HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/10/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 13, 2008
6:30 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Councilmember Phil Finkelstein will be participating by Telephone Conference
as allowed by Minnesota Statute 13D.021
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 20 and October 27, 2008
2. 6:35 p.m. 2009 Budget
3. 7:35 p.m. Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update
4. 8:15 p.m. Facilities/Infrastructure Financing Plan
5. 9:15 p.m. City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process
6. 9:30 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
7. Proposed Amendment to Business Licensing Chapter – Vacant Properties
8. Hoigaard Village Update & Environmental Assessment Worksheet
9. Surface Water Management Plan Update
10. Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park
11. Proposed Amendments to the City Charter
12. Fire Station Site Expansion Purchase Agreements
13. Proposed Community Residential Facility License
9:40 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: October 13, 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 20 and October 27, 2008.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the special study session planned for Monday,
October 20, 2008, and the regularly scheduled study session on Monday, October 27, 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the special study session on October 20, 2008 and the regularly scheduled study session on
October 27, 2008.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for October 20 & 27, 2008
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 13, 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 20, 2008 – 6:00 p.m. (Box Lunches)
1. Ordinance Relating to Towers and Antennas – Community Development (60min.)
On October 6, 2008, Council moved to continue discussion on a number of items related to
the proposed ordinance amendments to the October 20th special study session meeting.
2. Zoning Amendments – Religious Institutions/Schools - Community Development (15
minutes)
Staff will update Council about proposed changes in the Zoning Code for religious
institutions and schools. Does the Council wish to require conditional use permits for
educational and religious uses?
Report:
West End Public Art – Parks & Recreation
End of Meeting: 7:15 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, October 27, 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 Council with an update on the 2008 Residential
Survey. Does the Council wish to make any changes to the residential survey questions?
3. Excess Land Sales Proceeds – Community Development/Parks & Recreation (20 minutes)
Staff will discuss the process for deciding how to use excess land proceeds with the Council
4. Infrastructure Planning TH 7 & Wooddale/TH7 & Louisiana – Administrative
Services/Finance (60 minutes)
The City Manager and Finance Director to discuss future financing considerations for
significant infrastructure projects, including Hwy 7 and Wooddale and Hwy. 7 & Louisiana.
5. Budget/CIP – Finance (60 minutes)
The Finance Director and other staff will present the proposed 2009 – 2013 Capital
Improvement Plan to the City Council.
Meeting of October 13, 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:
Monthly Financial Reports - Finance
Quarterly Investment Report – Finance
Foreclosed Properties Update – Administrative Services
End of Meeting: 9:35 p.m.
Meeting Date: October13, 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:
2009 Budget.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is recommending that budget changes be discussed by the City Council in preparation for the
Truth-in-Taxation meeting and final budget adoption. Staff is requesting overall direction from the
City Council on the preliminary budget and property tax levy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is Council in agreement with the staff’s recommendations in this report regarding the use of fund
balance?
The recommendations provided in this report provide for a balanced budget, but still assumes a
6.27% levy adjustment. Is the Council comfortable with this levy or should staff find ways to reduce
this number further.
What other information would Council like staff to provide as part of our ongoing discussion of the
2009 budget?
BACKGROUND:
On September 2 the City Council adopted a preliminary budget and property tax levy which
included a 6.27% increase in the levy for 2009. The 6.27% was calculated to be the maximum
allowed under the levy limit caps imposed by the state. At that time, a $251,000 budget deficit still
existed. Please note that the preliminary budget and levy at that time included $88,000 as a
payment by the city for the School Districts share of the police liaison officer and $14,500 in school
district election costs.
Staff has reviewed the proposed budget and is recommending several changes to balance the budget
during this time of economic turmoil.
DISCUSSION:
Since the preliminary budget adoption, staff have reviewed their departmental budgets and
recommended many changes. The City Manager and Finance Director have reviewed the proposed
changes and have accepted many of the proposed cuts. These modifications have more than offset
the budget gap of $251,000 that existed when we adopted the preliminary levy on September 2nd.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: 2009 Budget
The majority of these cuts are to individual line items scattered throughout the departments. We
have also recommended several transfers of one-time costs to either the 2008 budget or to a non-tax
supported fund. Some modest revenue increases are also listed in the approved budget
modifications. The Potential Budget Changes sheet is attached.
NEW INFORMATION – PERMIT REVENUE ANALYSIS:
The biggest change to the budget from what the Council has seen is a reduction in expected building
permit fees of $547,000. This recommendation is not entered into lightly and is being made to
insure we are being realistic and responsible in our revenue projections.
The construction activity in the community and related permit revenues are very robust this year,
perhaps the highest ever Although permit levels are high due to the West End project and roofing
repair we are experiencing a drop in other general construction activity. Also, the economic climate
that we are in raises real questions as to what we can expect in terms of building construction in
2009. The attached memo from Brian Hoffman details this further.
By making an adjustment to reduce permit revenues we would again be out of budget balance at the
6.27% levy established. The option that we have is to continue to reduce costs, raise revenues or
look at another approach. To fully take into account a reduction in the permit revenues would
require looking at service cuts and related staffing.
Permit revenues are an interesting source of funds for our operation because the times they are
actually received from a budget year perspective do not always reflect the time when the work is
being done by staff to administer the permits. For example, in 2008 we have or will be taking in
significant permit fees that will be accounted for in our 2008 budget revenues but much of the work
by Inspections, CD, PW and other departments to administer a particular project will occur in 2009
(e.g. West End). This results in a situation in 2009 where we need to have staff to do the work to
administer the projects but the operating revenues to pay for that staff time were brought in during
2008
Thus, given the unusual circumstances that we are in, it is being recommended that we utilize our
healthy General Fund balance (which in affect includes permit revenues) to bridge this projected
revenue gap for 2009 so that we can follow through on what we are already committed to delivering
from a service perspective. The amount of fund balance which would be needed is $381,000. As
noted below, this same approach is not being suggested for 2010 where more analysis will be needed
before decisions are made.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The fund balance at the end of 2007 was approximately $10,113,000. The amount necessary to
maintain our fund balance target of 40% of the 2009 budget is $9,570,000. This leaves an available
balance of $543,000 which, as noted above, could be used as an offset or revenue source to balance
the budget if our substantially reduced permit revenue scenario is realized.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: 2009 Budget
This budget strategy allows us time to meet 2009 commitments and undertake analysis for 2010.
Bottom line, our plan is to maintain our 40% target for fund balance.
OTHER BUDGET QUESTIONS:
During the study session of August 25 several questions were asked by the Council regarding what
might be in or not in the budget. What follows is a brief discussion on each of these items
Removal of trees on the boulevard – As part of the 2003/04 budget difficulties the City Council
decided to require homeowners to pay for 50% of the cost of the removal of diseased trees (DED’s)
on the boulevard. A question has been raised about this policy and whether we should revert back to
the former policy. The cost to the City, based on current DED removals, would be about $50,000
for 2009. With the possibility of the Ash Borer coming to Minnesota, this cost will likely increase
substantially in future years. This additional $50,000 has not been included in the preliminary 2009
budget.
Federal lobbying expenses – The City currently expends $36,000 year for legislative consulting
services in Washington. The funding for this does not come from the General Fund. Rather, the
funding source is from the EDA/HRA Levy given that the work being done by our consultant is to
obtain funding for infrastructure improvements. As such, this is not an issue for the General Fund
but staff does certainly recognize this is something the Council wants to discuss. We have scheduled
to discuss this at the November 10 Study Session.
Please note that we do have lobbying expenses in the General Fund budget for assistance with
legislative issues in St. Paul. As noted on the attachment, we have proposed cutting this by $5,000
which would leave $10,000 remaining.
Vacant Properties - A question was raised regarding any funding that might be needed to improve
the process for tracking and then addressing vacant or other troublesome properties. As part of a
foreclosure work group first convened in April, the issue of improving our tracking systems of all
problem properties has been discussed at length. Steps are being taken to attempt to consolidate
multiple data bases that exist for problem properties and mechanisms are being employed to
continue to improve communications between departments. With regard to staffing to address
problem properties, 2007 and 2008 have been very difficult years with high work loads related to
foreclosures etc. We expect 2009 to be challenging as well. Admittedly existing staff have been
pushed to the limit. However, given the expected slowdown in overall construction activity in the
community, it is our intention to better utilize other existing staff to assist in addressing these
problem properties vs. adding new staff.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: 2009 Budget
Energy Audit – A question was raised whether any specific funding has been set aside for 2009 to
implement recommendations that may come out of the energy audit that is scheduled to be
underway later this year. At this point we have not included funding in the General Fund budget as
we do not yet know what the scope of the recommendations might be. For any substantive energy
enhancements that may make sense, it would seem prudent to discuss this as part of our 2010
budget and capital plan. Please note that this comment does not relate to building projects already
in the planning stage (fire stations, MSC). Energy related enhancements are or will be considered as
a part of those projects.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Budget Changes from Preliminary Levy
Inspection Changes Memo
Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues
Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
2009 Budget Changes from Preliminary Levy Adoption
10/13/2008
New
Department Line Item Expense Description Cut Shift One-Time Revenue
Administration 6550 Lobbying Cut state lobbying 5,000
6630 Other Contractual Employee development 5,000
7050 Printing Vision communication 5,000
7601 Memberships Based on previous cost 2,500
7603 Conferences Based on Council participation 10,000
Employer Contribution - Health Ins 144,000
Subtotal 166,500 5,000 - -
Human Resources 6410 Arbitration Cut arbitration usage 2,500
6460 Advertising Reduce StarTribune ads 2,000
Subtotal 4,500 - - -
IR - Tech Services Hamilton House connection 2,700
Legal Intellectual Property Attorney 5,000
Training Reduce IT training 3,000
Subtotal 5,700 - 5,000 -
IR - Support Services Postage Reduce mailing cost 10,000
Revenue GraffitiNet revenue 3,000
Subtotal 10,000 - - 3,000
Facilties Maintenance 7503 Rental Buildings Don't store WiFi Equipment 20,000 20,000
6212 General Supplies 2,000
6222 Building Supplies 3,500
6410 General Professional Complete HVAC Study in 2008 10,000
6831 Telephone 2,000
Subtotal 27,500 30,000 - -
Police Contributions Teens Alone 2,000
Graffiti Eliminate Supplies 1,500
Fingerprint software 3,680
Capital West End Security 5,700
Subtotal 3,500 - 9,380 -
Fire CERT program 20,000
Paging Study 10,000
Uniform Draw System 4,100
Radios and radio batteries 6,000
Subtotal 30,100 10,000 - -
Inspections From BH Memo Permit Revenue Reduction (547,000)
From BH Memo Temp Inspector (30,000)
6410 General Professional 2,000
6630 Other Contractual 1,000
7050 Printing 1,500
4202 Electrical 3,000
4203 Mechanical 2,000
4210 Plumbing 2,000
4208 Point of Sale 2,000
4106 Tobacco 300
4111 Food and Beverage 3,000
4125 Public Sanitary 800
4121 Massage 300
4123 Lodging 400
4120 Vehicle Parking 200
4131 Tree Maintenance 1,000
4115 Solid Waste 300
4107 Temp Food Service 200
Subtotal 4,500 - - 15,500
PW - Administration 6410 General Professional Reduce Consultant Expenses 10,000
Subtotal 10,000 - - -
PW - Engineering 6630 Other Contractual Reduce non-project consultant cost 15,000
Subtotal 15,000 - - -
PW - Operations 7301 Electric Service Eliminate signal at Zarthan/Lake 2,000
6630 Other Contractual reduce sidewalk and curb repair 5,000
6012 Overtime Reduce OT expense 5,000
Subtotal 12,000 - - -
Organized Rec Eliminate Saturday Concert Series 10,000
Park-ticipation Bus 30,000
City-Wide Open House 10,000
Sell Hot Cocoa at rinks 2,000
Subtotal 40,000 10,000 - 2,000
Park Maintenance STS crews mow entrance signs 3,000
Subtotal 3,000 - - -
Environmental Reduce elm tree injection subsidy 20,000
Increase admin surcharge for blvd trees 5,000
Subtotal 20,000 - - 5,000
Total Levy Impact 129,820 (224,700) 55,000 14,380 25,500
Original Budget Deficit 251,634
Total Fund Balance Used 381,454
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2009 Budget Page 5
Inspections Department Memorandum
Administrative Division
To: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
From: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Date: October 8, 2008
Subject: Proposed 2009 Budget Revisions – Inspections Business Unit 1431
Revenue:
This revision to anticipated permit revenue for 2009 is based on a reduced projected construction
valuation of approximately $60 - $65 million:
Code Permit Type 2009 Requested Budget 2009 Proposed Revised Budget
4201 Building $1,190,000 $ 800,000
4202 Electrical $ 233,000 $ 180.000
4203 Mechanical $ 192,000 $ 140,000
4210 Plumbing $ 172,000 $ 120,000
Total $1,787,000 $1,240,000 ($547,000)
Expenditure:
If the ordinance expanding licensing of rental property to condominiums and townhomes is approved,
additional staff will be needed to provide the services beginning in 2009. Longer term, this staffing need
could be fulfilled by building inspectors depending on construction activity. For 2009, funds for a
position of some type for this service should be retained. However, we are recommending that if needed, a
temporary position is used to get through 2009 without adding a long term employee commitment.
2009 Requested Budget 2009 Proposed Revised Budget
Temp. Permit Technician/ $ 32,000 – new program $ 32,000 – 6013 (temporary)
Inspector as needed (PT staff)
The extent of roof and siding repair from storm damage is continuing to grow. We have issued well over
4000 storm related permits and from discussions with contractors, believe it could reach 6000 by next
year. This represents about half of the homes in the city. Additionally, we have been issuing permits for a
record amount of commercial construction that will be occurring in 2009. Our current back log of
roofing inspections is over 2000 and another 800 correction notices have been written on other projects
this year that must have a follow up inspection scheduled and performed. We anticipate needing a
temporary building inspector next year for about six months in addition to current staffing to finish the
work begun this year. Even with a significant drop in new permit revenue, inspection work may be at a
historic high in 2009.
2009 Proposed Revised Budget
Temp. Inspector $ 30,000 (one-time cost)
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2009 Budget Page 6
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Rec
r October 13, 2008
2007 2008 2009 2009
Actual Adopted Preliminary Total % change
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 12,332,531$ 14,107,179$ 15,243,964$ 15,183,961$ 7.6%
Licenses and Permits 2,940,137 2,712,715 2,786,500 2,255,000 -16.9%
Intergovernmental 2,283,249 1,709,365 1,644,214 1,647,214 -3.6%
Charges for Services 1,044,320 1,084,975 1,201,900 1,201,900 10.8%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 277,005 311,000 312,000 312,000 0.3%
Investment Earnings 526,346 325,000 350,000 350,000 7.7%
Miscellaneous Revenue 145,282 102,000 102,000 102,000 0.0%
Transfers In 2,659,532 2,555,694 2,628,910 2,628,910 2.9%
Use of Fund Balance 381,454
Total General Fund Revenues 22,208,402$ 22,907,928$ 24,269,488$ 24,062,439$ 5.0%
Appropriations 21,254,682$ 22,907,928$ 24,272,959$ 23,943,279$ 4.5%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 953,720$ -$ (3,471)$ 119,160$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 3,541,220$ 3,750,197$ 3,896,455$ 3,956,458$ 5.5%
Licenses and Permits 6,300 - - - 0.0%
Intergovernmental 55,841 56,402 55,702 55,702 -1.2%
Charges for Services 1,304,166 1,058,170 1,141,598 1,141,598 7.9%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties - - - - 0.0%
Investment Earnings - 1,600 - - -100.0%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,105,099 834,161 918,000 895,000 7.3%
Transfers In 198,791 75,000 - - -100.0%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,211,417$ 5,775,530$ 6,011,755$ 6,048,758$ 4.7%
Appropriations 5,774,973$ 5,775,530$ 6,259,918$ 6,167,918$ 6.8%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 436,444$ -$ (248,163)$ (119,160)$
Total Budget Gap 0$
Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2009 Budget Page 7
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Rec
October 13, 2008
Department, Division 2007 2008 2009 CM
and Activity Actual Adopted Preliminary Proposed % change
General Government:
Administration/Legislative 936,706$ 1,034,327$ 1,028,335$ 1,002,335$ -3.1%
Communications & Marketing 192,117 287,782 303,725 299,225 4.0%
Community Outreach 111,755 83,983 86,055 86,055 2.5%
Human Resources 581,874 629,674 648,050 644,550 2.4%
Information Resources 1,545,110 1,460,839 1,497,470 1,483,770 1.6%
Finance 1,100,538 1,123,213 1,165,480 1,168,480 4.0%
Community Development 1,027,281 1,080,897 1,106,250 1,110,750 2.8%
Facilities Maintenance 1,135,194 1,187,926 1,259,442 1,203,942 1.3%
Total General Government 6,630,575 6,888,641 7,094,807 6,999,107 1.6%
Public Safety:
Police 6,291,045 6,927,117 7,293,902 7,307,522 5.5%
Fire Protection 2,762,736 3,029,118 3,152,773 3,121,673 3.1%
Inspectional Services 1,743,479 1,852,874 2,023,427 2,053,927 10.9%
Total Public Safety 10,797,260 11,809,109 12,470,102 12,483,122 5.7%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 797,114 832,583 862,450 855,450 2.7%
Engineering 816,501 785,182 937,300 924,300 17.7%
Operations 2,213,232 2,412,413 2,508,300 2,501,300 3.7%
Total Public Works 3,826,847 4,030,178 4,308,050 4,281,050 6.2%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,241,759 1,250,699 1,370,610 1,292,110 3.3%
Recreation Center 1,314,548 1,358,383 1,453,667 1,455,167 7.1%
Park Maintenance 1,396,902 1,377,518 1,459,835 1,460,835 6.0%
Westwood 455,855 466,678 490,536 492,036 5.4%
Environment 531,172 288,982 306,493 286,993 -0.7%
Vehicle Maintenance 834,737 1,033,270 1,178,777 1,180,777 14.3%
Total Park & Recreation 5,774,973 5,775,530 6,259,918 6,167,918 6.8%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency - 180,000 180,000 180,000 0.0%
City Contribution Increase Estimate 220,000
Total Non-Departmental - 180,000 400,000 180,000 0.0%
Total General & Park Funds 27,029,655$ 28,683,458$ 30,532,877$ 30,111,197$ 5.0%
Total Increase in Expenditures 1,427,739$
Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures By Department and Division
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2009 Budget Page 8
Meeting Date: October13, 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:
Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is recommending completion of the design for the MSC expansion and development of full
construction drawings to enable construction during 2009. This report and the presentation by
Oertel Architects are to update the council on the outcome of the Needs Assessment Study
completed on the Municipal Service Center site.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is Council in agreement with the direction our facilities planning process is following for the
remodeling/expansion of the MSC.?
