopt a transfer of development rights program Enact Standards • Require sidewalk construction in all new development • Limit trees on southern sides of buildings • Implement a mandatory development point system for incorporating community objectives • Enact minimum density/intensity requirements • Adopt pedestrian connectivity standards • Enact solar access ordinance • Require bicycle fleets for all hotels • Limit garages on residential lots • Require shower facilities in new office developments • Require a variety of unit sizes in multi-family buildings • Require green roofs • Limit house size where appropriate • Require passive solar access • Require outdoor signage be turned off when business is closed • Require new development to be carbon neutral • Prohibit single-use development in commercial districts Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 4) Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update -- Green Building & Development Page 8 Renewable Energy: Solar Achievement Level Bronze (Good) Silver (Better) Gold (Best) Remove Obstacles • Indentify limiting provisions and craft exceptions for solar • Prohibit solar restrictions in private associations • Allow administrative setback adjustments to allow development to meet solar access requirements • Allow solar panels as a by- right accessory use Create Incentives • Reduce or eliminate permit fees for solar installations • Reduce building permit fees for projects that incorporate solar into overall design • Provide staff assistance to orient new homes for solar access • Allow applicants to earn additional density or height by incorporating solar concepts into overall site design Enact Standards • Require key features of a development to have access to sunshine • Include solar access as a required standard in all res. and commercial design guidelines • Require minimum percentage of energy to come from solar Renewable Energy: Wind Achievement Level Bronze (Good) Silver (Better) Gold (Best) Remove Obstacles • Create zones where wind systems could receive an exception to height regulations • Allow roof-mounted wind systems by right • Eliminate onerous screening requirements that reduce efficiency and cost-effectiveness • Identify zones that are off-limits to wind systems to protect the values of the community • Do not allow the rejection of a wind system based on aesthetic grounds except in areas designated in the zoning ordinance • Work with utility companies to streamline new wind systems and reduce permitting costs • Allow small wind systems as a by-right use in certain districts Create Incentives • Reduce or eliminate permit fees for wind installations • Give credit for wind systems in development review (PUD) • Provide funding assistance through low-interest loans, grants or direct funding for wind systems • Allow excess production in non- commercial settings • Map local areas where wind potential is greatest and most effective • Encourage distributed generation Enact Standards • Adopt standards to avoid case-by- case negotiation • Adopt appropriate noise, setback and ground clearance regulations • Require shadow and noise modeling to ensure that wind systems will not degrade property values of adjacent properties • Require proof of approval by utility companies for net metering • Require wind developers to restore vegetation disturbed during installation Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 4) Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update -- Green Building & Development Page 9 Meeting Date: September 22, 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: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update. Focus Area: • Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best practices. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Council to provide feedback on the information and recommendations provided in this report. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the direction outlined in this report in alignment with the expectations of the City Council? 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 each of the Strategic Directions and related Focus Areas. As discussed at the City Council work session in February, staff will present information for Council consideration on each Vision focus area now through September 2008. The following Strategic Direction and related focus area will be discussed at the meeting: 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. Focus area: • Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best practices. Evaluation The first step for this Vision team was to study citizen input and determine our greatest needs and opportunities to educate and our greatest opportunities for growth. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update Environmental Education for Staff and Public Greatest need Staff began looking at its needs by determining what it was that we were doing to support environmental consciousness, stewardship, best practices, etc. The good news is that we found a tremendous amount of programs, tools, initiatives and practices already utilized throughout the city. However, it was clear based on the research that we could be doing a better job promoting all of these successes. Many were simply part of our everyday business. We identified that communicating and marketing our current environmental assets and initiatives was our most significant immediate need. As a result, we immediately began prioritizing and promoting programs, policies, etc. in front of staff and the public. Since the Strategic Directions were adopted in March 2007, we’ve: • Published over 56 articles related to the environment ranging from resident best practice stories to information about the city’s energy audit and green remodeling tips • Published two specialty green business publications • Enhanced our annual drinking water report (twice!) • Created a central location on the redesigned city website with more than 30 direct links to environmental initiatives, information and data • Incorporated green features into cable programming on our monthly news-magazine show and produced our own new feature show highlighting Green Business Award winners • Organized the Pick Up the Park event that highlighted several spring events hosted by the city or its partners • And more! Room for growth In assessing areas where we can increase education and awareness it became very clear to us that the city has a huge asset related to environmental education: Westwood Hills Nature Center. Westwood sees many successes on a daily basis in its classroom and outdoor activities and receives high praises from residents, program participants and others from outside the city. Yet, there are many residents, visitors and educators unaware of the resource available right in their own backyard. This Vision team believes it’s time that the city considers a strategic marketing plan focusing on Westwood. Therefore, it’s the recommendation of the team that the city embarks on a three-year marketing plan that would begin in 2009. The first year of the marketing plan would have the main goal of introducing and reintroducing Westwood to our residents and visitors and gathering research and evaluation of Westwood and its educational opportunities. While Westwood is certainly an asset worth marketing outside of the city, the Vision team feels that we first must market it so that our residents know that it’s in their backyard. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Subject: Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update Environmental Education for Staff and Public There are two significant components involved in the marketing of Westwood – the actual site and amenities and the educational program offerings. Communications staff will spend time with the front line programmers getting to know the ins and outs of Westwood, and then develop recommendations for communication assets that could used in the marketing plan (i.e. publications, cable television programming, website, etc.). The marketing plan would have a secondary goal, however, targeting a very specific audience: educators. Again, this effort would initially be focused on schools within city boundaries, but the Vision team sees that this area could grow outside of our boundaries quickly. The Parks and Recreation Department has indicated room for growth in this area, despite a long history of promoting itself to all local schools. It may be determined during this first year that it would make sense to begin marketing our programming to other schools outside of St. Louis Park. The second two years of the marketing plan are a little more difficult to predict, but it is expected that we would develop some of the communication assets such as a TV program, specialty publication, advertising campaign, etc. We would implement those actions in 2010 and 2011 and then evaluate the effectiveness. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time, but there is a possibility for future budget impacts related to marketing or publication initiatives in 2010 and 2011. NEXT STEPS: • The Communications Division (Web, Cable TV, publications) will continue to spread the word about the city’s environmental policies, initiatives and educational opportunities • A three-year marketing plan (2009-2011) will be developed for Westwood Hills Nature Center VISION CONSIDERATION: This item is linked directly to 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: • Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best practices. Attachments: None Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Mark Oestrich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 22, 2080 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: Discuss City Manager’s 2008 Performance Evaluation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests feedback on City Council’s desired approach for an annual performance evaluation for the City Manager. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What is the City Council’s desired approach for the City Manager’s 2008 annual performance evaluation? BACKGROUND: The employment agreement between the City and the City Manager states “that the City may conduct an annual review of the Manager’s performance.” The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide feedback to the City Manager on performance so that he can strive for continuous performance improvement based on City Council expectations. There are several options available in the performance evaluation processes. In recent years, Council has hired consultants (Larry Bakken, Jean Morrison, and Bob Wittman) to conduct and/or facilitate discussions on performance. Another option would be to conduct a 360 degree evaluation. A 360 degree evaluation allows the City Council, Department Directors/others and the City Manager to rate the performance of the City Manager. These ratings can then be compared and contrasted and be used to allow for continued development of the Manager. Directors have all been through a 360 degree evaluation process in the past year and Council may find it beneficial for the City Manager to proceed similarly. If Council decides to use this approach, an outside firm would administer the 360 degree evaluation and Council would meet with a facilitator afterwards to review the results. And, as has happened in other years, the City Manager would work with Council on developing plans for growth. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost for this evaluation has been included in the 2008 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Evaluating the performance of the City Manager is integral to the continued implementation of Vision St. Louis Park. Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 22, 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: Communications (Verbal). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Not Applicable. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. BACKGROUND: At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the purpose of information sharing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: None. Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 22, 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: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Mid-Year Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the actions of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission in keeping with the City Councils expectations? BACKGROUND: The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission is to study and consider all phases of public parks and recreation and recommend to the City Council and Independent School District #283 a park and recreation program which best meets the needs of all residents of St. Louis Park. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, along with the Planning Commission, met, reviewed and discussed the Parks, Open Space, and Natural Resources chapter of the comprehensive plan. Throughout the year, staff presented Park Improvement project updates to the Commission such as playground replacement, field maintenance, easements, park dedication, building renovation, etc. The Commission assisted staff to make the annual Park & Run Fun Runs held in May successful. Along with the 5k run event, members assisted in offering a new event at the Aquatic Park. This event, “Splash in Movie at the Pool” was offered on Friday, August 15 and was sponsored by M & I Bank. The Commission participated in the Minnehaha Creek clean up on Saturday, April 19. Two dump truck loads of debris were removed from the creek in this two-hour venture. On June 23, 2008 the Commission, along with the City Council, enjoyed a canoe ride on Minnehaha Creek. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Subject: Agenda Item No. 8 – Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Mid-Year Update Youth Association representatives have attended monthly Commission meetings providing an update of their association and discussing ideas to foster a better relationship with participants, other associations and the city. This year, the Commission has met with the Football Association, Girls Traveling Basketball Association, and the Traveling Basketball Association. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: 2008 Goals Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Subject: Agenda Item No. 8 – Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Mid-Year Update ¾ Athletic Association Relationships: The Commission invites an association to their monthly meetings to continue a positive relationship. ¾ City Vision: Members will keep updated on the vision and participate to meet the goals. ¾ Commissions: The Commission will meet with other commissions as appropriate. ¾ Community Activities for Adults: Members will work with staff on creating activities for adults of all ages. ¾ Events: • 5K run: Members will work with staff to volunteer and assist with marketing of the event in May. • Movie: “Splash in Movie at the Pool” will be offered at the Aquatic Park on Friday, August 15. ¾ Minnehaha Creek Clean-Up: The members will organize a clean up of the creek and creek shores. ¾ Planning Initiatives: Commission members will actively participate in the Active Community Planning Initiative for trails and sidewalks and discussions regarding the comprehension plan. ¾ Recreation Resources: Commission will invite the Council to participate in a joint tour of Minnehaha Creek in canoes. If interest from residents arises, canoe rental may be discussed in the future. ¾ Staff Appreciation Luncheon: Members will hold an appreciation luncheon for staff. 2008 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Goals Meeting Date: September 22, 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: August 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 along with department level reports. These funds are the primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent most of the discretionary use of tax levy dollars. For the month of August, actual revenues (except for property taxes and state aids) and expenditures should generally run about 67% of the annual budget. Significant variances from budget are highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion for the variance. General Fund Revenues: • Permit revenues have already exceeded the annual budget. This has been primarily driven by roofing and siding permits in response to the hail damage from the May 31 storm. The other area that has been a positive revenue producer is the West End redevelopment project. We will be reducing the amount that we consider 2008 revenue at year end by about $51,000 to reflect the amount that is considered unearned until 2009 inspections of the project are completed. • Intergovernmental revenues are below 67% because several state payments are not received until the final quarter of the year. • Charges for service are lagging behind because there is a delay between billing for services and the actual receipt of the revenue. • Transfers In from other funds will be done at year end for the full amount due, but currently show a zero amount. Expenditures: • Finance – The sales tax audit assessment was paid in July in the amount of $61,253.96. This expense is reflected in Finance under Other Expense. As discussed in the June 9, 2008 report to Council, if this expense can’t be covered in the Finance budget, then it will be paid from General Fund reserves. Meeting of August 25, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report • Public Works – Operations has purchased most of the salt and sand needed for the year along with their sign materials which has used a large portion of the supplies budget. Parks and Recreation The Park and Recreation department runs many of its programs during the summer. This causes both revenues and expenditures to go well over the 67% figure. However, the aggregate amounts track well compared to year-to-date (YTD) figures from 2007. Revenues/Expenditures: • Organized Recreation exceeds budget in Services & Other Charges as a result of the annual payments to I.S.D. #283 for community education in the amount of $187,400. • Recreation Center miscellaneous revenue is low because the majority of our ice arena rental revenue comes in the second half of the year. Supplies appear high due to the normal seasonal fluctuations for pool chemicals and concessions. • Environment is high for Services & Other Charges due to the tree work done over the spring and summer months. This item depends on the number of diseased trees and is less controllable than other budget items. • Vehicle Maintenance is exceeding budget as a result of several factors: First, petroleum products (gas, diesel, and lubricants) are exceeding budget due to unprecedented prices. Staff is closely monitoring this line item. Secondly, most parts which will be used in the upfitting process for new vehicles have been purchased for the year. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This report indicates that we are tracking well with budgeted revenues and expenditures. No budget shortfall is evident at this time. It appears that we will be able to have a modest surplus at the end of the year which will increase our fund balance slightly. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 100 GENERAL 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,107,179.00-7,134,840.22- 6,972,338.78- 50.58 |13,170,348.00-6,299,461.30- 47.83 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-22,602.50- 22,602.50- 50.00 |45,205.00-22,602.50- 50.00 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 54.25-229.75-229.75 |237.63- 5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |1,195.07- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-124.20- 84,875.80-.15 |85,000.00-56,762.84- 66.78 4001 REVENUES 14,237,384.00-54.25-7,157,796.67-7,079,587.33-50.27 |13,300,553.00-6,380,259.34-47.97 6001 EXPENDITURES 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 52.50 52.50-|21.50 6001 EXPENDITURES 52.50 52.50-|21.50 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,471,711.00-2,471,711.00-|2,571,039.00-1,769,890.72- 68.84 8065 SALE OF SALVAGE |10,063.00- 8100 INTEREST 325,000.00-86,604.42 411,604.42- 26.65- |292,599.00-61,270.93 20.94- 8200 MISC RECEIPTS |100.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,796,711.00-86,604.42 2,883,315.42-3.10-|2,863,638.00-1,718,782.79-60.02 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,000.00 6,712.59 3.73 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,000.00 6,712.59 3.73 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 16,854,095.00-54.25-7,071,139.75-9,782,955.25-41.96 |15,984,191.00-8,092,308.04-50.63 100 GENERAL 16,854,095.00-54.25-7,071,139.75-9,782,955.25-41.96 |15,984,191.00-8,092,308.04-50.63 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 3 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 110 ADMINISTRATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 178,000.00-1,000.00- 178,820.82-820.82 100.46 |174,000.00-178,999.96- 102.87 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-4,000.00-4,000.00- 50.00 |3,000.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |14,500.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |60.00- 4001 REVENUES 186,000.00-1,000.00-182,820.82-3,179.18-98.29 |191,500.00-179,059.96-93.50 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 511,250.00 46,397.15 404,292.24 106,957.76 79.08 |507,731.60 327,798.24 64.56 6210 SUPPLIES 4,350.00 1,437.69 4,256.56 93.44 97.85 |3,950.00 1,428.63 36.17 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 518,727.00 38,820.86 264,145.78 254,581.22 50.92 |471,249.00 273,571.24 58.05 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,034,327.00 86,655.70 672,694.58 361,632.42 65.04 |982,930.60 602,798.11 61.33 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE 30.00-30.00 |43.25- 8001 OTHER INCOME 30.00-30.00 |43.25- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 8.25 8.25-|6.74 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |.54 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8.25 8.25-|7.28 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 848,327.00 85,655.70 489,852.01 358,474.99 57.74 |791,430.60 423,702.18 53.54 110 ADMINISTRATION 848,327.00 85,655.70 489,852.01 358,474.99 57.74 |791,430.60 423,702.18 53.54 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 4 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 120 FINANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 50,000.00-23,455.50- 26,544.50- 46.91 |47,000.00-48,472.25- 103.13 5200 MISCELLANEOUS |50.00- 4001 REVENUES 50,000.00-23,455.50-26,544.50-46.91 |47,000.00-48,522.25-103.24 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 951,407.00 85,306.95 732,170.12 219,236.88 76.96 |898,670.00 576,892.23 64.19 6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 254.36 2,590.53 1,409.47 64.76 |3,600.00 3,205.85 89.05 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 167,356.00 1,525.68 75,812.72 91,543.28 45.30 |150,762.00 173,318.33 114.96 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,122,763.00 87,086.99 810,573.37 312,189.63 72.19 |1,053,032.00 753,416.41 71.55 8001 OTHER INCOME 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 175.00- 5,625.00-5,625.00 |6,000.00-2,450.00- 40.83 8200 MISC REVENUE 281.71-281.71 |4.80- 8001 OTHER INCOME 175.00-5,906.71-5,906.71 |6,000.00-2,454.80-40.91 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 150.00 61,253.96 61,103.96- ********* |150.00 118.37 78.91 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 300.00 2.96 297.04 .99 |300.00 12.81 4.27 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 450.00 61,256.92 60,806.92-*********|450.00 131.18 29.15 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,073,213.00 86,911.99 842,468.08 230,744.92 78.50 |1,000,482.00 702,570.54 70.22 120 FINANCE 1,073,213.00 86,911.99 842,468.08 230,744.92 78.50 |1,000,482.00 702,570.54 70.22 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 5 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 9,000.00-3,142.00-5,858.00- 34.91 |9,000.00-12,018.00- 133.53 4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-3,142.00-5,858.00-34.91 |9,000.00-12,018.00-133.53 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 459,624.00 35,439.57 306,857.20 152,766.80 66.76 |433,712.46 301,329.40 69.48 6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 45.05 678.28 1,321.72 33.91 |2,000.00 1,257.49 62.87 