BACKGROUND:
Capital planning for city facilities was accelerated 2½ years ago following the emergency re-
enforcement of the apparatus floors in both fire stations. This was acknowledged as a short term
solution to allow for a more systematic study of best options. Facilities to provide city services
represent a significant investment and need to be functional for many decades. Staff has been
actively analyzing options and has had discussions with Council over this time to develop a plan
most appropriate to maintain long term delivery of cost effect service.
DISCUSSION:
For some time it has been understood, at least at a staff level, that the current MSC facility had
issues that needed to be addressed. The needs at the MSC rose to the surface as a result of issues
associated with our fire stations and Fire Station #1 in particular (Utility Division located in lower
level).
The MSC facility, currently supporting both the Public Works Operations Division and the Parks
Maintenance Divisions, was originally constructed in 1970. Over the years the building has been
maintained, but has also developed functional limitations as a result of increased service needs and
related equipment, ADA requirements, mixed gender work group, and general building aging.
While these issues have been previously discussed in general, details of the building condition and
operational concerns are identified in the attached Needs Assessment Study.
Staff has previously discussed the need to move the Utility Division operations from the Fire Station
#1 basement as part of the plan to rebuild the Fire Station. We believe the Public Works
Department can operate more effectively if the Divisions are able to work together in a common
facility. Utility operations require a space which provides:
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update
• Administration/Support/ Supervisory offices
• Workshop
• Inventory storage
• Multi-gender restroom/locker areas
• Vehicle/equipment storage
Oertel Architects were hired to review the MSC building condition and evaluate design possibilities
for accommodating the Utilities Division and general city storage needs at the site. Additionally,
they were asked to evaluate the building implications for relocating other Public Works staff from
city hall to the MSC as a possibility.
Oertel Architects began the assessment process with an in depth survey by meeting with every
employee group currently working at the MSC and that could be stationed at the expanded facility
in the future. Everyone in the work environment had the opportunity to express their concerns and
share ideas. The attached MSC Occupancy Outline provides information that was used by Oertel
Architects in developing the study.
The results have indicated the MSC site does have capacity for additional building to occur and the
existing structure is suitable for remodeling. A project to remodel and expand the facility would
meet the service delivery needs of the community for many years into the foreseeable future without
the full expense of a completely new facility.
Options for relocating the Utility Division to a site other then the MSC have been studied and are
not as viable. The cost to acquire property and construct a stand alone build could be equally as
high as moving to the MSC but without the operational advantage. Renting an existing building
would be difficult since the need for a mixed office/warehouse/vehicle parking/workshop severely
limits choices and code requirements to modify an existing building can create significant costs.
These options would still leave us with a MSC building in need of upgrading.
Should council agree to proceed to the design phase, staff is recommending we continue with firm of
Oertel and Associates based on the following:
• Proven experience in local municipal maintenance facilities;
• Conducting the needs assessment study has provided most information and concepts to
promptly move forward with;
• A LEED certified designer;
• The firm’s interaction with all levels of city staff was excellent;
• The cost factor is anticipated lower then with larger firms.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff estimates the professional design fees for the full design and working construction plans ready
for bid will be in the area of $300,000 - $400,000. We are estimating at this time the cost to
remodel and expand the MSC at approximately $6 million. This estimate is subject to change as the
design process proceeds and considerations are given regarding the implementation of LEED related
techniques.
During this same Study Session, Bruce DeJong, Finance Director, will be discussing the funding of
the proposed project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Directions and Focus areas:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.
Focus areas:
• Expanding energy efficiencies in the City’s operations.
• Working in areas such as. . .green building design (LEED),. . .environmental innovations,
etc.
Attachments: MSC Occupancy Outline
Oertel Architects Report
Prepared by: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendant
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update
Service Center (MSC)
Municipal Occupancy Outline
Below is overview of the divisions currently occupying the MSC site and the possible future
occupants. The Oertel Architects report outlines the specific needs of each group options to
accommodate them.
PRESENT OCCUPANCY
Park Maintenance Division
• Supervisory Staff – (3FTE)
• Park Maintenance Staff – (8 FTE and 15 PTE)
• Forestry Staff – (3 FTE)
• Equipment Maintenance Staff – (5 FTE)
Public Works Operations
• Supervisory Staff – (3 FTE)
• Street Maintenance Staff – (10 FTE and 2 PTE)
• Traffic Maintenance Staff (2 FTE and 1 PTE)
Support Staff
• Secretary – (1 FTE)
• Data Information Staff – (1 FTE)
Facilities Maintenance
• Supply and Equipment Storage
• General Storage Site – for “pool” equipment used by all departments within city
ADDITIONAL POSSIBLE FUTURE OCCUPANCY INFORMATION
⎯ Public Works Utilities Division – (equipment and staff – 13 FTE and 3 PTE)
⎯ Public Works Engineering Department – (equipment and staff – 10 FTE and 3 PTE)
⎯ Public Works Support Staff – (8 FTE)
⎯ Election Equipment and Work Room
⎯ General City Storage (Records, Small Equipment, etc.)
Note the existing MSC consists of approximately 65,000 square feet of office, shop, and storage bay.
The proposed addition would be about 34,000 square feet plus approximately 14,000 square feet for
a cold storage building.
1
OERTEL ARCHITECTS
1795 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55105
TEL: 651/696-5186 FAX: 651/696-5188
DATE: October 3, 2008
TO: City of St. Louis Park
RE: St. Louis Park Municipal Services Center Study
______________________________________________________________________________
The following is a summary of our review, analysis, findings and proposed building / site design
for the Municipal Services Center.
Introduction
Executive summary
Site Issues
Cost Summary
Outline of Sustainable / “green” Building
Conclusion
Attachment: General building observations, findings and deficiencies
Attachment: Proposed preferred site plan and floor plans (Option A)
Attachment: Proposed optional site plan and floor plans (Option B)
Attachment: Soil Boring Log
Introduction
As a first step in our study process, we performed the following tasks in order to prepare a
program of space needs and to determine a potential building expansion or relocation plan:
Reviewed the site and building conditions
Met with department supervisors
Met with each work group individually
Reviewed the equipment, staff needs and related data for each work group
Organized data into a program, site plan and building plan
Met with core group to share progress and incorporated feedback into program & plans
Met with department supervisors and incorporated feedback into program and plans
Gave a powerpoint presentation to the entire staff and incorporated feedback
Prepared of a list of existing building deficiencies and challenges
Perhaps the most important finding that was a result of this process was that we determined that
it is feasible to move the Utilities Division to the MSC site and still allow for future office
expansion. This expansion may house Engineering and Administrative spaces, Fire Department
offices, or other.
As noted in the attached memo on “building deficiencies”, there will need to be remodeling of
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 5
2
the existing building, along with building additions to most sections of the building, to not only
adequately house the current functions, but to accommodate the added divisions.
Executive Summary
We determined that the existing departments at the Municipal Services Center would require
roughly 34,600 additional square feet of building to operate efficiently and optimally. If the
Utilities Division is moved to the MSC, an additional 16,000 s.f. is required. If the Engineering
Division is moved to the MSC, an additional 5,700 s.f. This creates a required total addition of
56,300 s.f. if all departments are consolidated at the MSC site. The total area was determined by
calculating the area required for the various functions of the departments. At vehicle storage,
for example, we documented each piece of equipment, included the necessary allowance for
“elbow room” and drive lane space, and arrived at an overall area required. We also used the
full time and seasonal staffing to determine office, lunch room and restroom size. This is all
summarized in the attached “proposed program”.
In addition to the main building, the site would require a less expensive cold storage building of
approximately 14,000 s.f. to house equipment and materials currently stored outside. The bin
storage area would need to be relocated to accommodate the main building addition - and the
current bins do not work well as they are not covered and do not drain properly. The fuel island
concrete pad needs replacing and if moved to the north would create better site utilization. As an
option, a fuel island canopy could be added. Employee and visitor parking also needs to be
increased. Currently, there are private parties parking in the MSC lot. This practice will need to
cease to accommodate increased employees on site. Also, fencing of the site is needed to secure
equipment and to eliminate the unlawful dumping that now occurs.
The front office area would preferably be better-articulated, or made of a slightly higher quality
of materials, to accentuate the main entry and help with access and identifying the front door.
The proposed vehicle areas of the main building could be of a precast concrete or masonry
construction. The new vehicle area would be wider than the existing spaces to allow for the plow
trucks to park with plows and wings attached, and allow for the plow storage in the summer to
avoid this equipment being storage outside as is the current practice.
At the existing vehicle maintenance area, we recommend adding two work bays, plus a dedicated
welding bay. We generally recommend two work bays per mechanic. The proposed plan will
provide 9 bays for 5 mechanics. We also recommend the addition of a dedicated lube room for
the storage and containment of oils, grease, etc. to meet current MPCA rules.
We have recommended and shown on the plan an automated truck wash bay to improve the
efficiency and frequency of equipment washing. The automated wash takes 1/5 the time as a
manual wash and the ease encourages more frequent washing to preserve vehicle life. Included
is a manual pressurized hot-water wash unit for heavy salt and ice removal, and for small
equipment such as mowers to be sprayed down. If the automated wash is not preferred, the area
could be reduced to the manual pressurized hot-water wash area.
The major flaw of the current office area is the lack of ADA accommodation for the lunch room,
locker rooms and office on the 2nd floor. The proposed plan has a two-story office addition
including an elevator, additional stair, larger lunch/multi-purpose room, a women’s locker room
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 6
3
(currently none exists), larger men’s locker room, separate conference room and additional office
space for the new departments.
Site Issues
Working with the current site has several challenges:
• Storage and circulation is spread around the site such that there is no open space for a
building addition. As noted above, the bin storage area will need to be relocated to allow
for the vehicle storage addition. The preferred option extends the vehicle storage to the
east property line, cutting off circulation at that side of the site. This will push material
storage, water fill and all large vehicle traffic to the west of the site. The amount of
traffic at the west curb cut will increase and, if allowed by the city planning department,
should be increased in width to more easily allow for passing large vehicles. The new
circulation does create greater safety for employee and visitor parking. It also creates a
better sense of entry and way finding for visitors to the site.
• The cold storage building is the largest immediate need and should be scheduled as the
first priority. This will allow for storage of vehicles and equipment displaced during
construction of the main building. To accommodate the size of cold storage building
recommended, and efficient through traffic pattern, the fuel island should be relocated to
the north. The tanks can stay in place, which allows for footings at the new island for an
optional canopy. The relocation of the island will create a week or two of no access to
the fuel island. An agreement should be reached with a local filling station for fueling
needs at that time.
• Due to information received from employees, there is likely some soil contamination on
the west portion of the site from a previous asphalt plant. The soil borings did not find
any contamination, but at the east side of the existing building, a petroleum odor was
noted at the boring location. See attached soil boring log for more information.
• The largest site issue will be coordination and phasing during construction. The
proposed plan shows additions to north, east and south sides of the current building. The
office addition is designed such that the entire addition could be constructed, the office
staff moved in to a fully functional new space, then the existing office area remodeled.
The additions to the vehicle maintenance area additions could be enclosed with little
impact on existing operations, but remodeling of the lube equipment, exhaust equipment
and interior walls will create disturbances.
• The addition to the vehicle storage area will eliminate the through traffic pattern. Trucks
with trailers will not be able to park in the drive lanes as is current practice. Also,
portions will be closed as openings in existing walls are created, trench drains replaced,
shop spaces added and remodeled and the mechanical and electrical systems are
remodeled.
• Project scheduling and close coordination with the selected general contractor will be
essential to a successful project. The scheduling must ensure the contractor has space for
staging and access to work areas, while allowing all essential services of the MSC to
continue. While you must count on some interruptions and challenges, coordination will
be required to ensure access to equipment for emergency needs such as snow plowing
and watermain brakes.
•
Cost Summary
The following is a construction cost estimate and total project budget for the potential expansion
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 7
4
and renovation of the Municipal Service Center (MSC). The costs are based on the preferred
expansion/renovation plan that we prepared and refined over the past few weeks. First, there are
a number of comments related to the costs that should be considered.
Notes:
1. The master plan and costs are for a complete and integrated project, meant to serve the City
well into the future. It assumes that this is essentially the last major amount of work that will be
performed on site and, therefore, all space, energy concerns, integration of divisions, appearance
goals and other items are included in the plan and associated costs.
2. The master plan includes moving the Utilities Division into the building, accommodating all
office space, vehicle storage, shop space and storage. This also includes moving engineering to
the MSC site as an option.
3. The cold storage building itself can range in cost amount of mechanical systems included. A
true ‘cold’ storage building with a simple system of exhaust and make-up air will be the least
expensive. Adding heat to the building will increase its usefulness by allowing vehicles with
patch trailers to be parked in the interior long lane and stay warm during the winter. (During the
summer this lane would be used by trucks/trailers with mowers.) By adding heat though, the
make-up air needs to be tempered. Providing heat will also increase the level of insulating
required throughout the building.
4. This being a study, there is considerable detail that needs to be addressed and considered.
There are a number of variables, too extensive to make easily understandable. Consequently, the
estimates indicate a range of costs. For example, the exterior of the building can be brought up
to date for just the portions of the building that are highly visible, or for all portions of the
building, new and old. In addition, the exterior could receive a higher end finish or a more
value-oriented facade.
5. We understand that, as part of the study, relocation of the Utilities Division was imperative,
while the Engineering Division was optional. A breakout cost is provided to add Engineering to
the project.
6. A note on the range of costs relative to energy conservation and “green” building: The
estimates assume a reasonable amount of energy saving and sustainable features. At some point,
incorporating a high level of sustainable features will add cost to the project and increase the
budget. I am certain that more information can be provided as you move through the various
phases of design.
7. Not included in the scope is the cost for any unknown / buried hazardous materials.
Construction cost estimate by area of the building:
Items critical to operations Low estimate High estimate
Site work (demo, earthwork, paving, fencing, etc.): $ 450,000.00 $ 550,000.00
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 8
5
Cold Storage building (and relocated fuel island): $ 850,000.00 $ 900,000.00
Vehicle storage expansion: $1,500,000.00 $1,800,000.00
Renovation of existing vehicle storage: $ 200,000.00 $ 450,000.00
Office with Utilities Division: $1,000,000.00 $1,150,000.00
Existing office area renovation: $ 200,000.00 $ 400,000.00
Office expansion space and related vehicle storage:$ 700,000.00 $ 700,000.00
Sub-total:$4,900,000.00 $5,950,000.00
Project soft costs:
A/E fees, survey, special inspections:$ 400,000.00 $ 600,000.00
Expenses (bid sets, ads, deliveries, etc.): $ 8,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Telecommunications:$ 10,000.00 $ 30,000.00
Security:$ 5,000.00 $ 30,000.00
Furnishings:$ 30,000.00 $ 60,000.00
Contingency:$ 200,000.00 $ 400,000.00
Total project soft cost (range):$ 653,000.00 $ 1,030,000.00
Total construction cost estimate for base requirements: $5,553,000.00 $6,980,000.00
Items important but not essential for operations
Welding bay expansion:$ 240,000.00 $ 295,000.00
Mechanic’s bay expansion:$ 310,000.00 $ 365,000.00
Drive through vehicle wash:$ 470,000.00 $ 480,000.00
Custom Fuel island canopy $ 70,000.00 $ 80,000.00
Sub-total $ 1,090,000.00 $1,220,000.00
Total construction cost estimate for all recommendations: $6,643,000.00 $8,200,000.00
(Please note that there are a number of options and variables in between the low and high
total project cost depending on which of the less essential elements are included in the
scope.)
Conclusion
It was a pleasure to participate in this study. Although the costs associated with the
improvements are relatively high, your departments are not expected to grow substantially, so
this can be seen as a long term solution.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 9
6
Please contact me with any other questions you may have.