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 168,050.00 8,941.76 89,699.10 78,350.90 53.38 |132,660.00 78,853.60 59.44 6001 EXPENDITURES 629,674.00 44,426.38 397,234.58 232,439.42 63.09 |568,372.46 381,440.49 67.11 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC REVENUE |117.50- 8001 OTHER INCOME |117.50- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 620,674.00 44,426.38 394,092.58 226,581.42 63.49 |559,372.46 369,304.99 66.02 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 620,674.00 44,426.38 394,092.58 226,581.42 63.49 |559,372.46 369,304.99 66.02 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 6 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 12,000.00-1,205.00- 8,505.00-3,495.00- 70.88 |12,000.00-7,535.00- 62.79 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 572,675.00-3,641.64- 295,199.73- 277,475.27- 51.55 |553,028.63-305,112.69- 55.17 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 14,862.42 14,862.42 14,862.42-| 4001 REVENUES 584,675.00-10,015.78 288,842.31-295,832.69-49.40 |565,028.63-312,647.69-55.33 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,019,147.00 107,021.57 919,238.93 99,908.07 90.20 |968,204.14 636,721.78 65.76 6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 43.45 449.50 2,550.50 14.98 |3,000.00 736.21 24.54 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 57,750.00 1,307.17 8,929.78 48,820.22 15.46 |52,750.00 52,636.79 99.79 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,080,897.00 108,372.19 928,618.21 152,278.79 85.91 |1,024,954.14 690,094.78 67.33 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 496,222.00 118,387.97 639,775.90 143,553.90-128.93 |459,925.51 377,447.09 82.07 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 496,222.00 118,387.97 639,775.90 143,553.90-128.93 |459,925.51 377,447.09 82.07 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 7 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 8,200.00-8,200.00-|8,200.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,563.33- 11,563.33-3,436.67- 77.09 |16,400.00-11,716.68- 71.44 4001 REVENUES 23,200.00-1,563.33-11,563.33-11,636.67-49.84 |24,600.00-11,716.68-47.63 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 510,784.00 37,685.41 334,378.52 176,405.48 65.46 |484,355.24 328,626.46 67.85 6210 SUPPLIES 109,500.00 3,570.38 49,622.62 59,877.38 45.32 |110,500.00 39,664.42 35.90 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 31,000.00 1,191.94 4,422.04 26,577.96 14.26 |30,000.00 11,042.23 36.81 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 536,642.00 23,528.59 277,862.27 258,779.73 51.78 |539,512.00 306,022.50 56.72 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,187,926.00 65,976.32 666,285.45 521,640.55 56.09 |1,164,367.24 685,355.61 58.86 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,164,726.00 64,412.99 654,722.12 510,003.88 56.21 |1,139,767.24 673,638.93 59.10 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,164,726.00 64,412.99 654,722.12 510,003.88 56.21 |1,139,767.24 673,638.93 59.10 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 8 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 566,679.00 46,756.93 449,335.41 117,343.59 79.29 |613,992.71 400,123.46 65.17 6210 SUPPLIES 31,200.00 2,621.82 17,649.78 13,550.22 56.57 |29,400.00 20,155.04 68.55 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,300.00 1,914.16 385.84 83.22 |300.00 13,726.87 4,575.62 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,660.00 62,505.19 487,831.88 372,828.12 56.68 |846,483.00 562,367.03 66.44 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,460,839.00 111,883.94 956,731.23 504,107.77 65.49 |1,490,175.71 996,372.40 66.86 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 34.57 34.57-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 34.57 34.57-| 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,460,839.00 111,883.94 956,765.80 504,073.20 65.49 |1,490,175.71 996,372.40 66.86 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,460,839.00 111,883.94 956,765.80 504,073.20 65.49 |1,490,175.71 996,372.40 66.86 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 9 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 173,932.00 6,154.48 57,064.25 116,867.75 32.81 |99,061.47 45,864.18 46.30 6210 SUPPLIES |93.16 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |797.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 113,850.00 8,204.20 102,358.41 11,491.59 89.91 |119,690.00 77,753.46 64.96 6001 EXPENDITURES 287,782.00 14,358.68 159,422.66 128,359.34 55.40 |218,751.47 124,507.80 56.92 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 1.15 16.18 16.18-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1.15 16.18 16.18-| 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 287,782.00 14,359.83 159,438.84 128,343.16 55.40 |218,751.47 124,507.80 56.92 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 287,782.00 14,359.83 159,438.84 128,343.16 55.40 |218,751.47 124,507.80 56.92 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 10 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 160 POLICE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 20.00-20.00 |70.00- 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 302,600.00- 23,643.12- 186,623.71- 115,976.29- 61.67 |306,600.00-165,456.20- 53.96 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 882,160.00- 26,613.58- 336,745.58- 545,414.42- 38.17 |841,075.15-387,506.33- 46.07 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 110,300.00- 14,156.88- 56,086.36- 54,213.64- 50.85 |119,300.00-68,781.02- 57.65 4001 REVENUES 1,295,060.00-64,413.58-579,475.65-715,584.35-44.75 |1,266,975.15-621,813.55-49.08 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,185,321.00 472,077.22 4,086,882.29 2,098,438.71 66.07 |5,965,980.09 3,821,205.21 64.05 6210 SUPPLIES 155,300.00 3,613.74 58,294.16 97,005.84 37.54 |142,700.00 56,445.63 39.56 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,550.00 1,623.75 7,536.88 26,013.12 22.46 |27,350.00 12,097.40 44.23 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 552,343.00 14,552.42 177,691.85 374,651.15 32.17 |540,073.00 254,119.32 47.05 6001 EXPENDITURES 6,926,514.00 491,867.13 4,330,405.18 2,596,108.82 62.52 |6,676,103.09 4,143,867.56 62.07 8001 OTHER INCOME 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-163.34-1,836.66-8.17 |2,000.00-3,242.20- 162.11 8100 INTEREST |8,500.00-279.67- 3.29 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00-163.34-1,836.66-8.17 |10,500.00-3,521.87-33.54 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00 262.48 52.50 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 100.00 12.68-112.68 12.68- |163.07 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 600.00 12.68-612.68 2.11-|500.00 425.55 85.11 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 5,630,054.00 427,453.55 3,750,753.51 1,879,300.49 66.62 |5,399,127.94 3,518,957.69 65.18 160 POLICE 5,630,054.00 427,453.55 3,750,753.51 1,879,300.49 66.62 |5,399,127.94 3,518,957.69 65.18 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 11 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 73,127.00 5,616.92 48,943.40 24,183.60 66.93 |71,292.35 46,094.17 64.66 6210 SUPPLIES 1,100.00 31.73 1,068.27 2.88 |1,100.00 208.94 18.99 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 9,756.00 164.34 5,089.75 4,666.25 52.17 |44,005.00 41,125.68 93.46 6001 EXPENDITURES 83,983.00 5,781.26 54,064.88 29,918.12 64.38 |116,397.35 87,428.79 75.11 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 83,983.00-83,983.00-|83,797.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 83,983.00-83,983.00-|83,797.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 5,781.26 54,064.88 54,064.88-|32,600.35 87,428.79 268.18 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 5,781.26 54,064.88 54,064.88-|32,600.35 87,428.79 268.18 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 12 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 165 FIRE PROTECTION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 55,000.00-3,632.99- 28,601.52- 26,398.48- 52.00 |55,000.00-28,189.53- 51.25 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 332,000.00-332,000.00-|298,024.00-20,410.70- 6.85 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-4,732.50- 9,725.00-5,725.00 243.13 |5,500.00-1,545.00- 28.09 4001 REVENUES 391,000.00-8,365.49-38,326.52-352,673.48-9.80 |358,524.00-50,145.23-13.99 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,712,378.00 199,045.50 1,720,221.86 992,156.14 63.42 |2,494,897.00 1,685,407.83 67.55 6210 SUPPLIES 93,648.00 7,448.27 60,509.06 33,138.94 64.61 |60,398.00 17,508.77 28.99 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,700.