Sincerely,
OERTEL ARCHITECTS
Jeffrey L. Oertel, AIA, CCS, President
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 10
September 12, 2008 Oertel Architects, Ltd.ROOMSQ.FT. SIZE (rough dim) # TOTALADJACENCIESEQUIPMENTSupport Staff AreasEntry Vestibule84 12'x7'184Public Entry64 8'x8'164 Reception, ConferenceWaiting Area40 4'X10'140Administration81 9'x9'181 Offices, ConferenceForestry Cubicle81 9'x9'181Temp Cubicle81 9'x9'181Add. Office space30390Work. Room96 8'x12'196Janitor48 6'x8'148 RestroomsConference300 15'x20'1300 Plan Room, OfficesPrivate Offices63 7'x9'3189Add. Office space603180IMS Office180 12'x15'1180Plan Room300 15'x20'1300 Offices, EntryMulti-Purpose Room-exist.1000 28x3611000Multi-Purpose Room-addit.350 30'x45'1350 Locker Rooms, Vehicle Stor.Men's RR/ Locker area1000 28'x36'11000 Multi-Purpose/ Maint. BaysMen's additionsl336 28'x12'1336Unisex Restroom54 6'x9'154 Multi-Purpose/ Maint. BaysWomen's RR/ Locker area-add.360 12'x30'1360Mech./Elect. Room672 32'x21'1672Elevator100 10'x10'2200Elevator Equip Rm100 10'x10'1100Election Equipment Storage1400 50'x28'11400Heated and secureGeneral Record Storage2000 40'x50'12000Heated and secureFacilities Storage2400 60'x40'12400Heated and secureGeneral Storage2000 50'x40'12000Heated and secureSQ FT. SUB13,686Subtotal New Area Req.10,216 plus circulationUtilities DivisionEntry64 8'x8'164Accommodate public useReception / Admin.200 10'x20'1200 Entry, offices, meter storage Two full time employeesIT Room50 5'x10'150 OfficesOffice - Scott144 12'x12'1144 ReceptionNon-glare windowsGopher One Lead80 8'x10'180Water/Sewer Lead80 8'x10'180Pumphouse/Lift Station Lead80 8'x10'180SCADA Equip.60 6'x10'160 Pumphouse LeadTimesheet/Email/Internet Comp. Area 154 7'x22'1154 Lunchroom6 computer stations + laptop docking stationsMailbox area36 6'x6'136 Lunchroom Meter Storage390 15'x26'1390 Reception, vehicle storage Secured. Include desk spaceLab100 10'x10'1100 StorageSink, refrigerator, ice maker, desk space work counterArchive Storage400 20'x20'1400Can be on mezzaninePlan Room300 15'x20'1300 OfficesFile StorageJanitor room36 6'x6'136 Restrooms, lunchroomMen's Restroom and Locker Room 441 20'x22'1441 Lunchroom Women's Restroom and Locker Rm 137 12'x12'1137 LunchroomInclude washer/dryerWet locker area96 8'x12'196 Restrooms Lunchroom680 22'x30'1680Accommodate 18 full time plus 8 part time, 2 refridg., 3 micro's, ice machine, commercial coffee makerSt. Louis Park Municipal Services Center ProgramMeeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 11
September 12, 2008 Oertel Architects, Ltd.ROOMSQ.FT. SIZE (rough dim) # TOTALADJACENCIESEQUIPMENTSt. Louis Park Municipal Services Center ProgramConference Room224 14'x16'1224 OfficesWorkshop400 20'x20'1400 StorageRadio Charging areaMaterial Storage2000 40'x50'12000Including cold storage and mezzanine storage. Monorail for mezzanine storageVehicle Parking512 16'x32'105120Warm Storage, straight in-out drive for vactorGenerator Room200 10'X20'1200Misc. Storage800 20x401800SQ FT. SUB11,472Subtotal New Area Req.12,272Streets Maint. DivisionEquipment Storage, 3rd bay14280 84'x170'114280Equipment Storage, 3rd bay, add. 4080 24'x17014080Wider for plow storageAutomated vehicle wash3880 27'x144'13880SQ FT. SUB22,240 Subtotal New Area Req.7,960 plus circulation Traffic Maint. Division Office existing100 10'x10'1100Office additional100 10'x10'1100Flammable storage room144 18'x8'1144Paint spray booth144 18'x8'1144Try to achieve access for parks also.Sign fabrication1080 60'x18'11080Work shop/break room/storage 828 46'x18'1828Lockers, fridge, micro, work bench, task lightingMezzanine storage1260 18'x70'11260Loading dock320 32'x10'1320SharedSign Storage600 15'x40'1600Equipment Storage, 1st bay, shared 14280 84'x170'114280SQ FT. SUB62,196 Subtotal New Area Req.100 plus circulation Park Maint. Division Equipment Storage, 2nd bay14280 84'x170'114280Including wet gear lockers, fridge space, Equipment Storage, 2nd bay, add. 4080 24'x17014080Garbage truck storage add.775 22'x36'1775Ventilated, segregatedWood Shop Space addition240 8'x30'1240Wood storage and planer usageShop Space add200 10'x20'1200Work bench, grinder, sound proofFlammable storage room100 10'x10'1100Use existing cabinetsCovered/cold storage2550 170'x15'12550Bin materials, rink boards, Need mower wash rack00Include in automatic wash baySQ FT. SUB58,340Subtotal New Area Req.5,295 plus circulation
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 12
September 12, 2008 Oertel Architects, Ltd.ROOMSQ.FT. SIZE (rough dim) # TOTALADJACENCIESEQUIPMENTSt. Louis Park Municipal Services Center Program Equip. Maint. Division Vehicle Maint. Bays Exist.720 18'x40'64320Have 10 ton crane, 45,000 lb lift, 20,000 lb lift and 12,000 lb lift to be installed soon. Need additional lube reelsAdditional bays needed720 18'x40'32160Need two additional lifts. Prefer maintenance bays attached to vehicle storageTire Repair Bay720 36'x201720Should be next to maintenance baysFabrication Room560 20'x28'1560Two-ton crane. Industrial Work BenchWelding bay add720 18'x40'1720Need portable welding arm/hood. Add eye wash station.Parts/Tool Room1620 27'x60'11620 Mechanic's OfficeAdequate space, including extra lockers, refridg, break spaceParts Mezzanine2322 86'x27'12322Adequate spaceLube Storage100 10'x10'1100Waste Oil Containment, 55 gallon drums/cubes. Add eye wash station.Lube Storage additional100 10'x10'1100Loading Dock256 16'x16'1256Mechanics Office90 9'x10'190 Maint. Bays, Parts Storage Voice/Data Outlets, Work Surface, Filing CabinetsOffice additional50 10'x5'150Generator add216 12'x18'1216Indoor with sound control and dedicated fuel source.Dept. Storage/ Shop576 24'x24'1576 Vehicle StorageSewer, Carpentry, Sign, Bldg. Maintenance StorageSQ FT. SUB13,810Subtotal New Area Req.3,030 plus circulationOffice expansion space based on Engineering DivisionReception290 18'x16'1290 Public EntryPublic servicesPrivate Offices150 12'x12'5750 ReceptionCubicles - Eng.100 10'x10'5500Cubicles - Admin100 10'x10'2200Cubicles - interns80 8'x10'2160Two people per cubicle. Include docking station for field personnelConference Room290 12'x24'1290Plan Room 575 24'x24'1575With large central work tableStorage200 10'x20'1200Vehicle Storage200 10'x20'61200 Material Storage240 10'x24'1240 Vehicle Storage SQ.FT. SUB 4,405 Subtotal New Area Req.4,405 plus circulationSub-Total New Area Required43,278 New Area w/ 30% Circulation56,262Exterior StorageExterior bin storage-Util.100 10'x10'4400Rip-rap, sewer rock, black dirt, sandExterior Storage - Light poles2500 25'x100'12500Exterior Bin Storage-Parks10000 60'x168'110000Exterior Bin Stor.Parks-Additional 5000 60'x84' 1 5000Salt Storage 4800 60'x80' 1 4800SUB-TOTAL BUILDING 107,494 s.f.CIRCULATION @ 30% 32,248 s.f.TOTAL BUILDING 139,742 s.f.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 13
September 12, 2008 Oertel Architects, Ltd.ROOMSQ.FT. SIZE (rough dim) # TOTALADJACENCIESEQUIPMENTSt. Louis Park Municipal Services Center ProgramPERSONNEL BY DIVISIONPark Maintenance DivisionSupervisory Staff 3 FTEPark Maintenance Staff 8 FTE 15 PTEForestry Staff 3 FTEEquipment Maintenance Staff 5 FTEPublic Works OperationsSupervisory Staff 3 FTEStreet Maintenance Staff 10 FTE 2 PTETraffic Maintenance Staff 2 FTE 1 PTESupport StaffSecretary 1 FTEData Information Staff 1 FTEFacilities MaintenanceSupplyl and Equipment StorageGeneral Storage Site (Records, Small Equipment, etc.)Additional Possible Future Occupancy InformationPublic Works Utilities Division 13 FTE 3 PTEPublic Works Engineering Dept. 10 FTE 3 PTEPublic Works Support Staff 8 FTEElection Equipment and Work RoomGeneral City Storage (Records, small equip., ect.)Proposed ProgramMeeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 14
1
OERTEL ARCHITECTS
1795 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55105
TEL: 651/696-5186 FAX: 651/696-5188
September 12, 2008
RE: St. Louis Park MSC
Outline of sustainable / “green” building
MEMORANDUM
______________________________________________________________________________
This memo addresses the sustainable items and “green building” related systems that the City of
St. Louis Park could anticipate using on the project. Note that, in following LEED principles,
goals of LEED includes energy-saving items into the building/site, but also include other items
that do not necessarily save on operating costs. Some items are simply good things to do for the
betterment of our environment.
Energy conserving systems and features:
Minimal to no cost:
Waste management of materials during construction
Compact and efficient building design and configuration
Storm water control and conservation (varies considerably by design)
Components to encourage alternative transit (bike racks, adjacent motorcycle pads)
Use of automatic controls and loops at the overhead doors
Modest cost with payback of less than eight years:
Additional insulation (beyond code) at areas which are easy to access or build anew
Daylighting features
Extensive lighting controls
Use of high-efficiency fluorescent lighting
HVAC controls to reduce energy usage
Set-back thermostats
Use of economizers in HVAC
Use of VFD (variable frequency drive) motors where applicable
Use of low-emittance and VOC compliant materials
Use of locally manufactured materials to the extent possible
Considerable cost with varying length of payback:
Heat recovery unit ($250,000.00 each with 5 years at the Maintenance area and 10 years
at the storage areas)
Photovoltaic cells (10+ year payback: cost of system components vary considerably)
Use of grey water for irrigation and flushing ($50,000.00 to $100,000.00, 10+ year
payback)
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 15
2
Examples of products with recycled materials:
(Minimal to no additional project cost)
25% fly ash in lieu of cement in site concrete, concrete floors and concrete walls
100% of stone aggregate used in concrete walls panels is local material
Recycled pavement in lieu of limestone for base of pavement
Green certified wood materials from sustainable forests
Recycled products in millwork
Recycled products in flooring
Recycled paint
Examples of locally made and manufactured products:
Ready-mix concrete
Precast concrete wall panels
Glass
Concrete block
Millwork and wood products
Various finish products
Selected pieces of equipment
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 16
OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD.
OERTEL ARCHITECTS
1795 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55105
TEL: 651/696-5186 FAX: 651/696-5188
Date: August 29, 2008
St. Louis Park Municipal Services Center Study
General Building Observations, Findings and Deficiencies
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 17
OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD.
Site Issues
• Site needs to be gated to secure material and equipment and eliminate unwanted
dumping.
• Employee parking is insufficient with current staff level.
• Extent of outdoor storage does not meet the zoning code (everything should be
stored on a paved area). See figure 2.
• Need a large covered/cold storage area to minimize weathering of expensive
equipment currently stored outside. See figure 1.
• Limited site area for expansion.
• Possible foreign material buried under proposed cold storage building location
(from long-time employee recollection) and petroleum odor at soil boring at office
expansion area.
• Fuel island concrete slab needs to be replaced.
• No fuel island canopy.
• Flag spot light doesn’t work.
• No exterior lighting for safe handling of equipment, especially plow and wing
attachment.
• Bin storage is not adequate in size, uncovered, and not well drained.
• Need storage for solid waste carts.
• Need permanent location for generator with dedicated fuel source.
Figure 1 Figure 2
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 18
OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD.
Office Area
• No identifiable front entry. Visitors need to be directed to one location.
• Front desk has no security.
• Insufficient number of offices/cubicles for current work staff
• Most office areas have no or little daylight.
• Offices function as hallways interrupting the work of office staff.
• Time clock area is congested.
• No map room.
• No mailbox area.
• Lunch room is not large enough for full staff meetings/training sessions.
o Need additional refrigerators and microwaves.
• Only one tiny conference room
• No public seating/waiting area
• General office storage / copier area not convenient to front desk. No adjacent
work space.
• Entire office area has insufficient heating and cooling.
o Small conference room wall air conditioner condensates into the parts
storage area.
o Insufficient pressurization or separation at office area to prohibit
exhaust from entering area.
• Second floor is not ADA accessible (no elevator)
• No women’s locker room.
• No separate women’s restroom.
• Gang wash sink has no hot water.
• Men’s lockers too small and too few.
• Need additional stalls in men’s room if additional employees are stationed here.
• No designated outdoor break area.
• No computer access for general staff.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 19
OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD.
Streets / Vehicle Storage
• Inadequate size & number of parking spaces to store all equipment indoors safely.
o Equipment packed in so tightly, including in the drive aisles, that double
and triple handling of equipment is standard practice. See figure 4.
o Vehicles are parked over ADA ramps between vehicle storage bays.
See figure 3.
o Bays are too short to store plows.
• Concrete at floor drains is severely spalling.
• Inadequate water/air drops.
• Need bulk oil lube reel in storage area to free time and space in maintenance
bays.
• Inadequate shop areas for separate departments: streets, parks, potentially
engineering and utilities.
• Inadequate ventilation at first bay for diesel trucks.
• Welding area at vehicle storage lacks proper flash and fume protection.
• Garbage truck does not have a dedicated stall, so is parked outside. Garbage
freezes in the winter.
• Addition of an automated wash bay would allow more vehicles to be washed
more often, extending the life of the vehicles.
• A pre-wash bay would allow small equipment (mowers) to be washed inside with
containment of dirt, sand and clippings.
• Most trailers are stored outside, away from the trucks.
• Lighting, natural and artificial, is inadequate for task lighting.
• An exterior quality forklift would increase efficiency in moving materials outside
and increase safety when moving from one bay to another in the vehicle storage
area.
Figure 3 Figure 4
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 20
OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD.
Vehicle Maintenance
• Inadequate number of maintenance bays. Recommend two per mechanic.
Currently six bays for five mechanics.
• Additional large vehicle lift.
• Additional small vehicle lift (already ordered, but recommend not installing until
plan is approved.)
• Tire repair bay is remote from main maintenance area. See figure 5.
• Underground waste oil tank has yearly problems with water in the lines.
• The bulk lube area does not have leak containment – code issue.
• Vehicle exhaust system is not adequate.
• Concrete aprons at all shop overhead doors need to be replaced.
• Concrete floor sloped to area drains at center of bays should be replaced with
trench drains need doors with minimal slope to concrete slab.
• Need space for a steam cleaner.
• Need dedicated welding/ hard bay. See figure 6.
Figure 5 Figure 6
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 21
OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD.
Traffic
• Traffic office needs two additional work stations.
• Sign shop air conditioning not adequate. Must turn on day in advance and still
barely keeps the area cool enough for the sign making process. See figure 8.
• Plumbing in sign shop is inadequate:
o Floor drain is plugged.
o Sink leaks.
• Due to floor level changes, no forklift access. No safe method of accessing
mezzanine storage with heavy materials. Need monorail, or forklift access. See
figure 7.
• Office and shop have little daylight.
• High bay light fixtures need to be changed by ladder – not safe.
• Need one additional truck and parking stall.
• Loading dock leveling plate does not work.
Figure 7 Figure 8
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 22
OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD.
Park Maintenance
• Rack storage space not adequate. See figure 9.
• No dedicated shop space with adequate lighting.
• Wood shop not large enough. Some equipment outside of shop.
• Need a central area for flammable storage for cabinets and containment. See
figure 10.
• Need dedicated space for tree storage – approximately 25 at a time.
• Some current storage at other facilities. Creates excessive travel time. Current
ballfield storage building has a leaking roof.
• STEP building to be unavailable soon. Need to accommodate current park
supplies storage.
• No bulk paint storage area.
Figure 9 Figure 10
Engineering
• Currently housed in city hall which is out of space.
o Currently enough office space, but will need more in the future.
o Multiple storage areas in office for maps, plans, supplies. Need to
consolidate for efficiency.
o Garage storage area leaks each spring. Must poly over equipment to
protect electronics.
o No employee lockers or showers.
o Heat in existing office space is inadequate. Several space heaters
scattered throughout office.
o Parking at city hall is not adequate for staff, visitors and park users.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 23
OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD.
Utilities
• Currently housed in fire station to potentially be demo’d.
• Existing building issues:
o Ventilation problems in all spaces.
o Tight storage and double deep parking creates double handling of
equipment.
o Equipment and materials stored at several other sites, including MSC and
water tower site. See figure 12.
o No break-out space for morning meetings.
o Lunch room is not large enough.
o Locker room is not large enough.
o No mud locker area.
o No dedicated lab space. See figure 11.
o Very little daylight.
o Lighting throughout is dim.
o No controlled archive storage area.
o No plan room / storage.
o No water fill area.
o No interior vehicle wash area. Currently wash outside which is hazardous
in winter.
o No security system.
o No full building generator.
o Employee and guest parking is not adequate.
o Overhead doors are too narrow.
o No loading dock or forklift.
o Rodent problem in office area.
o Need controllable exterior lighting.
Figure 11 Figure 12
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning Update Page 24
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning UpdatePage 25
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning UpdatePage 26
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning UpdatePage 27
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning UpdatePage 28
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning UpdatePage 29
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning UpdatePage 30
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Project Facilities Planning UpdatePage 31
Meeting Date: October13, 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:
Facilities/Infrastructure Financing Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. The purpose of this discussion is to review a potential
financing plan for new city facilities and two major infrastructure projects scheduled to be
undertaken over the next 5 years. Staff requests Council feedback on these ideas.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is Council in agreement with the proposed financing plan as outlined in this report? What other
information should staff provide to assist the Council?
BACKGROUND:
Staff has reviewed the proposed financing plan with the City’s financial consultant Ehlers and
Associates. This plan is consistent with the financial management plan as previously presented to the
City Council.
DISCUSSION:
The City of St. Louis Park will need to issue significant debt during the next several years in order to
pay for the major infrastructure projects that are planned. The primary ad valorem tax support will
be for the Fire Stations, but other debt will be required that have different sources of repayment.
The way to save money on financing is two-fold. First, you issue debt only when it is needed to
avoid excess interest costs. Staff proposes to split up the financing of the MSC expansion and the
two fire stations. Second, you also save money by issuing debt under $10,000,000 per year. This is
the “bank qualification” threshold which allows banks to hold these securities without paying tax on
the interest income. When there is a savings to the banks the issuer generally gets an interest rate
reduction of between 0.1-0.4percent because of the increased demand for this type of bond.
What follows is a summary of the projects included in the financing package. Attached is a
spreadsheet which lays out these same projects and the timing and funding sources for these projects.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Facilities/Infrastructure Financing Plan
MSC (2009 start date)
The approximate total cost of this project is about $6 million. It is proposed that this project be
paid through a combination of approximately $2 million in cash on hand and utility revenue bonds.
This debt will be included in our upcoming utility rate study to determine the necessary rates to
cover the full cost. Since we only need 20% of utility revenues for repayment (similar to GO TIF
bonds) we have the option of supplementing this with other cash such as from the Permanent
Improvement Revolving Fund. If this approach is acceptable to the Council this bond issue should
occur in 2008 in order to maximize our bank qualification amount.
Park Place Boulevard (under construction)
Per the redevelopment contract with DUKE, the City agreed to reconstruct Park Place Blvd and be
reimbursed with tax increment from the West End project. This project is currently under
construction at a cost of approximately $5 million. As anticipated when the redevelopment contract
was approved, the City needs to bond for the project cost and related capitalized interest until the
district actually begins generating increment. The total amount of the bond issue is estimated at
$5.5 million which will be entirely paid using tax increment revenues from the district. This bond
issue is anticipated to occur in 2008.
Hwy. 7 & Wooddale Ave Grade Separated Crossing (2009 start date)
The approximate cost of this project is $20,700,000. Funding sources identified thus far include
approximately $6 million in federal funds (already approved), approximately $2 million from
MnDOT in cash and in-kind contributions (not yet formally committed), $3.2 million of pooled
TIF dollars used to acquire property (already spent) and $8.6 million in funding from the Elmwood
TIF District. Another funding source that could assist with this or the Hwy 7/Louisiana project is
MSA funds the City has. More analysis needs to be undertaken to determine if it is appropriate to
use MSA funds for this project vs. other projects.
By statute, the Elmwood TIF District has a life of 15 years. 15 years of TIF will only generate about
$4.5 million in increment which could be applied towards this project. However, if the district was
extended for another 10 years, approximately $8.6 million in increment could be generated. Staff is
interested in the Councils reaction of staff pursuing legislatively an extension of the Elmwood TIF
District for an additional ten years in order to pay for the full remaining cost of the Hwy 7 &
Wooddale interchange. This would mean a bond issue of about $8.6 million in total. We are able
to issue General Obligation (GO) TIF bonds as long as at least 20% of the bonds will be paid
through TIF. The bonds could be paid off with other sources if we are able to secure additional
grants from either the Hennepin County Railroad Authority or MnDot. This bond issue is large
enough that it will consume most of our bank qualification for 2009. Please note that staff suggests
that we increase pressure on Hennepin County to provide funds toward this project as it will have
direct positive impacts on the SW LRT Station proposed to be located at this interchange.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Facilities/Infrastructure Financing Plan
Sunset Ridge Housing Improvement Area (2009 start date – still preliminary)
As the Council is aware, Sunset Ridge Condominiums are actively working with staff to create a
Housing Improvement Area. The total cost of their project is approximately $5 million. This
amount is in excess of what the City can fund internally, as we have done with other HIA’s. Thus,
we would need to issue debt to provide the upfront cash for this project. If approved, this debt
would be issued on a taxable basis, so we would retain our full $10 million bank qualification in
2009.
Fire Station #1 (2010 start date)
This project is currently estimated to cost about $8 million which includes the acquisition and
demolition of the three homes to the south (assumes this is the main station location). It is proposed
that $3 million from the Fire Pension Fund will be the equity contribution leaving $5 million in
bonding in 2010. This bonding would occur after the MSC project is completed and the Utility
Department is relocated. Please note that using $3 million from the Fire Pension Fund would
exhaust all of the resources in that account. There will be impacts of that in the future as that fund
currently supplements the general fund for expenses such as the Dispatch Center.
Fire Station #2 (2011 start date)
This project is currently estimated to cost about $4.4 million not including any land acquisition
costs. If this station were located at the current site, it is likely that it will encroach into Northside
Park. We have estimated that we would need approximately $1 million to retrofit this park. The
source of funds for this cost would be the Park Improvement Fund.
Staff does not intend to begin the financing process until the main station is complete. We have
estimated a total bond issue of $5 million in 2011 for this project. Please note that if the Council
should choose to utilize the Eliot site for the Station #2 location, the project cost would go up by
about $3 to $4 million.
Hwy. 7 & Louisiana Ave Grade Separated Crossing (2012 start date)
The estimated cost of this project is likely over $20,000,000. Funding sources identified thus far
include approximately $7 million in federal funds (committed). At this point no other funding
sources have been identified other than the City. However, we have been spending considerable
time with our representatives in Washington to have an appropriation included in the upcoming
2009 transportation bill to assist with the cost of this project. Worse case, we believe that this
project could be cash flowed for a bonding amount of up to $9 million with the HRA levy as the
repayment source. The $4 million cash contribution shown in the attachment is the accumulated
cash from prior year HRA levies that have not yet been spent.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The financing plan is consistent with previous staff communications to the City Council and will
not increase the tax levy over the amount already shown in the Financial Management Plan. It does
represent a very aggressive approach to making investments in our infrastructure in this community.
It also represents extremely heavy usage of local tax dollars to pay for regional improvements.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Facilities/Infrastructure Financing Plan
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Major Infrastructure Costs/Sources of Funding
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis ParkMajor Infrastructure Costs and Sources of FundingDraft Only: October 13, 2008------------------------Source of Debt Repayment---------------------------------Year ProjectTotal Project CostNon-City FundsTo Pay Project Costs City CashAmount of City Debt Taxes HRA Levy TIF Utility Revenues Fees/Specials2008 Park Place Blvd 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000City Garage MSC 6,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,0002009 7 and Wooddale 20,700,000 8,900,000 3,200,000 8,600,000 8,600,000Sunset Ridge HIA 5,270,0005,270,000 .(Taxable Bonds)2010 Fire Station #18,000,0003,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,0002011 Fire Station #25,000,0005,000,000 5,000,0002012 7 and Louisiana20,000,0007,000,000 4,000,000 9,000,0009,000,000Total70,470,00015,900,000 12,200,000 37,100,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 14,100,000 4,000,000 5,270,0001 Does not include North Side Park renovations 2 Does not include purchasing land for Fire Station 2
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Facilities/Infrastructure Financing Plan Page 5
Meeting Date: October 13, 2008
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council to continue discussion on process for the annual evaluation with the City Manager.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to use the 360 evaluation process for the 2008 annual City Manager
evaluation?
BACKGROUND:
At the Study Session on September 22, 2008, the Council discussed the evaluation process for the
City Manager. Two options were discussed:
• 360 Evaluation
• General evaluation process facilitated by a consultant
Council requested additional information on evaluation processes including sample 360
documentation. Below is information requested by Council.
360 Evaluation
What: The program used for the 360 is called “Checkpoint 360”. It is a tool that is done online
and facilitated by consultant Roger Hokanson. Sample copy of the tool is attached.
Who: Roger Hokanson is a local consultant skilled in this 360 tool (brief biography attached).
How: The 360 tool measures eight management and leadership competencies and 18 supporting
skill sets (more info attached). The tool is completed by the participant (City Manager), the
Mayor, Council, Directors and several other direct reports. The profile is done online and is
confidential. It is estimated that it takes 15 minutes to complete. Results are reviewed by
the consultant, and also with the City Manager and Council.
Cost: Approximate cost is $1,200.
General Evaluation Process
What: Similar process as previous years, using same type of performance evaluation form from the
past several years; facilitated by a consultant.
Who: Consultants recommended to facilitate this process are J. Forrest or Shelia Krejci (bios will be
submitted under separate cover).
How: Consultant would meet with the Council and discuss process and compile evaluation
materials. As in past years, materials would be distributed via email (or paper if requested)
and returned to consultant. Consultant will compile the data and discuss results with City
Manager, Mayor and Council.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process
Cost: Approximate cost is $3,000.
In the past three years, Council has worked with the following consultants:
• 2007 Bob Wittman
• 2006 Jean Morrison
• 2005 Larry Bakken
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Evaluation process expenses are included in the 2008 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Checkpoint 360 Sample Organizational Management Analysis (OMA) Report
Roger Hokanson Biography
Checkpoint 360 Sample Comparison Report
Checkpoint 360 Specifications
Checkpoint 360 OMA Brochure
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Organizational Management Analysis for:
ABC Company
5205 Lake Shore Drive · Waco, Texas 76710-1732 · (254) 751-1644 · www.profilesinternational.com
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 3
A confidential report prepared January 03, 2004, by:
Profiles International, Inc.
Includes 15 Participants *
24 Bosses, 81 Direct Reports and 64 Peers
Introduction to your Organizational Management Analysis
The Organizational Management Analysis (OMA) is designed to summarize the information from all of the
CheckPoint 360 individual feedback reports generated on the group selected. The individual feedback reports
identified the Managers strengths and areas needing improvement.
CheckPoint 360 is a professional development tool which measures skills that positively impact a Manager's
growth. It measures a manager's competencies, which are verified from a variety of perspectives, and pinpoints
ways to enhance skills. CheckPoint is an ongoing process that can be utilized at key intervals to monitor
performance. It assesses professional development by measuring 70 factors in eight performance areas crucial to
effective job performance.
The leadership skills of Managers are typically appraised by three different rating groups: their Boss(es), their
Direct Reports, and their Peers. The OMA contains a summary of the information presented to those Managers.
In addition, it provides an overview of the strengths and development areas of the Managers and direction for the
necessary skills training needed to improve their performance.
The 8 Universal Management Competencies and supporting 18 Skill Sets studied were:
Communication Task Management
• Listens to Others • Works Efficiently
• Processes Information • Works Competently
• Communicates Effectively
Leadership Production
• Instills Trust • Takes Action
• Provides Direction • Achieves Results
• Delegates Responsibility
Adaptability Development of Others
• Adjusts to Circumstances • Cultivates Individual Talents
• Thinks Creatively • Motivates Successfully
Relationships Personal Development
• Builds Personal Relationships • Displays Commitment
• Facilitates Team Success • Seeks Improvement
* A Participant is the individual identified as “Self” in each CheckPoint report. They were the focus for their
particular CheckPoint 360. In this report they are referred to as Managers.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 4
There are a number of benefits that can be gained from the OMA. From an executive perspective, the information
contained in this report should be viewed in verifying alignment with corporate vision, mission, and strategic goals
with regards to the development of your human capital.
This Organizational Management Analysis is presented in three sections. Each is briefly described below.
I. Executive Summary
Critical Skill Set Summary
Identifies what the Manager and their Boss(es) considered the most critical Skill Sets for each Manager's job
performance.
Critical Skill Set Alignment
Indicates where Boss(es) and Managers were in alignment with their Critical Skill Set selections.
Organizational Development Summary - All Raters
This graph shows what percentage of the raters (excluding Self) identified their Manager as being below, within,
or above the Favorable Zone. *
Organizational Development Summary - Direct Reports
This graph shows what percentage of the Direct Reports identified their Manager as being below, within, or above
the Favorable Zone.
Skill Set Comparative Analysis
This section summarizes the information provided in each of the Manager's CheckPoint reports. This displays the
percentage of the 18 Skill Sets rated below, within, or above the Favorable Zone.
II. Organizational Development Priorities
This section identifies those Managers whose skills were rated as needing improvement.
III. Organizational Training Needs Analysis
This section targets areas for training appropriate for each of the Managers.
* The Favorable Zone represents a range where a group of effective managers and leaders were typically rated
by others on the CheckPoint 360. These leaders were from a wide range of industries and organizations, and
had all been identified as good performers by their respective companies.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 5
Color Key: Bosses considering Skill Set as
critical.
Managers considering Skill Set as
critical.
The 15 Managers and their Boss(es) were presented with the 18 Skill Sets and asked to identify the six that they
considered to be the most critical for success. The chart below lists the Skill Sets in descending order and
displays what percentage of the Managers and Bosses perceived that Skill Set to be critical.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 6
Color Key: Percentage of Manager alignment
with Boss 1.
Percentage of Manager alignment
with Boss 2.
One of the most important, yet frequently ignored, aspects of a business relationship is the degree of alignment
between Managers and their Bosses regarding the critical skills essential for success. From the critical Skill Sets
selected by the Managers and their Boss(es), the following graph displays where the Boss(es) and the Managers
were in alignment with their selections.
The average critical skill alignment is 53%
Managers (*)Critical Skills Alignment with Boss(es)
Fitzgerald, Daisy 4 of 6 67%
5 of 6 83%
Brando, Stella 4 of 6 67%
3 of 6 50%
Break, Anita 3 of 6 50%
4 of 6 67%
Report, Cindy 4 of 6 67%
4 of 6 67%
Service, Darlene 3 of 6 50%
4 of 6 67%
Example, Dan 3 of 6 50%
Name, Alicia 3 of 6 50%
3 of 6 50%
Sample, Sally 3 of 6 50%
3 of 6 50%
Test, Michael 3 of 6 50%
3 of 6 50%
Training, Jill 3 of 6 50%
3 of 6 50%
Walker, Darcy 3 of 6 50%
Salmon, Kilgore 2 of 6 33%
Snell, Sue 2 of 6 33%
2 of 6 33%
Trial, Cynthia 2 of 6 33%
Manager, Waldo Survey did not include a Boss response.
(*) Number of skills where the Manager was in alignment with their Boss.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 7
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
As accumulated from the CheckPoint reports, this report includes a total of 169 CheckPoint surveys completed
by the various raters, Boss(es), Peers and Direct Reports. This graph shows the perceived management strengths
and areas for development and compares this information to the critical skills required for success as chosen by
your management team. All of these Organizational Development areas are explored in greater detail in a later
section of this report.
You can see what percentage of raters identified their Managers as below, within, or above the Favorable Zone.
Skill Sets (*)Percentage of Raters
(*) The number represents the top 6 Skill Sets that were identified to be the most critical as noted on page 3.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 8
Color Key: Percentage of Direct Reports below
the Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Direct Reports within
the Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Direct Reports above
the Favorable Zone.
This section of the report includes only the 81 CheckPoint surveys completed by the Direct Reports. This graph
shows the perceived management strengths and areas for development as seen by the direct reports of your
Managers. This information is also compared to the critical skills required for success as chosen by your
management team.
You can see what percentage of raters identified their Managers as below, within, or above the Favorable Zone.
Skill Sets (*)Percentage of Direct Reports
(*) The number represents the top 6 Skill Sets that were identified to be the most critical as noted on page 3.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 9
Color Key: Percentage of Skill Sets below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Skill Sets within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Skill Sets above the
Favorable Zone.
This section summarizes the information provided in each of the Manager's CheckPoint reports. This displays
the percentage of the 18 Skill Sets rated below, within or above the Favorable Zone for Managers by rater
groups.
The obvious goal for any organization would be that each Manager would be rated within or above the
Favorable Zone in all 18 Skill Sets by all raters. Unfortunately, this does not always occur. By reviewing the
information below, you can compare the rater groups to each other with regard to the 18 Skill Sets.
The information below visually displays the rater group analysis by Manager. A further breakdown of this
analysis is located in Section II, titled Organizational Development Priorities.
Managers Percentage of the 18 Skill Sets
Sample, Sally
2 Bosses, 6 Direct Reports and 4 Peers
A 67%33%
B 39%50%11%
B2 28%61%11%
D 100%
P 11%56%33%
S 67%33%
Walker, Darcy
1 Boss, 3 Direct Reports and 4 Peers
A 50%33%17%
B 50%28%22%
D 50%33%17%
P 39%44%17%
S 22%61%17%
Test, Michael
2 Bosses, 10 Direct Reports and 0 Peers
A 33%67%
B 50%33%17%
B2 39%61%
D 50%50%
P
S 22%78%
Trial, Cynthia
1 Boss, 4 Direct Reports and 7 Peers
A 28%67%5%
B 6%94%
D 33%67%
P 50%44%6%
S 33%67%
Report, Cindy
2 Bosses, 7 Direct Reports and 3 Peers
A 28%61%11%
B 33%50%17%
B2 17%22%61%
D 50%50%
P 22%50%28%
S 33%67%
Service, Darlene
2 Bosses, 3 Direct Reports and 6 Peers
A 6%89%5%
B 94%6%
B2 6%50%44%
D 89%11%
P 56%44%
S 78%22%
Break, Anita
2 Bosses, 5 Direct Reports and 5 Peers
A 89%11%
B 72%28%
B2 28%72%
D 33%67%
P 28%72%
S 22%78%
Color Key:A All Observers B Boss B2 Boss 2 D Direct Reports P Peers S Self
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 10
Color Key: Percentage of Skill Sets below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Skill Sets within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Skill Sets above the
Favorable Zone.