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,092.00 12,360.54 58,638.75 164,453.25 26.28 |199,527.00 115,386.77 57.83 6001 EXPENDITURES 3,029,118.00 218,854.31 1,839,369.67 1,189,748.33 60.72 |2,756,522.00 1,818,303.37 65.96 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 100.00-100.00 | 8200 MISC REVENUE |23.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-100.00 |23.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |4.36 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |11.95 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |16.31 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,638,118.00 210,488.82 1,800,943.15 837,174.85 68.27 |2,397,998.00 1,768,151.45 73.73 165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,638,118.00 210,488.82 1,800,943.15 837,174.85 68.27 |2,397,998.00 1,768,151.45 73.73 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 13 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,392,615.00- 477,237.07- 2,573,523.15- 180,908.15 107.56 |2,347,200.00-1,668,516.09- 71.09 4270 FINES & FORFEITS |400.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 445.65-445.65 | 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 800.00-42.00-777.00-23.00- 97.13 |800.00-16,474.91 2,059.36- 4001 REVENUES 2,393,415.00-477,279.07-2,574,745.80-181,330.80 107.58 |2,348,000.00-1,652,441.18-70.38 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,771,747.00 136,006.25 1,176,479.76 595,267.24 66.40 |1,703,179.00 1,089,131.60 63.95 6210 SUPPLIES 11,500.00 2,121.23 9,978.79 1,521.21 86.77 |12,500.00 5,338.59 42.71 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 69,627.00 11,398.95 37,784.75 31,842.25 54.27 |77,627.00 44,301.21 57.07 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,852,874.00 149,526.43 1,224,243.30 628,630.70 66.07 |1,793,306.00 1,138,771.40 63.50 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC RECEIPTS 225.60-225.60 |40.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 225.60-225.60 |40.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 117.68 117.68-|11,959.01 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 117.68 117.68-|11,959.01 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 540,541.00-327,752.64-1,350,610.42-810,069.42 249.86 |554,694.00-501,750.77-90.46 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 540,541.00-327,752.64-1,350,610.42-810,069.42 249.86 |554,694.00-501,750.77-90.46 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 14 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |3,000.00-12,343.56- 411.45 4001 REVENUES |3,000.00-12,343.56-411.45 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 793,133.00 61,174.86 507,707.08 285,425.92 64.01 |766,936.63 517,476.52 67.47 6210 SUPPLIES 4,500.00 55.97 1,317.45 3,182.55 29.28 |5,000.00 1,819.21 36.38 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,500.00 1,500.00 |2,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 33,450.00 1,678.63 19,913.31 13,536.69 59.53 |25,650.00 14,337.21 55.90 6001 EXPENDITURES 832,583.00 62,909.46 528,937.84 303,645.16 63.53 |799,586.63 533,632.94 66.74 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 832,583.00 62,909.46 528,937.84 303,645.16 63.53 |796,586.63 521,289.38 65.44 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 832,583.00 62,909.46 528,937.84 303,645.16 63.53 |796,586.63 521,289.38 65.44 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 15 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-7,100.00- 65,000.00- 10,000.00- 86.67 |48,000.00-99,650.00- 207.60 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-100.00- 1,075.00- 328,925.00-.33 |300,000.00-134,436.93- 44.81 4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-7,200.00-66,075.00-338,925.00-16.31 |348,000.00-234,086.93-67.27 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 690,511.00 57,539.87 473,661.64 216,849.36 68.60 |660,469.39 463,728.52 70.21 6210 SUPPLIES 7,000.00 630.50 3,914.37 3,085.63 55.92 |6,800.00 2,730.29 40.15 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |1,600.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 85,671.00 424.76 17,173.44 68,497.56 20.05 |76,433.00 66,596.55 87.13 6001 EXPENDITURES 785,182.00 58,595.13 494,749.45 290,432.55 63.01 |745,302.39 533,055.36 71.52 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 25.27 25.27-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 25.27 25.27-| 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 380,182.00 51,395.13 428,699.72 48,517.72-112.76 |397,302.39 298,968.43 75.25 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 380,182.00 51,395.13 428,699.72 48,517.72-112.76 |397,302.39 298,968.43 75.25 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 16 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 100.00-30.00-70.00- 30.00 |300.00-60.00- 20.00 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 400.00-683.00-283.00 170.75 |460.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-440,862.40-9,137.60- 97.97 |430,000.00-401,963.30- 93.48 5200 MISCELLANEOUS |10,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 450,500.00-441,575.40-8,924.60-98.02 |440,300.00-402,483.30-91.41 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,219,515.00 90,731.56 806,891.68 412,623.32 66.16 |1,189,579.99 785,595.41 66.04 6210 SUPPLIES 331,000.00 66,001.43 308,976.94 22,023.06 93.35 |305,500.00 217,676.20 71.25 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 755.34 755.34-| 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 861,898.00 56,284.58 301,345.13 560,552.87 34.96 |800,583.00 341,206.56 42.62 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 248.23 248.23-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 2,412,413.00 213,017.57 1,418,217.32 994,195.68 58.79 |2,295,662.99 1,344,478.17 58.57 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,961,913.00 213,017.57 976,641.92 985,271.08 49.78 |1,855,362.99 941,994.87 50.77 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 1,961,913.00 213,017.57 976,641.92 985,271.08 49.78 |1,855,362.99 941,994.87 50.77 01000 GENERAL FUND 3.00-1,169,277.70 3,255,406.18 3,255,409.18-**********|1.71-2,210,275.73 ********** Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 17 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 3,750,197.00-1,875,098.50- 1,875,098.50- 50.00 |3,540,854.00-1,770,427.92- 50.00 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-22,351.00- 22,351.00- 50.00 |44,702.00-22,351.00- 50.00 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 242,070.00-3,475.60- 154,786.70- 87,283.30- 63.94 |242,870.00-183,713.15- 75.64 5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |27,569.35- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 19,600.00-2,751.50- 9,558.22- 10,041.78- 48.77 |19,600.00-17,146.66- 87.48 4001 REVENUES 4,056,569.00-6,227.10-2,061,794.42-1,994,774.58-50.83 |3,848,026.00-2,021,208.08-52.53 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 711,222.00 53,349.44 500,492.64 210,729.36 70.37 |685,781.00 493,645.64 71.98 6210 SUPPLIES 66,892.00 1,340.89 29,767.22 37,124.78 44.50 |69,832.00 22,306.69 31.94 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 472,585.00 29,058.74 387,459.38 85,125.62 81.99 |467,741.00 381,912.81 81.65 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,250,699.00 83,749.07 917,719.24 332,979.76 73.38 |1,223,354.00 897,865.14 73.39 8001 OTHER INCOME 8100 INTEREST 1,600.00-1,600.00-|8,000.00- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,100.00-3,000.00- 10,100.00- 22.90 |18,600.00-3,405.00- 18.31 8200 MISC REVENUE 25,846.00- 25,345.89- 25,345.89 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 