Managers Percentage of the 18 Skill Sets
Training, Jill
2 Bosses, 4 Direct Reports and 6 Peers
A 83%17%
B 6%78%16%
B2 50%50%
D 11%89%
P 61%39%
S 22%78%
Fitzgerald, Daisy
2 Bosses, 3 Direct Reports and 4 Peers
A 72%28%
B 6%39%55%
B2 78%22%
D 28%72%
P 28%61%11%
S 100%
Name, Alicia
2 Bosses, 7 Direct Reports and 3 Peers
A 72%28%
B 17%83%
B2 6%89%5%
D 72%28%
P 28%72%
S 50%50%
Snell, Sue
2 Bosses, 2 Direct Reports and 6 Peers
A 50%50%
B 94%6%
B2 11%61%28%
D 44%22%34%
P 6%94%
S 100%
Brando, Stella
2 Bosses, 5 Direct Reports and 4 Peers
A 50%50%
B 17%78%5%
B2 78%22%
D 44%56%
P 33%67%
S 11%44%45%
Manager, Waldo
0 Boss, 12 Direct Reports and 0 Peers
A 33%67%
B
D 33%67%
P
S 11%89%
Salmon, Kilgore
1 Boss, 2 Direct Reports and 9 Peers
A 28%72%
B 6%22%72%
D 6%78%16%
P 17%83%
S 6%72%22%
Example, Dan
1 Boss, 8 Direct Reports and 3 Peers
A 22%78%
B 11%89%
D 6%94%
P 6%50%44%
S 22%78%
Color Key:A All Observers B Boss B2 Boss 2 D Direct Reports P Peers S Self
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 11
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
This section of the report reviews all of the Managers and lists those Skill Sets for which improvement is
recommended.
In the following pages each of the 18 Skill Sets is presented and ranked as indicated on the Critical Skill Set
Selection area of this report.
The definition of the Skill Set is included.
Delegates Responsibility: Delegates appropriate jobs to appropriate people. Empowers others to work
and solve problems on their own.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Delegates
Responsibility' according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize
performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 12
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Manager scored above or within the Favorable Zone and was not provided recommendations for
improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 13
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Seeks Improvement: Learns positive lessons from mistakes and constructive criticism. Pursues resources
to improve and develop professionally. Sets no limits on personal potential.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Seeks Improvement'
according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 14
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Listens To Others: Encourages others to share their ideas and concerns. Listens openly to all viewpoints
without interrupting. Summarizes information and verifies understanding.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Listens To Others'
according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 15
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 16
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Thinks Creatively: Brings an imaginative approach to the job, inspiring innovation, risk-taking and creative
problem-solving.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Thinks Creatively'
according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 17
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Cultivates Individual Talents: Is an effective coach and makes training available. Provides objective
performance feedback on a timely basis.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Cultivates Individual
Talents' according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 18
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Processes Information: Gets to the point. Evaluates the pros and cons, as well as the short and long-range
consequences, of decisions. Develops logical, clear conclusions.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Processes
Information' according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize
performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 19
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Manager scored above or within the Favorable Zone and was not provided recommendations for
improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 20
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Facilitates Team Success: Resolves conflicts fairly in a spirit of cooperation. Builds consensus and leads
team in setting appropriate goals. Recruits effectively and uses talents of group wisely.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Facilitates Team
Success' according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 21
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Manager scored above or within the Favorable Zone and was not provided recommendations for
improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 22
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Provides Direction: Establishes clear expectations and a manageable workload. Plans the steps required to
accomplish objectives, while keeping focus on overall vision.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Provides Direction'
according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 23
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 24
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Communicates Effectively: Expresses self clearly, both in writing and in speaking. Is thorough, yet
concise, and is consistently straightforward. Readily shares information with others.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Communicates
Effectively' according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize
performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 25
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 26
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Motivates Successfully: Gives recognition to people who produce excellent work and give extra effort.
Has an enthusiastic attitude that positively affects others.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Motivates
Successfully' according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize
performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 27
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 28
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Builds Personal Relationships: Is considerate of others' feelings, shows freedom from unfair biases and
is tactful when giving criticism. Remains composed under stress.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Builds Personal
Relationships' according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize
performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 29
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Manager scored above or within the Favorable Zone and was not provided recommendations for
improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 30
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Achieves Results: Overcomes obstacles to achieve results that set high standards for others and that
positively impact the organization.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Achieves Results'
according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 31
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Adjusts to Circumstances: Can adjust to people's diverse work styles and to varying environments. Deals
with setbacks constructively and anticipates change.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Adjusts to
Circumstances' according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize
performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 32
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 33
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Takes Action: Knows when the time is right to initiate action. Handles problems with assertiveness and
makes timely, firm decisions.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Takes Action'
according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 34
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 35
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Works Competently: Has mastered the fundamentals of the job. Can quickly and competently apply new
methods and new information to appropriate tasks.
The following Manager was provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Works Competently'
according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 36
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 37
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Instills Trust: Can be trusted to keep promises and confidences. Is honest and ethical.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 38
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Works Efficiently: Makes efficient use of current technology and wise use of outside resources. Avoids
procrastination and sets priorities.
The following Managers were provided recommendations for improvement in the Skill Set 'Works Efficiently'
according to their CheckPoint Report. Follow-up is strongly recommended to optimize performance.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 39
Color Key: Percentage of Raters below the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters within the
Favorable Zone.
Percentage of Raters above the
Favorable Zone.
Displays Commitment: Maintains a high level of energy, perseveres and remains positive.
The following Managers were not provided recommendations for improvement in this Skill Set because other
Skill Sets were listed as critical and needing more attention. However, they are listed here as they did have
respondents that rated them below the Favorable Zone. You may want to consider them for training as described
in this report.
The following Managers scored above or within the Favorable Zone and were not provided recommendations
for improvement in this Skill Set.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 40
It is recommended that the individuals identified as having scores below the Favorable Zone in these Skill Sets
participate in a development program that focuses upon improving their abilities.
SkillBuilder
Before embarking upon any formal development program it is advisable to provide these Managers with an
opportunity to focus more clearly upon their specific requirements. SkillBuilder is a self-paced online system that
will help each participant do just that.
Skill Builder has 18 modules corresponding to the Skill Sets that are measured in the Checkpoint 360 report. These
modules provide questions and online exercises as well as guidance for the utilization of a coach or mentor.
In many cases the depth of SkillBuilder is such that no further training intervention is necessary to effect the
suggested behavior changes. Ask your Checkpoint Administrator for more details on SkillBuilder modules.
Program Specifications
The following section lists specifications for development of each of the eighteen (18) Skill Sets. These
specifications may be used to facilitate the development of Skill Set specific training.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 41
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Delegate to Free Up Time and to Develop Staff.
•Acknowledge that others can handle some tasks as competently as they can. Maybe better.
•Examine their workloads and determine tasks that can be handed over to others.
Delegate to the Best Person for the Circumstances.
•Survey individuals to see what duties they'd be interested in tackling.
•Match people's strengths with work assignments.
•Present small, challenging tasks to people with untested abilities. See if they can rise to the occasion.
•Where they know a person is trying to improve a skill, provide opportunities for practice.
•If no one has the qualifications for a particular task that needs to be delegated, arrange for the necessary training.
•Consider the workloads of others when delegating. Shift responsibilities as necessary.
Oversee, But Don't Over-Control.
•Give as much direction as necessary to initiate people to new duties. Then let them take charge, while avoiding
“hovering.” During periodic progress reviews, give additional direction as needed.
•Make their expectations explicit and thorough, allowing some flexibility in implementation.
•Clarify which actions will require prior approval from them. Learn to gradually increase an appointed person's
authority to act independently.
•Delegate in stages when appropriate. Work up to the point at which complete responsibility is transferred.
•Encourage others as they take on new responsibilities. Give positive feedback whenever possible.
•Remember that failure can be a great teacher. Shield people in newly delegated positions from disastrous
mistakes, but allow the opportunity for smaller errors that can be instructive for the future.
Let Others Sharpen Their Problem-Solving Skills.
•When people present problems, they should ask them for possible resolutions before offering their advice -
guiding their people in becoming solution-oriented.
•Show confidence in their people's abilities to craft workable, successful solutions to problems.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 42
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Learn from Mistakes.
•Keep in mind that a mistake only becomes a failure if they fail to learn from it.
•Avoid blaming others and take responsibility for their mistakes.
•In analyzing mistakes, discuss with others what was done right and what could have been done differently.
•Spend some time reflecting on mistakes, then put the past behind them.
Learn from Criticism.
•Accept negative feedback as performance improvement information. Use it constructively to become more
capable on the job.
•Realize that self-perceptions of performance may be different from the perceptions of others.
•Avoid becoming angry or defensive. Giving negative feedback is hard enough. If they make it more difficult,
they may stop the flow of valuable developmental information.
•Request feedback. Let others know that they are open to suggestions - and thank them for their honesty.
Commit to Lifelong Learning.
•Stay current with business-related information, as it becomes outdated.
•Improve their existing skills and learn new ones.
•Discover how they learn best, then use all resources to develop competencies.
•Take a self-directed approach to learning, do not wait for someone to push them.
•Keep growing and changing; it is a law of nature and of business.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 43
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Create Opportunities from Listening.
•Understand how to encourage others to share their opinions, even those that may differ from their own.
•Be open to accepting constructive criticism in the spirit in which it is provided, avoiding a defensive stance.
•Focus upon drawing out new ideas from colleagues in brainstorming sessions where judgment is suspended to
ensure the free flow of ideas.
•Ask open-ended questions that will lead to answers that are more informative than 'yes' or 'no,' while always
allowing plenty of time for considered responses, avoiding the appearance of impatience.
•Allow time in meetings so that even non-agenda items that are raised can be discussed.
Really Listen.
•Give people their undivided attention, avoiding the temptation to simultaneously tend to other business while
listening. When other work is urgent, Participants must learn to schedule a later time to discuss the issue at hand.
•Concentrate on what's being said, as opposed to thinking about their responses while others are talking.
•Avoid interrupting to allow others to finish expressing their thoughts.
•Make genuine attempts to understand the position of others on issues, taking time to consider all issues from
others' perspectives.
Pay Attention to Non-Verbal Behavior
•Be sensitive to body language that signals agreement or enthusiasm while being watchful for any signs of
resistance, fear, anxiety or anger.
•Probe for genuine responses by asking relevant questions that follow up on observations.
•Appreciate the value of silence, understanding how it provides everyone with an opportunity to assimilate
information and develop his or her thoughts.
Let People Know They're Listening.
•Before they respond, summarize what they heard to make sure they have understood.
•Use eye contact effectively and provide other non-verbal assurances such as nodding or smiling to show that
they're listening. Show interest in the viewpoints of others.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 44
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Make Continuous, Creative Improvements.
•Avoid becoming too comfortable with the status quo, rather constantly looking for new opportunities and
improved ways of doing business.
•Develop their curiosity, not only about business-related matters but also about the world in general.
Involve Everyone in the Sharing of Ideas.
•Encourage others to contribute their ideas. Fully consider an idea's merits before evaluating its drawbacks.
•Give recognition to staff members who come up with innovations making a positive impact on the business.
•Ignore all restrictions, policies and established methodologies at the outset of a brainstorming session. Let ideas
flow freely, unlimited by boundaries of any sort. Particularly avoid any reference to how “it's always been
done.”
Accept Risks as Part of the Success Equation.
•Realize that actions with the greatest potential benefits usually carry some risks; that to achieve optimum long-
term results, risk-taking will be necessary.
•Analyze risks and realistically determine worst-case scenarios.
•Figure ways to reduce, not completely avoid, risks.
•Accept the occasional failures that are bound to occur when innovation is promoted. Nothing ventured, nothing
gained.
Adopt the Attitude That Problems Are Opportunities.
•Stay positive. A problem may constructively redirect a course of action.
•Look at an obstacle as a challenging puzzle to be solved. Realize that several workable solutions probably exist.
•View a dilemma from multiple perspectives. Step out of their roles and look at the problem from an entirely
different perspective.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 45
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Become an Effective Coach.
•Make it a point to know the career goals and aspirations of others. Help plan the development needed to achieve
their goals.
•Be patient with mistakes. Make sure that they fully understand all the circumstances. Turn the error into a
learning experience.
•Teach skills in chronological, incremental steps. Adjust the pace to fit the individual.
•Ask others how they can assist in their professional development.
Make Learning Opportunities Available.
•Delegate challenging tasks or give targeted assignments to help others develop their potential.
•Provide as many opportunities as possible for people to learn different aspects of the business.
•Keep their eyes on the company's needs, as well as on personal development needs, when planning learning
activities. What benefits the company will also benefit the individual.
•Look for training opportunities that will allow others to build on their existing talents and experience.
•Share books, tapes, journal articles, newsletters and conference notes that might prove helpful to an individual
working on a particular skill.
Give Feedback Regularly.
•Make sure that appraisals are constructive. Approach them as the starting point for making positive changes.
•When people are not performing up to expectations, promptly and frankly discuss the situation with them. Use
tact. Listen. Help them identify ways to improve.
•Criticize performance, not the person.
•Express confidence in a person's ability to improve performance.
•Be generous in giving positive feedback. Make it as specific as possible.
•Schedule regular performance reviews. People need timely feedback on both skills needing attention and skills
showing improvement. Schedule regular follow-up meetings, also.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 46
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Zero-In on the Main Point.
•Clearly define an issue's key elements before pursuing steps toward a solution or course of action.
•Assemble all the pieces involved in a business matter in order to clearly analyze the “big picture.”
•Stay on track when researching an issue. Avoid spending time on material that is irrelevant to the goal at hand.
•Read and analyze company reports, budgets and financial statements relevant to the matter under consideration.
Take a Broad, Comprehensive Overview of Every Situation.
•Anticipate problems or potential difficulties. Weigh these against expected benefits.
•Consider both the short and long-term effects of a proposed action.
•Know the long-range objectives of the business and make sure decisions are consistent with those plans.
•Take into account all pertinent data and alternative approaches.
•Evaluate the impact that decisions will have on co-workers and clients. Take their perspectives into
consideration when reviewing any issue.
•Consider the lessons of history, circumstances of today and projections for the future.
•Know their competition.
Come to a Workable Conclusion.
•Draw practical applications from provided information.
•Be able to logically explain the rationale for any decision they make.
•Formulate plans that others can easily understand and support.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 47
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Handle Conflict in a Direct and Effective Manner.
•Avoid ignoring conflict.
•Do not expect a conflict-free workplace. Recognize that some discord is inevitable and constructively dealing
with it will create a more productive work environment.
•Listen carefully to all viewpoints in a disagreement. Define the problem. Then begin the process of resolution.
•Explore multiple options. Then resolve differences with solutions that are acceptable to all involved parties.
Encourage Cooperation in Order to Reap the Benefits of a Strongly Unified Group Effort.
•When recognizing outstanding performance, go beyond the acknowledgment of individual successes. Give equal
emphasis to team achievements and effective cooperation among team members.
•Validate the importance of each and every team member's contribution.
Learn to Collaborate on Team Decisions.
•Practice the art of compromise when making decisions, creating win/win situations.
•Involve the team in considering alternative approaches to gain support for decisions. Strive for consensus in
order to increase commitment to the final decision.
Establish Team Objectives.
•As much as possible, involve the team in formulating goals consistent with, and supportive of, the overall
mission. Also solicit input when planning the implementation to achieve goals.
•Make sure everyone understands the team's goals, as well as their role in attaining the goals.
•Keep everyone apprised of team progress.
Develop Group Dynamics That Bring Out the Best in Everyone.
•Recruit individuals with talents that will complement the skills of other team members.
•Capitalize on each individual's strengths and experiences to create a potent team effort.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 48
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Outline Expectations.
•Clarify each team member's responsibilities for accomplishing objectives.
•Develop job descriptions that are distinct and specific, not vague and broad. Involve their staffs in constructing
these descriptions. Review and revise them often.
•Clearly communicate policies, procedures and guidelines as well as priorities and timelines.
•Make known the expectations for job behavior and attitude. Set standards for performance.
•Explain and answer questions until expectations are perfectly clear.
•Hold others accountable for performance at the level they've outlined. Provide timely feedback about the
performance of others.
Make Appropriate Work Assignments.
•Distribute responsibilities so that all bases are covered and efforts aren't duplicated.
•Redirect work that has not been as productive as planned.
•Keep the workload for each individual challenging, yet fair.
•Be available to discuss problems with assignments and to explore solutions.
Translate Tomorrow's Vision into Today's Activities.
•Make sure everyone understands, and feels a part of, the organization's mission.
•Establish short and long-term goals that are consistent with the mission. Continuously track progress.
•Constantly evaluate systems and processes. Make modifications that are in line with the direction of the
organization.
•Plan times for team members to report their individual work status, ultimately shaping a comprehensive view of
the group effort.
•In planning the steps necessary to complete a project, incorporate a series of checkpoints leading up to the final
deadline.
•Plan for, and make available, all necessary resources.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 49
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Write Clearly, Concisely and Accurately.
•Outline the important information that they need to cover, organizing their information in a logical, easy-to-
follow manner, leaving out unnecessary details.
•Use short, direct sentences. If short, easily understandable words will explain their points, eliminate any longer,
more difficult words.
•Proofread and make necessary corrections before distributing any written work. Simple errors affect credibility.
Speak Effectively to Groups.
•Prepare before leading discussion groups. Become familiar with the issues so that they can facilitate productive
sessions.
•Rehearse before making any presentations.
•Strive for a conversational, dynamic delivery, avoiding a stiff, formal presentation.
•Observe their audiences for non-verbal cues (such as fidgeting, looking at the clock or appearing puzzled) that
indicate they need to inject more enthusiasm or clearly explain a point.
•Record or videotape themselves speaking to a group. Review it later, receiving feedback on what they did well
and what they could do better.
•Make sure that their main points are crystal clear and that their supporting points are well organized.
•Ask others for feedback to assure that their messages came across as planned.
Speak Effectively to Individuals.
•Avoid procrastination or evasion when they must communicate negative information. When it concerns others,
they must learn how to remain sensitive, yet direct. When it concerns themselves, they must understand how to
fully explain a situation and take appropriate responsibility.
•Stay on target when writing or speaking, avoiding rambling or taking off on a tangent; remaining direct, to the
point, clear and concise.
•Recognize the non-verbal messages that they give through their facial expressions, posture and gestures.
•Keep others informed. Use letters, memos, bulletin boards, meetings, progress reports, telephone calls, faxes, e-
mail, voice mail and all other available forms of communication to keep key people informed of key
developments. Also make pertinent documents, associated files and relevant resources available to others
involved in a mutual project.
•Promptly return phone calls and respond to letters, memos, etc.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 50
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Encourage Others by Giving Recognition and Showing Appreciation for Their Efforts.
•Realize that everyone needs to feel valued and appreciated.
•Understand the motivating power of recognition and rewards.
•Never pass up an opportunity to acknowledge a job well done.
•Never pass up an opportunity to show gratitude for extra effort, hard work, or long hours.
•Let others in the company know of the accomplishments of their team members.
•Give recognition to deserving people as soon as possible after their achievement.
•Make sure everyone's contribution to a successful group effort is acknowledged.
•To keep morale up, don't wait until completion of a lengthy project to celebrate. Recognize milestones along
the way. Celebrating small victories will promote continued progress toward their goals.
•Use traditional forms of recognition (like the company newsletter) and rewards (a bonus check), but also
come up with some appropriate, creative ways to reward outstanding performance.
•Give frequent praise to reinforce positive behaviors.
•Realize that short phrases like "thank you," "good job" and "nice work" can have big impact.
•As much as possible, make the work experience challenging and satisfying.
Be a Positive Influence in the Work Environment.
•Convey an optimistic, can-do attitude. Expect great results.
•Address problems, but don't dwell on them.
•Provide encouragement during stressful times.
•Create an atmosphere where there is enthusiasm for a project and support for one another.
•Look for ways to make the workplace enjoyable.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 51
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Sense the Impact of Words and Actions on Others.
•Play their parts in keeping morale up, as much as possible, making others feel good about themselves and their
work.
•Ensuring that joking is never offensive and that kidding is never demeaning.
•Listen closely to others in order to fully understand all sides and aspects of an issue before responding to a
situation.
•Apologize if they realize they've been insensitive.
Show Respect for All.
•Avoid labeling, pigeonholing, or prejudging anyone.
•Be consistent and fair in their treatment of all people.
•Recognize that differences enhance the workplace, contributing a rich mix of experiences and viewpoints.
•Focus on commonalities, the core values that draw everyone together, while still appreciating the uniqueness of
each individual.
Keep Critiques Constructive.
•Criticize actions, not people.
•If they need to address a problem with an individual, find a time and place to hold a confidential, one-to-one
discussion.
•Make sure a criticism includes specific suggestions for desired improvements.
•In addition to constructive feedback, point out positive behaviors they've observed.
Don't Let Their Emotions Escalate a Crisis.
•Work to remain calm and objective in times of stress.
•Briefly remove themselves from adverse situations if they feel they might lose their composure, returning when
they have put the situation in perspective and can react effectively to deal with it.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 52
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Develop the Patience and the Will to Overcome Adversities.
•Bounce back from disappointments and forge ahead. Stay focused on the ultimate objective.
•Learn from mistakes.
•Approach problems as opportunities.
•Use humor to keep difficulties in perspective.
•View obstacles as challenges that will build their leadership skills.
•Take pride in achieving a hard-won success.
Focus on Quality.
•Set high standards for performance in every aspect of the business.
•Involve everyone in the commitment to quality. Make sure everyone understands that excellence is good
business.
•Constantly evaluate the quality of work produced.
•No matter how well things are going, realize that improvements are always possible.
•Solicit suggestions from clients.
•Work to find ways of consistently exceeding client expectations.
Resolve to Achieve a Positive Outcome.
•Have a clear idea of what they want to accomplish. Ignore, or quickly take care of, distractions. Stay on course.
•Direct efforts toward achievements that contribute to the team's goals and the company's mission. Avoid
becoming sidetracked by unimportant activities.
•Learn what has worked, and what has not, in previous projects similar to theirs. Examine the reasons. Use that
information to help ensure success.
•Lead with a sense of purpose and make sure everyone is aware of the vision.
•Develop a results-oriented team. Celebrate together when goals are successfully accomplished.
•Go the distance.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 53
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Respect, and Capitalize on, the Range of Differences That Individuals Bring to the Group.
•Understand that while their approaches to work may be correct, this doesn't make theirs the only correct
approaches.
•Realize that contrasting work styles can complement one another and make for a stronger overall outcome.
•Maintain focus upon the bottom line and remain flexible about processes and procedures.
•Take into account the input they receive from all levels in the organization.
•Keep an open-minded, willing-to-learn attitude in diverse settings and situations.
•Pursue experiences outside the norm for them. Learn to adapt to, and become confident in, a variety of
environments with differing expectations.
Learn to Deal Effectively with Unexpected Problems and Sudden Crises.
•Develop the habit of assuming the best instead of the worst. A small problem can set in motion activities that
lead to big improvements.
•Keep things in perspective. Avoid agonizing over minor adjustments to the big plan.
•Figure out where things went wrong. Decide what they could do differently next time to prevent a similar
setback.
•Keep a sense of humor.
Know That the One Thing You Can Always Count on is Change.
•Accept changing circumstances as inevitable and plan for them as much as possible.
•Don't assume that business as usual will keep clients loyal. Anticipate clients' changing needs.
•Always have contingency plans.
•Read current business books and periodicals, as well as general interest materials. Learn to spot trends and apply
them to the business.
•Be proactive. Choose change instead of waiting to react to it.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 54
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
In Making Plans and Decisions, Know When It's Time to Take Action.
•Avoid snap decisions on important matters. Spend a reasonable amount of time analyzing alternatives.
•Recognize when sufficient facts have been gathered to make informed decisions. Don't delay beyond that point.
Make the decision.
•Resist holding up projects with constant waffling and indecision.
•Communicate fully the terms of a decision and its ramifications. Let others know that negotiations are over for
now and that the present intent is to make the plan work.
•Become accustomed to making quick decisions on routine business matters, and then get on with other concerns.
•Determine not to allow fear of a wrong move to hamper their actions. Know that they can make adjustments to
their plans later if necessary.
Exercise Initiative.
•Resist waiting to be told that a task needs doing. Just do it.
•Pitch in where needed, even if the task falls within another person's area of responsibility.
•Take charge of implementing positive changes in the workplace.
•Concentrate their energies on matters where they can make things happen.
•Know what's expected of them and then go beyond.
Learn to Deal Promptly with Problems.
•When faced with a problem, use their time to look for solutions, don't waste time blaming or complaining.
•Be proactive. Choose to address problems instead of ignoring them or making excuses for non-action.
•Respond quickly to client concerns.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 55
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Develop Competence and Confidence in All Aspects of the Job.
•Ensure that they understand the key duties of their jobs and become knowledgeable about all procedures
involved in those duties.
•Become familiar with information that relates to and supports the jobs they perform. Know the overall operation
of the business.
Make Learning an Ongoing Process.
•Constantly upgrade their skills to keep pace with change.
•Find appropriate methods to increase their capabilities in any areas where they lack adequate skills.
•Plan to keep up-to-date with advances in their fields by attending conferences and reading current magazines,
newsletters and journals.
•Create opportunities to network with others who can provide new insights into their particular jobs and the
business as a whole.
Change with the Times.
•Initiate changes that will keep them in step with, or take them beyond, the competition.
•Encourage others to introduce new ideas based on current trends.
•When they learn of a new theory that has relevance to the business, find ways to incorporate it effectively.
•Resist depending on yesterday's solutions for today's problems.
•Anticipate clients' future needs and wants.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 56
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Keep Promises.
•Avoid making promises that they can't or won't keep.
•If circumstances beyond their control affect a commitment, make sure those involved are informed about the
situation promptly.
Keep Confidences.
•If they agree to keep certain information confidential, keep the promise. If they have any doubts about whether
they can abide by their agreements, don't enter into them.
•Know which company records are open and which are classified.
Be Honest and Forthright.
•When asked difficult questions, give truthful, straightforward answers whenever possible. When it's not possible
to share information, explain the reason.
•Take responsibility for their mistakes, avoiding excuses or trying to place the blame on others.
Demonstrate Integrity.
•Keep their actions consistent with their words, showing character through both.
•Meet deadlines, keep appointments, be on time or be prepared with a sound explanation.
•Take a stand for their beliefs and values.
•Be certain that they defend their actions based on the highest, best intentions.
•Lead by example.
Encourage Organization-Wide Ethics.
•Acknowledge others for making ethical choices. Promote high standards of behavior from everyone around
them.
•Know the organization's ethical policies. If a specific policy does not exist for a situation they are facing, and
they are uncertain about the course to take, be prepared and confident to consult with their managers and other
key individuals.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 57
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Benefit from Technology.
•Recognize the role that technology can play in increasing production. Be willing to make the necessary
investment.
•Become proficient in the application of new technology. Commit to an ongoing learning process to stay current
with applicable technological advances.
Ask for Help When Necessary.
•Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of outsourcing certain work to independent contractors.
•Solicit the services of outside resources when the need for specific expertise is clear.
•Arrange for outside consultations for short-term, targeted projects.
Take Action Instead of Procrastinating.
•Avoid putting off the start of a big project because it seems overwhelming. Take action.
•Schedule precise times to handle matters they've been successfully postponing - making sure to keep these
appointments.
Establish Priorities.
•Decide what is truly important, refusing to let inconsequential activities swallow up valuable time. The way they
spend their time should be a direct reflection of their priorities.
•Have the discipline to say "no" to activities that will divert them from their highest priorities.
•Eliminate or delegate tasks that are unimportant to their primary objectives. Tackle remaining tasks in the order
of their importance.
•Adjust priorities as the situation warrants. Keep everyone informed of the priorities as they evolve.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 58
Program Specification
Any program you design or procure to address this requirement will need to focus upon development of skills and behaviors
that will help Managers to:
Bring a High Level of Energy to the Workplace.
•Strive for a healthy lifestyle, including good eating habits and regular exercise.
•Learn ways to manage stress.
•Surround themselves with people who energize them.
•Involve themselves in activities that interest and challenge them.
•Do what they can to make work fun.
•Find the right balance of work, family, health, personal goals and service in their lives.
•Constantly learn and look for new ways to do things.
Be Persistent.
•Show their commitment to the company's mission through their attitudes and actions.
•When they're forced to a standstill, consider new methods to get out of the stall. Seek advice.
•Take an active approach to solving problems.
•Build resilience. Learn to cope with and overcome difficulties.
•Exhibit a never-give-up attitude. Finish what they start.
Remain Positive.
•Choose to make positive responses to setbacks.
•Maintain an optimistic view of the big picture as they deal with troublesome details.
•Use humor to keep obstacles in perspective.
•Believe in themselves and their purposes and goals.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 59
Roger Hokanson
Roger Hokanson is focused on Workplace Performance best practices using objective information
for “people decisions” about executives, employees and candidates.
A central tenet of this approach is assuring that the “Right Person is Placed in or Promoted into the
Right Job”. This tactical alignment of people with the mission of the company, by
positioning them in their place of most potential, yields outstanding business results and personal
satisfaction for the employee.
Roger has used a variety of assessment tools since 1975 and is one of the most senior Business
Partners of Profiles International in Minnesota.
He participates in numerous civic and industry associations and most recently has served as Vice
President and a member of the board of directors for Human Resource Professionals of MN
(HRPMN.org), and during the four years prior as VP of Programs for Sales and Marketing
Executives of Mpls/St Paul.
Specific Expertise:
Strategic sales management and sales effectiveness.
Benchmarking workplace performance.
Concurrent validation job studies.
Executive Assessment and Development
Marketing & Promotion of Events
Small Business Management
Industry Expertise:
Strategic sales management and sales effectiveness.
Retail Sales
Insurance Restoration
Business Promotion
Construction & Project Management
Marketing & Sales Management
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Roger attended Hamline University in St Paul, MN and graduated from the University of
Minnesota with a major in Architecture.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 60
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 61
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 62
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 63
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 64
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 65
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 66
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 67
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 68
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 69
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 70
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 71
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 72
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 73
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 74
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 75
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 76
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 77
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 78
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 79
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 80
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 81
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 82
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 83
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 84
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 85
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 86
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 87
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 88
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 89
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 90
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 91
An Executive View of an Organization’s
Leadership Pipeline
Organizational Management Analysis™
Alignment of management with the top goals
of the business is key in driving increased
productivity and business success. The
CheckPoint OMA (Organizational Management
Analysis™) is a comprehensive tool, designed
specifically for senior executives, that provides
valuable insight into the overall abilities and
alignment of 18 Critical Management Skill Sets
for leaders at all levels of the organization.
To produce an OMA report requires your
leaders to complete a CheckPoint 360°™
Feedback survey. The OMA reduces the
magnitude of 360° data for each leader to six
precise executive reports.
CheckPoint™ OMA™ is a valuable tool which
helps senior executives:
Obtain a high level view of the •
organization’s management skill set’s
strengths and management skill gaps
Ensure alignment to the company’s •
vision, mission and strategic busienss
goals for human capital management
and development
Develop a targeted leadership training •
system to address specific leadership
challenges that may be pervasive within
your organization
Provide personalized leadership •
development plans for leaders at all
levels of the organization
CheckPoint™ OMA’s comprehensive reporting
suite provides detailed insight into the
following management capabilities:
Critical Skill Set Summary – Identifies the
skill sets considered by your management
team to be the most critical to the success of
your organization. This information is vital to
ensure management priorities are consistent
throughout the organization.
Critical Skill Set Analysis – Provides
detailed analysis of alignment between
individual managers and their bosses
regarding the critical Skill Sets important for
business success as determined by your
management team. This information identifies
and resolves potential differences in priorities
between managers and their senior
executives.
CheckPoint OMA identifies
perceived strengths and areas for
development across your entire
management team, allowing
you to prioritize your leadership
development initiatives.
CheckPoint 360°™ Feedback System
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 92
Robust Measurements
CheckPoint 360°™ measures 8 Management Competencies and 18 Skill Sets, including:
Communication
1. Listens to others
2. Processes information
3. Communicates effectively
Leadership
4. Instills trust
5. Provides direction
6. Delegates responsibility
Adaptability
7. Adjusts to circumstances
8. Thinks creatively
Relationships
9. Builds personal relationships
10. Facilitates team success
Task Management
11. Works efficiently
12. Works competently
Production
13. Takes action
14. Achieves results
Development of Others
15. Cultivates individual talents
16. Motivates successfully
Personal Development
17. Displays commitment
18. Seeks improvement
Organizational Development Priorities –
Provides an overview, by skill set, of all
managers who received recommendations for
improvement for a specific skill set. This allows
organizations to quickly pinpoint, prioritize and
implement management training programs.
Organizational Training Needs Analysis –
Provides guidance on specific activities that
should be addressed in training for each of the
18 Critical Skill Sets. These activities are
supported with detailed Personal Action Plans
and Coaching Guides from the CheckPoint
SkillBuilder solution.
Organizational Development Summaries
The report provides an analysis of the
percentage of your team within or above the
Favorable Zone that defines the target level of
management capability for each critical skill.
This information pinpoints common
management challenges in your organization
and provides a baseline for leadership
development at a group level.
Skill Set
Comparative
Analysis –
Provides a high
level summary
comparing
individual
manager’s skills
against the
Favorable Zones
across all 18
Management Skill Sets and all reference
groups. This analysis makes it easy to identify
managers who require further leadership
development.
1.08
Customizable Partner Info
Profiles International l 5205 Lake Shore Drive l Waco, TX 76710 l 254.751.1644 l profilesinternational.com
“This program is designed
for improving managers’
skills and thereby improving
employee retention and
productivity. It is an
effective program that
implements lasting change.”
—Jim Sirbasku, CEO,
Profiles International
CheckPoint OMA provides
a consolidated view of
management strengths
throughout the organization.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 5)
Subject: City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation Process Page 93
Meeting Date: October 13, 2008
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
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: October13, 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:
Proposed Amendment to Business Licensing Chapter – Vacant Properties.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time other than to provide feedback to staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council agree that requiring a rental license for vacant property is a tool to help insure
property maintenance and livability in the community?
BACKGROUND:
Earlier this year the City Manager implemented a Foreclosed Property Work Group consisting of
staff from various departments to discuss the implications of the potentially increasing number of
foreclosed properties in the city. While the city has not experienced the high rate of foreclosures as
other cities have, it was decided to begin looking at procedures to better identify distressed properties
to proactively ensure maintenance and maintain livability of these foreclosed properties, as many
become vacant at some point.
There are also other vacant homes in the city for a variety of reasons. Vacant properties have been a
source of complaints and maintenance issues. The Foreclosed Property Work Group discussed
whether the city should consider developing a special vacant property ordinance as some other cities
have adopted. A simpler solution proposed by staff involves extending the current rental license and
inspection program to all non-owner occupied dwelling. This would include vacant properties in
the existing program.
By deleting the word “occupied” from the definition of when a license is required and modifying a
few other related provisions of the current ordinance, another tool would be available to help
maintain the condition of theses properties. City Attorney Tom Scott has reviewed the concept and
is preparing the ordinance language to be considered with other business license amendments
scheduled for a first reading on October 20.