14,700.00-25,846.00-28,345.89-13,645.89 192.83 |26,600.00-3,405.00-12.80 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |12.01 8580 MISC EXPENSE |1,316.50 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 22.96 93.99 93.99-|10,955.73 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 22.96 93.99 93.99-|12,284.24 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,820,570.00-51,698.93 1,172,327.08-1,648,242.92-41.56 |2,651,272.00-1,114,463.70-42.04 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 2,820,570.00-51,698.93 1,172,327.08-1,648,242.92-41.56 |2,651,272.00-1,114,463.70-42.04 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 18 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 201 RECREATION CENTER 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645,500.00- 96,983.26- 541,696.78- 103,803.22- 83.92 |642,500.00-575,718.15- 89.61 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 691,200.00- 76,639.09- 420,283.80- 270,916.20- 60.80 |678,200.00-392,333.71- 57.85 4001 REVENUES 1,336,700.00-173,622.35-961,980.58-374,719.42-71.97 |1,320,700.00-968,051.86-73.30 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 765,999.00 75,027.92 552,013.58 213,985.42 72.06 |735,941.56 536,548.19 72.91 6210 SUPPLIES 167,100.00 18,660.20 142,864.64 24,235.36 85.50 |160,300.00 146,460.86 91.37 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |4,832.97 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 413,284.00 35,283.83 291,217.85 122,066.15 70.46 |411,358.00 251,793.64 61.21 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 12,000.00 12,000.00 |12,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,358,383.00 128,971.95 986,096.07 372,286.93 72.59 |1,319,599.56 939,635.66 71.21 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 2.28 2.28-|10.12 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2.28 2.28-|10.12 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 21,683.00 44,650.40-24,117.77 2,434.77-111.23 |1,100.44-28,406.08-2,581.34 201 RECREATION CENTER 21,683.00 44,650.40-24,117.77 2,434.77-111.23 |1,100.44-28,406.08-2,581.34 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 19 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 350.00- 5,700.00-5,700.00 |5,725.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 8,700.00-8,700.00-|8,700.00-2,700.00- 31.03 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 11,600.00-7,851.70- 33,823.84- 22,223.84 291.58 |10,600.00-22,754.03- 214.66 4001 REVENUES 20,300.00-8,201.70-39,523.84-19,223.84 194.70 |19,300.00-31,179.03-161.55 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 961,356.00 78,669.25 682,451.06 278,904.94 70.99 |933,626.73 656,853.39 70.36 6210 SUPPLIES 88,700.00 10,726.65 64,484.85 24,215.15 72.70 |88,700.00 64,009.96 72.16 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,000.00 1,982.01 2,017.99 49.55 |4,000.00 3,196.12 79.90 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 316,462.00 20,380.00 156,881.21 159,580.79 49.57 |300,055.00 207,659.85 69.21 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,377,518.00 109,775.90 905,799.13 471,718.87 65.76 |1,333,381.73 931,719.32 69.88 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,357,218.00 101,574.20 866,275.29 490,942.71 63.83 |1,314,081.73 900,540.29 68.53 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,357,218.00 101,574.20 866,275.29 490,942.71 63.83 |1,314,081.73 900,540.29 68.53 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 20 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 80,150.00-2,385.95- 56,812.55- 23,337.45- 70.88 |78,700.00-58,995.74- 74.96 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30.00-55.00-55.00 |394.50- 4001 REVENUES 80,150.00-2,415.95-56,867.55-23,282.45-70.95 |78,700.00-59,390.24-75.46 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 404,679.00 30,869.08 267,232.58 137,446.42 66.04 |394,252.59 276,075.33 70.02 6210 SUPPLIES 22,650.00 2,327.32 12,432.27 10,217.73 54.89 |22,300.00 12,663.43 56.79 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |200.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 39,349.00 4,452.36 20,006.20 19,342.80 50.84 |35,532.00 18,598.27 52.34 6001 EXPENDITURES 466,678.00 37,648.76 299,671.05 167,006.95 64.21 |452,084.59 307,537.03 68.03 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 1,817.00-1,817.00 |5,729.42- 8001 OTHER INCOME 1,817.00-1,817.00 |5,729.42- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |419.59 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |419.59 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 386,528.00 35,232.81 240,986.50 145,541.50 62.35 |373,384.59 242,836.96 65.04 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 386,528.00 35,232.81 240,986.50 145,541.50 62.35 |373,384.59 242,836.96 65.04 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 21 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 204 ENVIRONMENT 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 29,500.00- 29,500.00 | 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 81,750.00- 23,609.97- 75,275.86-6,474.14- 92.08 |69,450.00-150,670.19- 216.95 4001 REVENUES 81,750.00-23,609.97-104,775.86-23,025.86 128.17 |69,450.00-150,670.19-216.95 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 99,297.00 12,313.72 97,210.75 2,086.25 97.90 |96,662.52 74,582.89 77.16 6210 SUPPLIES 17,900.00 2,729.37 11,493.14 6,406.86 64.21 |13,600.00 6,808.48 50.06 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 500.00 500.00 |500.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 171,285.00 41,668.96 188,182.98 16,897.98- 109.87 |165,835.00 210,151.04 126.72 6001 EXPENDITURES 288,982.00 56,712.05 296,886.87 7,904.87-102.74 |276,597.52 291,542.41 105.40 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 500.00 25.00 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 500.00 25.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 209,232.00 33,102.08 192,111.01 17,120.99 91.82 |209,147.52 141,372.22 67.59 204 ENVIRONMENT 209,232.00 33,102.08 192,111.01 17,120.99 91.82 |209,147.52 141,372.22 67.59 Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 22 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:46:39R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 11,700.00-1,392.12- 6,084.21-5,615.79- 52.00 |11,700.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |35,000.00-17,871.73- 51.06 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,661.00-100,661.00-|100,661.00- 4001 REVENUES 112,361.00-1,392.12-6,084.21-106,276.79-5.41 |147,361.00-17,871.73-12.13 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 461,301.00 34,761.76 310,658.98 150,642.02 67.34 |440,063.73 288,744.44 65.61 6210 SUPPLIES 432,050.00 67,978.80 419,258.91 12,791.09 97.04 |414,100.00 297,767.36 71.91 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |225.22 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 130,939.00 4,874.79 106,927.40 24,011.60 81.66 |140,210.00 91,387.19 65.18 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,024,290.00 107,615.35 836,845.29 187,444.71 81.70 |994,373.73 678,124.21 68.20 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 75,000.00-75,000.00-|100,000.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 75,000.00-75,000.00-|100,000.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT 8,981.00 8,981.00 |8,745.73 5,830.64 66.67 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 7.87 62.61 62.61-| 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 31.82 31.82-| 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8,981.00 7.87 94.43 8,886.57 1.05 |8,745.73 5,830.64 66.67 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 845,910.00 106,231.10 830,855.51 15,054.49 98.22 |755,758.46 666,083.12 88.13 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 845,910.00 106,231.10 830,855.51 15,054.49 98.22 |755,758.46 666,083.12 88.13 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 1.00 283,188.72 982,019.00 982,018.00-*********|.14-807,962.81 ********** Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 23 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:14:54R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 14,107,179.00-7,134,840.22- 6,972,338.78- 50.58 |13,170,348.00-6,299,461.30- 47.83 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,712,715.00- 490,175.06- 2,854,500.49- 141,785.49 105.23 |2,636,500.00-1,983,020.58- 75.21 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,000.00- 23,643.12- 191,306.71- 119,693.29- 61.51 |309,600.00-166,316.20- 53.72 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,709,365.00- 26,613.58- 800,656.13- 908,708.87- 46.84 |1,628,804.15-832,482.83- 51.11 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,084,975.00- 22,727.27- 389,690.34- 695,284.66- 35.92 |1,045,828.63-566,532.17- 54.17 5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |1,195.07- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00- 13,299.09 3,174.89 103,174.89-3.17- |111,400.00-68,529.52- 61.52 4001 REVENUES 20,025,234.00-549,859.94-11,367,819.00-8,657,415.00-56.77 |18,902,480.78-9,917,537.67-52.47 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 17,638,555.00 1,386,954.24 12,024,124.38 5,614,430.62 68.17 |16,858,062.07 11,025,995.01 65.40 6210 SUPPLIES 758,098.00 87,843.89 518,269.77 239,828.23 68.36 |686,448.00 368,268.43 53.65 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 71,350.00 2,815.69 14,628.42 56,721.58 20.50 |63,950.00 37,663.50 58.90 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 4,258,872.00 241,697.67 1,924,329.42 2,334,542.58 45.18 |4,077,004.00 2,401,617.75 58.91 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 248.23 248.23-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 22,726,875.00 1,719,311.49 14,481,600.22 8,245,274.78 63.72 |21,685,464.07 13,833,544.69 63.79 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,555,694.00-2,555,694.00-|2,654,836.00-1,769,890.72- 66.67 8065 SALE OF SALVAGE |10,063.00- 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 2,000.00-163.34-1,836.66-8.17 |2,000.00-3,242.20- 162.11 8100 INTEREST 325,000.00-86,604.42 411,604.42- 26.65- |301,099.00-60,991.26 20.26- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 100.00-100.00 | 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 175.00- 5,625.00-5,625.00 |6,000.00-2,450.00- 40.83 8200 MISC REVENUE 537.31-537.31 |328.55- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,882,694.00-175.00-80,178.77 2,962,872.77-2.78-|2,963,935.00-1,724,983.21-58.20 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 8.25 8.25-|11.10 8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,650.00 61,253.96 119,396.04 33.91 |180,650.00 7,093.44 3.93 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 400.00 1.15 183.98 216.02 46.00 |300.00 12,147.38 4,049.13 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 181,050.00 1.15 61,446.19 119,603.81 33.94 |180,950.00 19,251.92 10.64 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3.00-1,169,277.70 3,255,406.18 3,255,409.18-**********|1.71-2,210,275.73 ********** 01000 GENERAL FUND 3.00-1,169,277.70 3,255,406.18 3,255,409.18-**********|1.71-2,210,275.73 ********** Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 24 9/18/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:14:54R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2008 20088/31/2008 <==========================================>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 3,750,197.00-1,875,098.50- 1,875,098.50- 50.00 |3,540,854.00-1,770,427.92- 50.00 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 350.00- 5,700.00-5,700.00 |5,725.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 56,402.00-1,392.12- 57,935.21-1,533.21 102.72 |56,402.00-22,351.00- 39.63 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,058,170.00- 126,454.78- 828,571.89- 229,598.11- 78.30 |1,077,220.00-989,668.96- 91.87 5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |27,569.35- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 823,061.00- 87,272.29- 463,720.86- 359,340.14- 56.34 |809,061.00-432,628.90- 53.47 4001 REVENUES 5,687,830.00-215,469.19-3,231,026.46-2,456,803.54-56.81 |5,483,537.00-3,248,371.13-59.24 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,403,854.00 284,991.17 2,410,059.59 993,794.41 70.80 |3,286,328.13 2,326,449.88 70.79 6210 SUPPLIES 795,292.00 103,763.23 680,301.03 114,990.97 85.54 |768,832.00 550,016.78 71.54 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,500.00 1,982.01 2,517.99 44.04 |4,500.00 8,454.31 187.87 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,543,904.00 135,718.68 1,150,675.02 393,228.98 74.53 |1,520,731.00 1,161,502.80 76.38 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 19,000.00 19,000.00 |19,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 5,766,550.00 524,473.08 4,243,017.65 1,523,532.35 73.58 |5,599,391.13 4,046,423.77 72.27 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 75,000.00-75,000.00-|100,000.00- 8100 INTEREST 1,600.00-1,600.00-|8,000.00- 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 11,100.00-4,817.00-6,283.00- 43.40 |16,600.00-8,634.42- 52.01 8200 MISC REVENUE 25,846.00- 25,345.89- 25,345.89 | 8001 OTHER INCOME 87,700.00-25,846.00-30,162.89-57,537.11-34.39 |124,600.00-8,634.42-6.93 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8510 TRANSFERS OUT 8,981.00 8,981.00 |8,745.73 5,830.64 66.67 8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 7.87 64.89 64.89-|22.13 8580 MISC EXPENSE |1,316.50 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 22.96 125.81 125.81-|11,375.32 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8,981.00 30.83 190.70 8,790.30 2.12 |8,745.73 18,544.59 212.04 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1.00 283,188.72 982,019.00 982,018.00-*********|.14-807,962.81 ********** 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 1.00 283,188.72 982,019.00 982,018.00-*********|.14-807,962.81 ********** Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 9) Subject: August 2008 Monthly Financial Report Page 25 Meeting Date: September 2, 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: Comcast Franchise Fee Audit for 2005, 2006 & 2007. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. Council is asked to advise staff if it has questions or disagrees with staffs plan to conduct a franchise fee audit POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should a franchise fee audit be completed? BACKGROUND: Past Audits or Fee Reviews of the Cable Company In 2002 the City hired Scott Lewis & Associates to conduct a franchise fee audit for 2000 & 2001. The audit cost $12,515, which was reimbursed by Time Warner Cable as required by franchise. Time Warner also made an additional payment to the City of $6,493 for uncollected franchise fees. In addition, Time Warner discovered 83 addresses that were not identified in their billing system as St. Louis Park addresses, and added new categories to franchise fee calculation statements to allow easier tracking of revenue. In 2005 the City hired Front Range Consulting (principal: Dick Treich) to conduct a franchise fee review for 2002-2004, as part of the franchise transfer from Time Warner Cable to Comcast. As a result of this review, the “franchise fee on a fee issue” was resolved so that the City would receive additional revenue in the future. (Front Range estimated $60,000 over the 3 year period that could have been collected related to the “franchise fee on a fee” issue). The fee review is less thorough than an audit, was conducted in a partnership with Minneapolis, Bloomington and Shakopee, and cost the City $4,250. This review was settled as part of the franchise renewal agreement with Time Warner in December, 2005. Telecommunications Commission Review and Action, February 21, 2008 The Commission discussion included these main points: • Comcast doesn’t provide detailed monthly reports that were provided by Time Warner, so there is no way to verify that franchise fee payments are correct • A franchise fee audit or review is the primary tool to verify what Comcast owes the City • The City should verify the funding as part of the due diligence of enforcing the franchise, whether or not any significant revenues are discovered. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Subject: Comcast Franchise Fee Audit for 2005, 2006 & 2007 After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Dworsky, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, to direct staff to prepare requests for proposal for a cable television franchise fee audit, at the discretion of City Council to audit or review, for 2005 through 2007. Request for Proposal and Selection Process Staff contacted other local franchise authorities (LFA’s) and participated in a joint Request for Proposal, expecting that pooling resources would save money and be less inconvenient for Comcast because there would be only one firm conducting an audit. Twelve LFA’s were involved in drafting the RFP and selecting an audit firm, representing about 35 metro area communities because about half of the franchise authorities are consortiums. Included in the process were staff representatives from Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Golden Valley and many more. Some of the other LFA’s were former Time Warner properties like St. Louis Park, which was identified in the RFP in case that complicates the audit. The RFP was sent to five respected firms that have done franchise fee audits or reviews of Comcast in Minnesota or elsewhere. There were three qualified responses, from Scott Lewis and Associates, Dick Treich and Garth Ashpaugh, and Tautges Redpath, the only Minnesota-based auditor. Staff representatives evaluated the proposals and the majority voted to select the Scott Lewis proposal because it was complete, cost less than the other proposals and several cities had positive experiences hiring Lewis in the past, including St. Louis Park. Over the next few months each LFA will review and sign a contract if they choose to proceed, with a price break of 5% if 2-4 LFA’s join the audit and 10% if 5-9 LFA’s join the audit. The not-to-exceed cost for St. Louis Park is $13,500. Mr. Lewis has worked frequently with Comcast in the past and doesn’t expect to travel to Comcast’s Philadelphia headquarters or to St. Louis Park as part of the audit. (His travel expenses are not included in his proposal). Typically, he signs a confidentiality agreement and Comcast provides the data he requests, which he returns after preparing tables that can be released as public information. The Telecommunications Commission reviewed the proposed contract on August 13 and did not express any concerns, and the contract has been reviewed by Finance Director Bruce DeJong. Staff will also have the City Attorney review the contract as well. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The not-to-exceed cost for St. Louis Park would be $13,500, plus Mr. Lewis’ travel expenses if required. There would be a 5% discount if at least one other LFA chooses to audit Comcast as part of the RFP. As suggested by the Telecommunications Commission in 2007, City staff included $15,000 in the Cable TV budget for 2008 to conduct the audit. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Subject: Comcast Franchise Fee Audit for 2005, 2006 & 2007 VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Lewis and Associates contract dated July 30, 2008 Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 4 Subject: Comcast Franchise Fee Audit for 2005, 2006 & 2007 LEWIS AND ASSOCIATES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3275 Dockside Drive- Cooper City, Florida 33026-Phone/Fax (954) 447-1099 July 30, 2008 Mr. Reg Dunlap Civic TV Coordinator City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 Dear Mr. Dunlap: This letter is to set forth the terms of our proposal to perform a Franchise and PEG fee compliance examination on the books of Comcast Cablevision covering the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007. In connection with this engagement, the services to be performed are as follows: 1. Identify specific sources of revenue subject to franchise fee application by reviewing franchise agreement and related ordinance; 2. Obtain and examine relevant accounting data supporting cable television operator’s franchise fee remittances; 3. Identify all revenue sources by year, recalculate the subscriber and non subscriber revenue components, and conduct search for unreported revenues; 4. Test the cable operator’s customer coding for to determine if all active subscribers residing within the respective incorporated boundaries were properly coded to the appropriate designated franchise area; 5. Recalculate the cable operator’s PEG fee obligation; 6. Issue report summarizing and explaining findings; 7. Provide assistance in negotiating financial settlement with cable television operator; We will require your assistance in the following areas: 1. Provide copy of franchise agreements and related ordinances; 2. Provide copies of all Franchise and PEG fee payment remittances along with supporting documentation covering the period under examination; Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 5 Subject: Comcast Franchise Fee Audit for 2005, 2006 & 2007 3. Provide a listing of zip codes located within the incorporated boundaries of the City, including zip codes that may overlap with other jurisdictions; 4. Provide separate electronic or hard copy listing of all street addresses located within the incorporated boundaries of the City; Street names should be sorted in alphabetical order, street numbers in numerical sequence, with related house numbers also in numerical sequence; 5. Provide verification of specific addresses which appear on exception listing submitted by Lewis & Associates; For services rendered in connection with the scope of this assignment our fee for services rendered exclusive of travel expense totals $13,500 less applicable discounts, broken out as follows: 1. Reconciliation of PEG fees owed versus paid -$1,000; 2. Reconciliation of franchise fees owed versus paid on all applicable revenues (other than advertising revenues)-$11,000; 3. Reconciliation of franchise fees owed versus paid on advertising revenue-$1,000 4. Jurisdictional Coding-$500; The above fee is payable as follows : 25% Upon Execution of Agreement; 70% Upon Delivery and acceptance of finalized report; 5% Upon Completion of Settlement Negotiations with Comcast; Travel Expenses: It has been our experience for Comcast to send all required documentation to our offices in Florida. In the unlikely event that travel is necessary to complete this project, the client will be provided with an estimate of such costs for pre- approval. Travel expense if any will be billed as incurred and allocated equally among the project participants. Applicable Discounts: 2-4 Participating LFA’s 5% 5-9 Participating LFA’s 10% 10-15 Particiaping LFA’s 15% In connection with any litigation arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party should be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs, including such fees and costs incurred in trial and in appellate proceedings. The parties recognize that other provisions of this Agreement provide for consideration for this provision. Meeting of September 22, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 6 Subject: Comcast Franchise Fee Audit for 2005, 2006 & 2007 Lewis And Associates shall, at all times hereafter, indemnify and hold harmless the client, its agents, servants, and employees from and against any claim demand or cause of action of any kind or nature (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising out of negligent acts, errors or omissions of Lewis And Associates, its agents, servants, or employees in the performance of services under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this agreement shall be deemed or constructed to create the relationship of principal and agent or of partnership or of joint venture of any association whatsoever between Lewis And Associates and Client it being expressly understood and agreed that the relationship created by this Agreement is that of an independent contractor. If the foregoing meets with your approval, please sign this letter where indicated and return an executed copy. We look forward to working with you and the other City Officials on this interesting project. Sincerely, Scott Lewis CPA By:___________________________________ ____________________ Title: Date