The primary purpose of the change would be to provide legal justification for the city to request
entry into the vacant property for an inspection to ensure maintenance of the property so as not to
become a hazardous condition in the community. The standard annual license fee would apply.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Proposed Amendment to Business Licensing Chapter – Vacant Properties
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff proposes using the existing fee schedule for rental property which has been developed as a fee
for service. With the relatively few vacant houses the city has, no significant financial impact is
expected.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 13, 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:
Hoigaard Village Update & Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
At a future regular City Council meeting, authorization may be sought to initiate an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet to consider a senior housing project at Hoigaard Village.
BACKGROUND:
The Hoigaard Village developer, Frank Dunbar, brought forward a proposal at the 8/25/08 City
Council study session relating to modifying the development at Hoigaard Village to include a senior
apartment building rather than a non-age-restricted condominium building. The City Council
expressed willingness to consider a senior housing component to the Hoigaard Village project. Since
then the developer has begun a senior housing market analysis and continued to work with
Volunteers of America as the potential owner/operator of the senior housing.
The senior apartment building would include more dwelling units than the previous proposal. The
increase in the number of units would push Hoigaard Village over the threshold number requiring
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) by Minnesota Statute.
When the Hoigaard Village development was originally proposed, it included 374 dwelling units on
the entire project. To date, the 74-unit “Harmony Vista” mixed-use condominium building and the
220-unit “Camerata” apartment building have been constructed.
The senior apartment building, proposed for the site of the previous condominium building, would
include 101 dwelling units in comparison to the site’s original 58-unit configuration. Increasing the
number of dwelling units brings the total number on the site to 417 dwelling units. Minnesota
Statutes require an EAW whenever a proposal includes more than 375 attached dwelling units.
Preparation of an EAW is the logical next step in the process of considering introducing senior
housing into the Hoigaard Village project. The analysis needed to complete an EAW would be an
excellent vehicle for helping the City and neighborhood evaluate whether senior housing would be
an appropriate use at this location. The EAW will include a traffic analysis.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Hoigaard Village Update and Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Staff will work cooperatively with the developer and the State Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
to ensure that the EAW documentation is prepared correctly. Upon completion, the City Council
will be asked to approve the EAW, effectively asserting that the EAW was properly prepared and that
an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. By approving the EAW, the City Council
does NOT automatically approve the Hoigaard Village senior apartments proposed by the
developer.
To undertake the senior apartments, the developer must complete a series of steps, the first of which
is the EAW. To gain final approval that may eventually result in construction, the developer must
receive a Major Amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Hoigaard
Village site. Prior to preparing any zoning application submittal, the developer will meet with the
neighborhood to share his concept plans and gain their input. Specific schedules for meeting with
the neighborhood, starting an EAW and submitting a PUD application are yet to be determined.
The likely next step would be City Council authorization of preparation of an EAW including a
traffic analysis. This could be as early as the 10/20/08 City Council meeting. It depends on the
developer securing a senior housing partner to pursue this project with him.
It is anticipated that the developer would not be ready to apply for a Major Amendment to the PUD
until very late 2008 or early 2009. It will take a consultant several months to gather all the data and
complete all the analysis required for the EAW.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Environmental Assessment Worksheet will be funded entirely by the developer.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is to providing a diversity of housing options for its residents.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
.
Meeting Date: October 13, 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:
Surface Water Management Plan Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council information and an
update regarding the revision of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND:
In 2001, the City adopted a Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. The plan was
developed to meet watershed management planning requirements of the Metropolitan Surface
Water Management Act. It was also developed to be in conformance with the requirements of the
local watershed management organizations, Hennepin County programs, Metropolitan Council
requirements, Hennepin Conservation District guidelines, and applicable State and Federal laws.
Cities are required to update their surface water management plans within 2 years of the date that a
watershed management organization within the city adopts a new or revised surface water
management plan. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission completed its Second
Generation Watershed Management Plan in September 2004. At that time, the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District was working on its Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, which
they eventually adopted in July, 2007. As a result, the City Council authorized the retaining of Barr
Engineering on April 28, 2008 to provide the professional services needed for the city to update its
Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) in accordance with regulations.
Highlights of Plan Update
Since 2001, a variety of new federal and state requirements have been passed on to watersheds and
cities through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The resulting regulations and
requirements have led to the following specific requirements for the City of St. Louis Park and other
similar cities:
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan Update
• Preparation of the MS4 General Storm Water Permit Application and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Program. This requirement is a part of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations which cover a very broad spectrum
of storm water related issues.
• Preparation of a Loading Assessment and Nondegradation Report which addresses
requirements relating to the limiting of specific pollutant loadings to water bodies (such
as phosphorus).
• Preparation of an implementation program to address the means of conforming to and
reaching the water quality requirements spelled out in the SWMP.
• Preparation of future updates to the MS4 permit and SWMP to address the
requirements of future Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analyses.
In summary, the City’s existing SWMP (approved in 2001) dealt primarily with flooding and
drainage issues. The revised SWMP, currently being developed with the assistance of Barr, will
address the many water quality related issues and regulations that cities are now required to include
in their plans. Barr is also working on the revised plan in close coordination with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
Next Steps and Schedule
Staff is currently working with Barr Engineering to complete the draft update to the SWMP, which
is expected to be completed by the end of this month (October). Once the draft is complete, it will
be sent to the water management organizations (WMOs) for a 60 day review period. Also, within
that 60 day review period it will be sent to the Met Council and Hennepin County for their 45 day
review. Adjoining cities will receive a courtesy copy. After the review periods are complete, we will
respond to any comments received and revise the SWMP as necessary. Comments received will be
addressed and the SWMP will be revised as necessary. After the SWMP has been approved by the
WMOs, the city council will officially adopt it. We are required to update the SWMP every ten
years, or within two years of a plan update by a WMO.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To date, Barr has expended approximately 2/3 of the $79,900 fee approved by Council on April 28.
The cost is being funded from the Development Fund which is being used to pay for the cost of
updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan Update
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This SWMP update complements the following area of the recently completed Vision process:
Environmental Stewardship
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
- Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best
practices.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Adam Fulton, Assistant Planner
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 13, 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:
Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None required at this time. Staff has attached a draft copy of the residential survey that Decision
Resources will be conducting in November 2008 for the Council’s review. Decision Resources and
staff will provide an updated copy of the survey for Council’s discussion at the October 27, 2008
study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff and Decision Resources have developed a draft survey for the Council’s review. Does the
Council agree with the survey as proposed? Is the survey missing any major content areas?
BACKGROUND:
Staff is working with Decision Resource, Inc. to conduct a city-wide residential survey this fall. The
purpose of the residential survey is to measure and gather information from the community, track
trends over time and find out how we are doing with Vision St. Louis Park. In the past this survey
was done approximately every 5 years. Staff is suggesting we conduct such a survey every two years to
insure the City stays abreast with or better anticipates trends, issues and opportunities in the
community.
Department Heads, various staff members who work closely with Vision, along with the consultant,
have been involved with developing the survey. Content areas include:
Baseline questions related to the first Vision in 1994 which were also included in the 2000 and
2005 surveys (Children First, public safety, and business),
Updated 2006 Vision, Council’s 18 Month Strategic Directions, and
Questions designed to get a better understanding of how people feel about the city.
Staff contacted the School District to see if they wanted the city to include school related questions.
The School District stated they do not need to be in this survey because they completed their own
survey in April 2008.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park
Staff from Decision Resources (our consultant) will be at the October 27, 2008 study session to
discuss the survey. Before meeting with the consultant, please read through the attached draft
survey. Specifically, staff and the consultant would like to know the following:
Does the Council agree with the survey as proposed?
Is the survey missing any major content areas?
If possible, please forward comments about the survey to Marcia Honold, Management
Assistant, by Friday, October 17, 2008. The comments will be forwarded to the consultant to be
prepped for the Council’s conversation with the consultant on October 27, 2008.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This funding has been included in the 2008 city budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The residential survey is aligned with the Council’s strategic direction, “St. Louis Park is committed
to being a connected and engaged community.”
Attachments: Draft Residential Survey Questions
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Decision Resources, Ltd. CITY OF SAINT LOUIS PARK
3128 Dean Court Residential Study
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 REVISED OCTOBER 2008
Hello, I'm __________ of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide
polling firm located in the Twin Cities. We've been retained to
speak with a random sample of Saint Louis Park residents about
issues facing the community. This survey is being taken because
the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions
and suggestions about life in the community. All individual
responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of
the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1. Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS.....1
you lived in Saint Louis Park? TWO TO FIVE YEARS.......2
SIX TO TEN YEARS........3
11 TO 20 YEARS..........4
OVER TWENTY YEARS.......5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6
2. As things now stand, how long LESS THAN ONE YEAR......1
in the future do you expect to ONE TO TWO YEARS........2
live in Saint Louis Park? TWO TO FIVE YEARS.......3
SIX TO TEN YEARS........4
OVER TEN YEARS..........5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6
IF LESS THAN FIVE YEARS, ASK:
3. Why do you plan to move in the next ___ years?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
4. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT...............1
life in this community -- excel- GOOD....................2
lent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR...............3
POOR....................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF "GOOD," "ONLY FAIR," OR "POOR," ASK:
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 3
5. If you could advise the City Council, what actions
would you recommend to significantly improve the quali-
ty of life in Saint Louis Park?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
6. What do you like MOST about living in Saint Louis Park?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
7. In general, what do you think is the most serious issue
facing the community today?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
As I read the following statements about public safety in Saint
Louis Park, please answer "yes" or"no." (READ LIST)
YES NO DKR
8. I have an overall feeling of safety
in Saint Louis Park. 1 2 3
IF "NO," ASK:
9. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
YES NO DKR
10. I feel safe walking in my neighborhood
alone at night. 1 2 3
11. My household is a part of our area's
Neighborhood Watch. 1 2 3
12. I have participated in National Night
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 4
Out activities in the community. 1 2 3
YES NO DKR
13. I can rely on my neighbors for help in a
safety-threatening situation. 1 2 3
14. I have participated in block parties in
my neighborhood. 1 2 3
15. Have you or anyone in your house- YES.....................1
hold had contact with the Fire De- NO......................2
partment during the past two DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
years?
IF "YES," ASK:
16. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT...............1
ity of service provided by GOOD....................2
the Fire Department -- excel- ONLY FAIR...............3
lent, good, only fair, or POOR....................4
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK:
17. Why did you rate the service as (only fair/poor)?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
18. Have you or anyone in your house- YES.....................1
hold had contact with the Police NO......................2
Department during the past two DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
years?
IF "YES," ASK:
19. How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT...............1
ity of service provided by GOOD....................2
the Fire Department -- excel- ONLY FAIR...............3
lent, good, only fair, or POOR....................4
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK:
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 5
20. Why did you rate the service as (only fair/poor)?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Moving on....
I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For
each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of
the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE)
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
21. Police protection? 1 2 3 4 5
22. Fire protection? 1 2 3 4 5
23. Recycling and brush pick-up? 1 2 3 4 5
24. Storm drainage and flood
control? 1 2 3 4 5
25. Park maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5
26. City-sponsored recreation
programs? 1 2 3 4 5
27. Animal control? 1 2 3 4 5
Now, for the next three city services, please consider only
their job on city-maintained street and roads. That means
excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are
taken care of by other levels of government. Hence, Interstate
394, Highway 100, Highway 169, County Road 25 or Minnetonka
Boulevard, should not be considered. How would you rate ....
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R
28. City street repair and
maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5
29. Snow plowing? 1 2 3 4 5
30. Street lighting? 1 2 3 4 5
31. How would you rate St. Louis Park EXCELLENT...............1
city services in comparison with GOOD....................2
neighboring communities -- excel- ONLY FAIR...............3
lent, good,--only fair, or poor? POOR....................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 6
32. When you consider the property EXCELLENT...............1
taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD....................2
city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR...............3
you rate the general value of city POOR....................4
services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
fair, or poor?
Changing topics....
33. In general, do you think the City TOO HIGH................1
of Saint Louis Park's emphasis on ABOUT RIGHT.............2
environmental concerns is too TOO LOW.................3
high, about right, or too low? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
IF "TOO HIGH" OR "TOO LOW," ASK:
34. Why do you feel that way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
35. Do you think the City should pro- STRONGLY YES............1
mote the use of alternative energy YES.....................2
resources, such as wind power? NO......................3
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY NO.............4
strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
36. Do you think the City should pro- STRONGLY YES............1
mote the construction of energy- YES.....................2
efficient public buildings? (WAIT NO......................3
FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strong- STRONGLY NO.............4
ly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF "STRONGLY YES" OR "YES" IN EITHER QUESTION 35 OR 36, ASK:
37. Would you still support the YES.....................1
City of Saint Louis Park un- NO......................2
dertaking these measures even DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
if they cost taxpayers more?
Moving on....
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 7
38. Other than voting, do you feel YES.....................1
that if you wanted to, you could NO......................2
have a say about the way things DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
are run in this community?
IF "NO," ASK:
39. Why do you feel you cannot have a say?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Changing topics....
40. How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL..............1
about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT.............2
City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE.............3
fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
41. From what you know, do you approve APPROVE/STRONGLY........1
or disapprove of the job perform- APPROVE.................2
ance of the Mayor and City Coun- DISAPPROVE..............3
cil? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do DISAPPROVE/STRONGLY.....4
you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF OPINION STATED, ASK:
42. Why do you feel that way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
43. During the past year, have you YES.....................1
visited or contacted Saint Louis NO......................2
Park City Hall either in-person, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
on the telephone, or by e-mail?
IF "YES," ASK:
44. Was your last contact with PERSONAL VISIT..........1
the City by a personal visit, TELEPHONE CALL..........2
a telephone call, or by e- E-MAIL..................3
mail? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
45. On your last contact with the City, which Department
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 8
did you contact?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Thinking about your last contact with the City, for each of
the following characteristics, please rate the Saint Louis
Park City Hall facility or staff as excellent, good, only
fair, or poor....
EXC GOO FAI POO DKR
46. Courtesy of the staff? 1 2 3 4 5
47. Response time of the staff? 1 2 3 4 5
48. Respectfulness of the staff? 1 2 3 4 5
Moving on....
49. How would you rate general redev- EXCELLENT...............1
elopment in the City of Saint GOOD....................2
Louis Park -- excellent, good, ONLY FAIR...............3
only fair or poor? POOR....................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF A RATING IS GIVEN, ASK:
50. Why do you feel that way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
51. Do you support or oppose the con- STRONGLY SUPPORT........1
tinued redevelopment in the City SUPPORT.................2
of Saint Louis Park? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE..................3
RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE.........4
way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
I would like to read you a list of some characteristics of a
community. For each one, please tell me if you think Saint Louis
Park currently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or
about the right amount. (ROTATE)
MANY FEW/ ABT DK/
/MCH LITT RGHT REFD
52. apartment units? 1 2 3 4
53. higher cost housing? 1 2 3 4
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 9
54. affordable housing? 1 2 3 4
55. starter homes for young families? 1 2 3 4
56. "move up" housing? 1 2 3 4
57. condominiums and townhouses? 1 2 3 4
58. senior housing? 1 2 3 4
As you may know, the populations of most inner ring suburban areas
are becoming more diverse in terms of age, household income, race,
and ethnicity.
59. In general, do you think that GOOD THING..............1
growing population diversity is a BAD THING...............2
good thing or a bad thing for the BOTH (VOL)..............3
community? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK:
60. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
61. Currently, how well prepared do VERY WELL...............1
you think the community is to meet SOMEWHAT WELL...........2
the growing diversity of residents NOT TOO WELL............3
-- very well, somewhat well, not NOT AT ALL WELL.........4
too well, or not at all well? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
IF "NOT TOO WELL" OR "NOT AT ALL WELL," ASK:
62. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
63. Do you, yourself, feel welcomed YES.....................1
in the community? NO......................2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
64. Do you feel accepted by the com- YES.....................1
munity? NO......................2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 10
Now, let's discuss your neighborhood in more detail....
65. First, do you know what neighbor- NEIGHBORHOOD NAMED......1
hood you live in? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2
As I read the following statements about your neighborhood, please
answer "yes" or"no." (READ LIST)
YES NO DKR
66. The appearance of housing in my neighbor-
hood has improved during the past few
years. 1 2 3
67. Homes in my neighborhood are well-
maintained. 1 2 3
68. People know and care about their neighbors
and participate in solving problems with
their business and residential neighbors. 1 2 3
69. Property values are increasing in this
neighborhood. 1 2 3
70. I would feel comfortable in discussing
neighborhood problems with my neighbors. 1 2 3
71. This neighborhood is a good place to raise
children. 1 2 3
72. People have pride and ownership in our
neighborhood. 1 2 3
73. I feel a part of my neighborhood. 1 2 3
74. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT...............1
aesthetics, the pleasing appear- GOOD....................2
ance, of residential neighborhoods ONLY FAIR...............3
in Saint Louis Park -- excellent, POOR....................4
good, only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
75. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT...............1
aesthetics, the pleasing appear- GOOD....................2
ance, of commercial and retail ONLY FAIR...............3
areas in Saint Louis Park -- ex- POOR....................4
cellent, good, only fair or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
76. Are there any specific areas in Saint Louis Park where
aesthetics should be improved? (PROBE FOR SPECIFICS)
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 11
77. Are there properties in your neighborhood you would consider
to be a problem? (IF "YES," ASK:) What makes the property
a problem?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
I am going to read you a list of home improvement programs offered
by the City to residents. For each one, please tell me if you
were aware of it prior to this survey....
YES NO DKR
78. Technical advice and consulting? 1 2 3
79. Rebates? 1 2 3
80. Loans and financing? 1 2 3
Changing topics....
81. Do you leave the City of Saint YES.....................1
Louis Park on a regular or daily NO......................2
basis to go to work? NOT EMPLOYED/RETIRED....3
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4
IF "YES," ASK:
82. How would you rate the ease EXCELLENT...............1
of getting to and from work GOOD....................2
-- excellent, good, only fair ONLY FAIR...............3
or poor? POOR....................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
83. How would you rate the ease of EXCELLENT...............1
getting from place to place within GOOD....................2
the City of Saint Louis Park -- ONLY FAIR...............3
excellent, good, only fair, or POOR....................4
poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
84. Prior to this survey, were you YES.....................1
aware Hennepin County is proposing NO......................2
the construction of the Southwest DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 12
Light Rail line connecting Eden
Prairie and Saint Louis Park to
downtown Minneapolis?
85. How likely would you or members VERY LIKELY.............1
of your household be to regularly SOMEWHAT LIKELY.........2
use this service -- very likely, NOT TOO LIKELY..........3
somewhat likely, not too likely or NOT AT ALL LIKELY.......4
not at all likely? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
Changing topics again....
86. Prior to this survey were you YES.....................1
aware of Saint Louis Park NO......................2
"Children First" Initiative? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
IF "YES," ASK:
87. And, were you aware of the YES.....................1
set of forty developmental NO......................2
assets focused on by this DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
initiative for assuring the
success of city children?
IF "YES," ASK:
88. Have you, yourself, been YES.....................1
actively involved in any NO......................2
activities to help the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
asset-building process?
89. Prior to this survey, were you YES.....................1
aware of STEP, Saint Louis Park NO......................2
Emergency Program? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
Turning to parks and recreation....
90. In general, do you feel that YES.....................1
existing recreational facilities NO .....................2
offered by the City meet the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
needs of you and members of
your household?
IF "NO," ASK:
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 13
91. What additional recreational facilities would you like
to see the City offer its residents?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
92. Does the current mix of City park YES.....................1
and recreation programming meet NO......................2
the needs of your household? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
IF "NO," ASK:
93. What program(s) do you feel are lacking?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
94. Do you or members of your household currently leave the city
for park and recreation facilities or activities? (IF
"YES," ASK:) What would that be?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
95. Do you think the City of Saint YES.....................1
Louis Park has enough places for NO......................2
residents to meet with family, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
friends and business associates?
IF "NO," ASK:
96. What kind of places would you like to see available in
the City?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 14
97. How important do you think it is VERY IMPORTANT..........1
to the quality of life in a com- SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT......2
munity to have a strong arts and NOT TOO IMPORTANT.......3
cultural presence -- very impor- NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT....4
tant, somewhat important, not too DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
important, or not at all impor-
tant?
Moving on....
98. What is your principal source of information about Saint
Louis Park City government and its activities?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
99. How would you prefer to receive information about Saint
Louis Park City Government and its activities?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
100. During the past year, did you YES.....................1
receive the "Park Perspective" the NO .....................2
City's monthly newsletter? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
IF "YES," ASK:
101. Do you or any members of your YES.....................1
household regularly read it? NO .....................2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
As you may know, the City currently cablecasts and webcasts City
Council and Planning Commission meetings.
102. How often do you watch City Coun- FREQUENTLY..............1
cil or Planning Commission meet- OCCASIONALLY............2
ings -- frequently, occasionally, RARELY..................3
rarely, or never? NEVER...................4
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 15
103. Have you accessed the City's YES.....................1
website? NO......................2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
IF "YES," ASK:
104. Were you able to find what YES.....................1
you were looking for? NO......................2
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3
105. What information would you like to see on the City's
website?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to young-
est, and be sure to include yourself....
106. First, persons 65 or over? NONE....................0
ONE.....................1
TWO OR MORE.............2
107. Adults under 65? NONE....................0
ONE.....................1
TWO.....................2
THREE OR MORE...........3
108. School-aged children, 5 to 18 NONE....................0
years old? ONE.....................1
TWO.....................2
THREE OR MORE...........3
109. Pre-schoolers? NONE....................0
ONE.....................1
TWO OR MORE.............2
110. Do you reside in an apartment, APARTMENT...............1
townhouse or condominium, duplex, TOWNHOUSE/CONDO.........2
or a detached single family home? DUPLEX..................3
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME......4
SOMETHING ELSE..........5
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 16
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6
111. Do you own or rent your present OWN.....................1
residence? RENT....................2
REFUSED.................3
112. What is your age, please? 18-24...................1
25-34...................2
35-44...................3
45-54...................4
55-64...................5
65 AND OVER.............6
REFUSED.................7
113. Is a language other than English spoken in your home? ("IF
YES," ASK:) What is it?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
114. Which of the following categories WHITE...................1
represents your ethnicity -- AFRICAN-AMERICAN........2
White, African-American, Hispanic- HISPANIC-LATINO.........3
Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, ASIAN-PACIFIC ISLANDER..4
Native American, or something NATIVE AMERICAN.........5
else? (IF "SOMETHING ELSE," ASK:) SOMETHING ELSE..........6
What would that be? MIXED/BI-RACIAL.........7
DON'T KNOW..............8
REFUSED.................9
115. Is your pre-tax yearly household UNDER $25,000...........1
income over or under $50,000? $25,001-$50,000.........2
IF "OVER," ASK: $50,001-$75,000.........3
Is it over $75,000? (IF "YES," $75,001-$100,000........4
ASK:) Is it over $100,000? OVER $100,000...........5
IF "UNDER," ASK: DON'T KNOW..............6
Is it under $25,000? REFUSED.................7
Thank you for your time. Good-bye.
116. Gender. MALE....................1
FEMALE..................2
117. REGION OF CITY: WARD 1..................1
WARD 2..................2
WARD 3..................3
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 17
WARD 4..................4
LIST: ________________________________________
PHONER: ______________________________________
DATE: ________________________________________
PHONE NUMBER: ________________________________
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Residential Survey Update – Vision St. Louis Park Page 18
Meeting Date: October 13, 2008
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Proposed Amendments to the City Charter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None required at this time. This reports serves as official notice that the Charter Commission, at
their September 10, 2008, unanimously recommended that the City Council amend sections 3.10
and 5.06 of the City Charter.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to amend Sections 3.10 and 5.06 of the St. Louis Park City Charter, as
recommended by the Charter Commission?
BACKGROUND:
At the Charter Commission meeting on September 10, 2008, Charter Commissioners unanimously
voted to recommend that the City Council pass an ordinance amending Sections 3.10 and 5.06 of
the St. Louis Park City Charter. The Charter Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed
changes at the request of staff and the City Attorney for the following reasons:
Section 3.10 requires the city to recodify the City Code every ten years. The City Clerk’s office
updates the Code whenever ordinances are adopted, amended or repealed in a timely manner
and keeps these records electronically. While this section may have been needed in earlier years,
with electronic recordkeeping, this section is not necessary.
Section 5.06 requires the City Council to award contract to the lowest responsible bidder. In
recent years, the State Legislature has amended contract laws to include best value contracting,
which considers other factors than just price. To allow city staff to use best value contracting,
this section needs to be amended.
Timeline:
City Attorney Roger Knutson has drafted the ordinance changes (attached) and provided a timeline
for the changes. The timeline/process, assuming that the Council is in agreement, would be as
follows:
1. Within a month of city council’s receipt of the Charter’s recommendation (October 13,
2008), publish public hearing notice which contains text of ordinance.
Publication date: October 23, 2008
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No 11) Page 2
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter
2. City Council needs to hold a hearing at least 2 weeks but not more than 4 weeks after notice
is published.
First reading: November 17, 2008
3. Within a month of the hearing the City Council must vote. The ordinance approval requires
unanimous vote of the entire City Council.
Second Reading: December 1, 2008
4. The ordinance is effective 90 days after publication (December 11, 2008)
Effective Date: March 11, 2009
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance to Amend the St. Louis Park City Charter
Study Session Report August 28, 2008
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No 11) Page 3
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter
ORDINANCE NO. ____-08
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
CITY CHARTER CONCERNING REVISION AND CODIFICATION
OF ORDINANCES AND CONTRACTS
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 7 the Charter Commission has recommended to
the City Council that the Charter be amended as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 7 provides that upon recommendation of the Charter
Commission the City Council may enact a Charter Amendment by ordinance.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 3.10 of the St. Louis Park City Charter is deleted:
SECTION 2. Section 5.06 of the St. Louis Park City Charter is amended as follows:
Section 5.06. Contracts--How Let.
City contracts must be made in compliance with State law. The City Council may reject any and all bids.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect ninety days after its publication.
Date of Publication October 23, 2008
Public Hearing and First
Reading
November 17, 2008
Second Reading December 1, 2008
Date of Publication December 11, 2008
Date Ordinance takes effect March 11, 2009
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 1, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No 11) Page 4
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter
Meeting Date: August 25, 2008
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Amendments to St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. This report is intended to inform Council of two amendments staff
proposes to discuss with the Charter Commission. These changes relate to Sections 5.06 Contracts
– How Let and Section 3.10 Revisions and Codification of Ordinances
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The St. Louis Park Charter Commission holds its next meeting on September 10, 2008. Does the
Council have concerns with staff discussing with the Charter Commission two changes to the City’s
Charter, Section 3.10 Revisions and Codification of Ordinances and Section 5.06 Contracts – How
Let?
BACKGROUND:
The Charter was last updated on June 7, 2005 and changes are usually considered when there is a
business need or if state law requires a change. Staff has identified two recommended changes to the
Charter. The first is to Section 3.10 Revisions and Codification of Ordinances (business need) and
the second is to Section 5.06 Contracts (change in state law).
St. Louis Park City Charter – Section 3.10 Revision and Codification of Ordinances
Section 3.10 of the Charter requires that the “ordinances of the City shall be revised, rearranged and
codified at intervals of not more than 10 years”. The purpose of this provision is to insure that the
City’s official ordinances are kept up to date and accurate, particularly with regard to amendments
that may have been made along the way. It has been about 10 years since a major recodification of
the City’s codes was undertaken. Since that time, the City Clerk’s Office maintains an electronic
copy of the ordinances and has been doing an excellent job of updating and maintaining the city’s
ordinances, making any changes to the public copies after an ordinance becomes effective.
Amendments are updated on the city’s website, in the Citywide Records Library and hard copies are
distributed to the library, attorney and city departments.
Because the city ordinances are continually maintained to keep our codes in order and accurate for
our business needs, staff and the City Attorney recommend that Section 3.10, which requires the
city to recodify the city’s ordinances every ten (10) years, be deleted.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No 11) Page 5
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter
St. Louis Park City Charter – Section 5.06 Contracts – How Let
In 2007, the State Legislature passed into law an alternative to the competitive bidding system called
Best Value Contracting. Best value contracting allows a city to consider price and performance
measures when soliciting and evaluating proposals for construction projects. While it doesn’t replace
the practice of selecting the lowest responsible bidder as set forth under the uniform municipal
contracting law, it is another tool that government entities can use to evaluate and select contractors
for construction projects, such as public buildings. Staff has attached a summary on best value
contracting from the League of Minnesota Cities that describes this process in more detail.
The City’s Attorney has reviewed the City Charter and has stated that the city’s ordinances would
allow for the best value contracting approach. However, for the City to have the flexibility to use
best value contracting on a construction project, the Section 5.06 of the Charter would need to be
amended.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: St. Louis Park City Charter – Sections 3.10 and 5.06
Summary of Best Value Contracting for Construction Law
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No 11) Page 6
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter
Excerpts from the St. Louis Park City Charter – adopted June 7, 2005
Section 3.10. Revision and Codification of Ordinances.
“The ordinances of the City shall be revised, rearranged and codified at intervals of not more
than ten (10) years. Such codification shall be published in book or continuously loose-leaf form and
copies shall be made available by the Council at the office of the City Clerk for general distribution
to the public at a reasonable charge. Such publication shall be a sufficient publication of all the
ordinances contained therein. Every book shall contain a printed certificate of the Mayor, attested to
by the City Clerk, that the publication is correct; and such book so published shall be received in
evidence in all courts for the purpose of proving the ordinances therein contained, the same as
though the original ordinances were produced in court.”
Section 5.06. Contracts--How Let.
“City contracts must be made in compliance with law. When competitive bids are submitted
the contract must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The City Council may reject any and
all bids.”
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No 11) Page 7
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter
SUMMARY OF BEST VALUE CONTRACTING FOR CONSTRUCTION LAW
Prepared by: Miller O’Brien Cummins
What does the new law do? The new law provides an alternative to the current low-bid contracting
system. This alternative is Best Value Contracting (BVC), which uses the relationship between
performance and price to achieve the best overall value and lowest long term cost for government
construction projects. The new law allows state agencies, cities, counties, townships, school boards,
and other project owners to choose this new procurement system for their construction projects.
Best Value Definition: The new Best Value Contracting (BVC) law applies only to construction
projects. The law requires two factors to be considered during the procurement process: price and
performance. Nine other factors may be considered as part of the request for proposal (RFP) process,
including:
1. The quality of the vendor’s or contractor’s performance on previous projects;
2. The timeliness of the vendor’s or contractor’s performance on previous projects;
3. The level of customer satisfaction with the vendor’s or contractor’s performance on
previous projects;
4. The vendor’s or contractor’s record of performing previous projects on budget and ability
to minimize cost overruns;
5. The vendor’s or contractor’s ability to minimize change orders;
6. The vendor’s or contractor’s ability to prepare appropriate project plans;
7. The vendor’s or contractor’s technical capacities;
8. The individual qualifications of the contractor’s key personnel; or
9. The vendor’s or contractor’s ability to assess and minimize risks.
The law specifically states that “performance on previous projects” does not include whether
someone has asserted a previous legal challenge against the project owner.
Who may use Best Value Contracting: The new BVC program is open to all construction
contractors who submit detailed information on their past performance and qualifications to the
government agency awarding the contract. The program has three phases. Phase I, which begins
August 1, 2007, allows all state agencies, all counties and cities, and school districts with the highest
25% enrollment of students in the state to use Best Value Contracting. Phase II begins August 1,
2009, and includes all users in Phase I and also all school districts with the highest 50% enrollment.
Phase III begins August 1, 2010, and includes all users in Phase I and II, as well as all other
townships, school districts, and political subdivisions in the state.
Limits on Best Value Contracting: In addition to the phase-in component, there is a 20% cap on the
number of projects that can use Best Value Contracting in the first three years of the program.
However, the cap is relaxed for small project owners, who may use BVC for either one project
annually or 20% of its projects, whichever is greater.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No 11) Page 8
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter
What information must be in the RFP? The criteria used to evaluate BVC projects must be included
in the RFP and must be evaluated in an open and competitive manner. The RFP must also state the
relative weight of price and other selection criteria. If a project owner uses an interview of the vendor
or contractor’s personnel as a factor in the selection criteria, the relative weight of the interview must
be stated in the RFP and applied accordingly.
Training component: Any staff or consultants who administer procurement procedures for a BVC
project owner must receive training in the RFP process for BVC for construction projects. The
Commissioner of the Department of Administration is given authority to establish a training
program for state and local government officials, as well as vendors and contractors, and is allowed to
charge for this training. However, the law is flexible regarding the type and amount of training
required, and may be conducted by entities other than the Department of Administration.
Meeting Date: October 13, 2008
Agenda Item #: 12
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:
Fire Station Site Expansion Purchase Agreements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided to Council in preparation for requested
action at the October 20 City Council meeting
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of acquisition of properties to expand the Fire Station #1 (Wooddale location) site.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past few months the city’s acquisition/relocation consultant has been negotiating the purchase
of three parcels located directly to the south of Fire Station #1. Agreement has been reached on terms for
all three properties and purchase agreements executed by the sellers are ready for City Council approval
on two of them. The intent is to bring the purchase agreements for the William and Julie Beach
property, 5724 Goodrich Avenue; and, Travis Anderson property, 3764 Wooddale Avenue to the
10/20/08 City Council meeting for approval. The agreed-to purchase price for the Beach property is
$253,000; and, for the Anderson property the price is $230,000. The remaining parcel to be acquired,
the Hanson property, 5724 Goodrich Avenue is expected to be ready shortly.
The purchase agreements have been prepared by the city attorney’s office and the terms and prices are
consistent with the city’s appraisals of each of the properties. In each case the city will be responsible for
the closing costs and the seller is responsible for real estate taxes. The closing is planned for 10/28 for the
Anderson parcel and 10/31 for the Beach’s. The city is also responsible for relocation expenses any time
it acquires property. In this case that primarily means the moving costs for the property owners and any
tenants they may have.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The acquisition costs are consistent with the projections for replacing the city’s fire stations and have
been included in the budgets for the fire station replacement project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October13, 2008
Agenda Item: 13
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:
Proposed Community Residential Facility License.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. This is a written report providing Council with the city attorney
and staff’s recommendation to not proceed on October 20th with creation of a Community
Residential Facility license classification. This recommendation is a result of public process
undertaken with stakeholder groups whereby we have discovered several potential issues with moving
forward at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time.
DISCUSSION:
Earlier this year Council directed staff and city attorney to proceed with establishing conditions of
licensing that would apply to several forms of residential housing that are currently considered as
rental property within the city (community residential facilities). The intent was to create a more
specific licensing program to ensure healthy integration of a variety of housing into city
neighborhoods.
As a result of continued review on staffs part and meetings held with potentially impacted parties, it
has become evident that the ordinance could create unintended consequences. Stakeholder groups
that participated in the process included owners and representatives of agencies operating adult foster
care homes and supportive housing programs.
The other business license changes previously discussed are being drafted into final ordinance
language and expected to come before the Council for first reading on October 20th. The
subdivision created for establishing a community residential facilities license will be removed from
the ordinance and will not have an adverse affect on the other proposed changes.
Discussion regarding a community residential facility license will be placed on a future study session
agenda to provide time for the city attorney to discuss the impact of this license category with
council.
Meeting of October 13, 2008 (Item No. 13) Page 2
Subject: Proposed Community Residential Facility License
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager