The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008/12/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA DECEMBER 8, 2008 5:00 P.M. JOINT SCHOOL BOARD / CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS (Dinner Served) 6:30 P.M. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION WESTWOOD ROOM 1. City Manager Evaluation 7:30 P.M. STUDY SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS Discussion Items 1. 7:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 15, 2008 and January 12, 2009 2. 7:35 p.m. 2009 Budget 3. 8:20 p.m. Employee Opinion Survey Results 4. 8:50 p.m. 2009 Council Workshop Agenda 5. 9:20 p.m. Communications (Verbal) Written Reports 6. Public Art Update 9:30 p.m. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting Date: December 8, 2008 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION TITLE: City Manager Evaluation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Roger Hokanson, Consultant, will review the information from the annual performance review for Tom Harmening, City Manager. Council will discuss the information from the 360 evaluation process and set general direction for work for 2009. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Consultant Roger Hokanson will update City Council and the City Manager in a Closed Executive Session on the results of the City Manager’s 360 degree performance evaluation. The information will be sent to the Council under separate cover. The discussion will proceed as follows: • The summary of the information from the 360 evaluation will be presented by Mr. Hokanson. Council will provide comments or suggestions. • City Manager Tom Harmening will join the Council and participate in the conversation, reviewing work from 2008 and setting direction for 2009. • Once completed, final documents will be presented for formal approval at the next regular Council meeting. Due to a 2008 change to the Minnesota open meeting law, this meeting will be audio taped. The change in the open meeting law states: “All closed meetings, except those as permitted by the attorney-client privilege, must be electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.” FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: December 8, 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 – December 15, 2008 and January 12, 2009. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the special study session planned for Monday, December 15, 2008 and the regularly scheduled study session for January 12, 2009. Please note that the regularly scheduled study session on December 22, 2008 has been cancelled. 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 December 15, 2008 and the regularly scheduled study session on January 12, 2009. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for December 15, 2008 and January 12, 2009 Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Future Study Session Agenda Planning Tentative Discussion Items Study Session, Monday, December 15, 2008 – 6:30 p.m. 1. Preliminary Energy Audit Findings (with Consultant) – Inspections (30 minutes) The city’s consultant will propose their plan of addressing energy efficiencies in city operations. Does the Council wish to proceed with a city-wide energy audit and have the City Manager enter into a contract with the consultant? Tentative Discussion Items Study Session, Monday, December 22, 2008 –CANCELLED Tentative Discussion Items Study Session, Monday, January 12, 2008 – 6:30 p.m. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Legislative Update – Administrative Services (45 minutes) Senator Ron Latz, Representative Ryan Winker, Commissioner Gail Dorfman, and Representative Simon and the City Council will discuss St. Louis Park’s legislative priorities and the outlook for the 2009 legislative session, which starts on January 6, 2009. This update is tentatively scheduled for January 12, 2009; the alternate date is January 20, 2009. 3. Utility Rate Study – Finance Department (60 minutes) Staff to discuss the utility rate study findings and recommendations with Council. Does the Council wish to adopt the utility rate recommendations noted in the study? 4. 2009 – 2013 CIP– Finance (60 minutes) Staff will lead Council in a discussion about the 5-year CIP. 5. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session for the purposes of information sharing. End of Meeting: 9:30 p.m. Meeting Date: December 8, 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: No formal action is requested or required at this time. This study session discussion is a follow-up to the Truth in Taxation hearing held by the City Council on December 1. Based on the minimal input received at the hearing, staff is requesting direction as to whether staff should move forward with the budget as presented. This report also provides budget information on the other operating funds of the city that are not property tax supported. No formal budget adoption is necessary for these funds, but the information is provided to give the City Council a fuller understanding of the total city expenditures. Based on direction received, staff will prepare the final budget and tax levy for adoption on December 15. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What are the desires of the Council as to the final budget and property tax levy which will be adopted on December 15? BACKGROUND: At the Truth in Taxation meeting, we received feedback from four citizens. Of those, only two were pertinent to the topic of city spending and tax levies. The germaine comments were to minimize spending, particularly in the area of parks, and to recognize that if city taxes go up faster than wage increases, that something else has to be given up from household budgets. That really leaves the current discussion to decide if any of the proposed changes recommended by staff (see attached) should be added back into the budget and what funding source should be used. The items specifically discussed at the November 24th study session for possible change centered on the Lake and Zarthan flashing signal lights and the proposed cut in the City’s contribution via the Police Department to Teen’s Alone. Staff recommends that any budget changes be accomplished through an increased use of fund balance rather than a tax levy reduction to maintain flexibility that will most likely be necessary based on the state’s budget pressure with the 2009 fiscal forecast. Other Budgets: Outlined below is a brief summary of the other non-property tax supported budgets proposed for 2009. Please note that more detailed budget narratives for each of these budgets are attached. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: 2009 Budget Housing Rehabilitation This budget has added a number of programs that are funded in the area of environmental design and additional affordable home ownership avenues. The Council may recall that we budget for the full amount of programs in this area rather than the expected usage. Our history is that we are generally well under the expenditure budgets for these programs. CDBG This budget is unchanged from last year based on expected flat federal funding. The City Council determines the specific used of our allocation from the federal government in February/March of each year. Cable Television This budget reflects the same basic level of operations with the exception of the purchase of a new mobile production van to replace the current 20 year old model. This purchase will be funded from the Time-Warner equipment grant. Development Fund This budget reflects an increase in the amount of HRA levy proceeds based on the increased levy allowed by state statute. Finance intends to split the HRA proceeds out of the Development Fund at year end in order to allow for accountability for the use of the HRA funds with their specific restrictions that do not apply to the Development Fund in general. Water This budget reflects additional costs in the area of consultant charges in order to meet best management practices. Public Works and Finance staff are reviewing whether hiring consultants is a better option or if our business needs would be better served by hiring additional full-time employees. The salary change reflects only a reallocation of existing employees between the water and sewer departments. The revenues are being evaluated as part of the utility rate study and will be brought back to Council for review in January. Sewer This budget remains status quo for 2009. The salary change reflects only a reallocation of existing employees between the water and sewer departments. The revenues are being evaluated as part of the utility rate study and will be brought back to Council for review in January. Solid Waste This budget reflects the costs of our recent contract changes. The addition of a field inspector has increased the personal services costs. This was something that was specifically discussed as part of awarding the contracts for refuse and recycling collections. Storm Water This budget reflects additional maintenance work that is required by federal NPDES regulations. This budget reflects additional costs in the area of consultant charges in order to meet those needs. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: 2009 Budget Public Works and Finance staff is reviewing whether hiring consultants is a better option or if our business needs would be better served by hiring additional full-time employees. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The decisions we make this year will shape the course of the City’s budget for the next several years. We must carefully consider both the immediate and long-term effects on our ability to provide services to our constituents. VISION CONSIDERATION: Vision, including strategic directions, was used in preparing the budget documents. Attachments: Included Budget Adjustments Budget Narratives Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City of St. Louis Park 2009 Included Budget Modifications 12/08/2008 Expenditure Department Line Item Expense Description Increases Inspections From BH Memo Permit Revenue Reduction (287,000) Inspections From BH Memo Temp Inspector (30,000) Total Expenditure Increases (317,000) Expenditure Department Line Item Expense Description Cuts Administration 6550 Lobbying Cut state lobbying 5,000 Administration 6630 Other Contractual Employee development 5,000 Administration 7601 Memberships Based on previous cost 2,500 Administration 7603 Conferences Based on Council participation 10,000 Administration Employer Contribution - Health Ins 144,000 Human Resources 6410 Arbitration Cut arbitration usage 2,500 Human Resources 6460 Advertising Reduce StarTribune ads 2,000 IR - Tech Services Hamilton House connection 2,700 IR - Tech Services Training Reduce IT training 3,000 IR - Supp Svcs Postage Reduce mailing cost 10,000 Facilties Maint 7503 Rental Buildings Records Storage Space Rental 20,000 Facilties Maint 7503 Rental Buildings Don't store WiFi Equipment 20,000 Inspections 6212 General Supplies 2,000 Inspections 6222 Building Supplies 3,500 Inspections 6831 Telephone 2,000 Police Contributions Teens Alone 2,000 Police Graffiti Eliminate Supplies 1,500 Fire CERT program 20,000 Fire Uniform Draw System 4,100 Fire Radios and radio batteries 6,000 Inspections 6410 General Professional 2,000 Inspections 6630 Other Contractual 1,000 Inspections 7050 Printing 1,500 PW - Administration 6410 General Professional Reduce Consultant Expenses 10,000 PW - Engineering 6630 Other Contractual Reduce non-project consultant cost 15,000 PW - Operations 7301 Electric Service Turn off signal at Zarthan/Lake 2,000 PW - Operations 6630 Other Contractual reduce sidewalk and curb repair 5,000 PW - Operations 6012 Overtime Reduce OT expense 5,000 Organized Rec Eliminate Saturday Concert Series 10,000 Organized Rec Park-ticipation Bus 30,000 Park Maintenance STS crews mow entrance signs 3,000 Environmental Reduce elm tree injection subsidy 20,000 PW - Operations 6013 Temp Salaries Eliminate sidewalk snow inspection 15,000 Communications Park Perspective Eliminate some printing & mailing 10,000 Community Dev 7050 Printing Move printing comp plan to Dev Fd 2,500 Misc Depts Misc training, travel, & equip 15,000 Total Expenditure Reductions 414,800 One Department Line Item Expense Description Time Facilties Maint 6410 General Professional Complete HVAC Study in 2008 10,000 Fire Paging Study 10,000 Total One-Time from Other Sources 20,000 Fund Department Line Item Expense Description Shift Administration 6550 Lobbying Move lobbying to Dev Fund 10,000 Administration 7050 Printing Vision communication 5,000 Police Fingerprint software 3,680 Police Capital West End Security 5,700 Police City-Wide Open House 10,000 IR - Tech Services Legal Intellectual Property Attorney 5,000 Total Shift to Other Funds 39,380 New Department Line Item Expense Description Revenue IR - Tech Services Revenue GraffitiNet revenue 3,000 Inspections 4202 Electrical 3,000 Inspections 4203 Mechanical 2,000 Inspections 4210 Plumbing 2,000 Inspections 4208 Point of Sale 2,000 Inspections 4106 Tobacco 300 Inspections 4111 Food and Beverage 3,000 Inspections 4125 Public Sanitary 800 Inspections 4121 Massage 300 Inspections 4123 Lodging 400 Inspections 4120 Vehicle Parking 200 Inspections 4131 Tree Maintenance 1,000 Inspections 4115 Solid Waste 300 Inspections 4107 Temp Food Service 200 Organized Rec Sell Hot Cocoa at rinks 2,000 Environmental Increase admin surcharge for blvd trees 5,000 Total New Revenues 25,500 Total Modifications 499,680 Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2009 Budget Page 4 City of St. Louis Park 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed General Property Taxes 6,086$ 129$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental - (68,794) - - Charges For Services 19,957 247,587 - - Special Assessments - 35,671 - - Interest Income 64,920 36,766 60,000 60,000 Miscellaneous 556,333 770,170 583,539 600,000 Total Revenues 647,296$ 1,021,529$ 643,539$ 660,000$ 2006 2007 2008 2009 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 210,199$ 203,972$ 223,901$ 209,100$ Supplies 43 2,396 - - Services & Other Charges 528,995 412,594 679,273 968,400 Transfers Out 201,204 193,813 182,983 185,055 Other Expenses 153 307 - - Total Expenditures 940,594$ 1,210,320$ 1,086,157$ 1,362,555$ Housing Rehabilitation Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Service Overview Budget Highlights Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues The Housing Rehabilitation Fund receives the administrative bond fees on private activity revenue bonds authorized by the City. The fee is 1/8 of 1% of the outstanding principal balance of the bonds. In accordance with City Council policy established in 1996, monies received are to be used primarily for housing redevelopment and rehabilitation purposes. In order to segregate these funds from other general funds, a separate fund was established in 1993. Funds budgeted for 2009 housing rehab program activities are slightly higher than those budgeted for 2008. Total funds budgeted for housing rehab program activities in 2009 is $1,145,400 as compared to $1,141,400 in 2008. Funding for $172,500 of the programs is to be paid for from the Development Fund and/or tax increment. The 2009 budget includes appropriations for various housing initiatives including $100,000 for the single family discount rehab loan program, $10,000 associated with the establishment of Housing Improvement Areas (HIA), $48,000 to fund the NAGP, and $40,000 to fund a Neighborhood Public Art program. The budget also includes expenditures related to the Move-Up in the Park Programs including: $5,000 for the sale of excess public lands; $73,000 for design services, rehab advisor, workshops, and marketing; and $509,400 for the Transformation Loan Program. New housing programs implemented in 2008 that will be continued in 2009 include $20,000 for Foreclosure Initiatives, $100,000 for housing initiatives in a targeted neighborhood, $60,000 for the Enviromental Design & Material Use Incentive Program, $60,000 for the Duplex Acquisition/Rehab Homeownership Program, and $120,000 to facilitate additional affordable homeownership opportunities, including $70,000 for the Live Where You Work Program and $50,000 for the Land Trust Homeownership Program. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2009 Budget Page 5 City of St. Louis Park 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Intergovernmental 377,141$ 114,992$ 210,000$ 203,450$ Interest Income 627 - 700 - Total Revenues 377,768$ 114,992$ 210,700$ 203,450$ 2006 2007 2008 2009 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 6,048$ 5,596$ 6,240$ 5,700$ Services & Other Charges 367,345 115,522 204,460 197,750 Total Expenditures 373,393$ 121,118$ 210,700$ 203,450$ Community Development Block Grant Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Service Overview Budget Highlights Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program allows local governments to exercise greater control over the community development process and to promote more effective use of resources to eliminate urban deterioration. Funds are distributed according to a formula based on population and other demographic and housing statistics. The City of St. Louis Park has been a participant in the CDBG program, formerly known as the Urban Hennepin County Community Development program, since 1978. Funding of eligible community development activities requires that activities principally benefit low and moderate income persons, prevent or eliminate slums and blight, or meet urgent needs. The timing for making decisions on the use of CDBG funds does not coincide with the City’s annual budget schedule. The Council adopts a resolution early each spring approving the appropriations for each grant year’s award. The grant year starts the following July 1st and the City has eighteen months in which to expend the grant monies awarded. The allocation of CDBG funds for 2009 will not be determined until spring of 2009. Similar to the 2007-08 grant, a portion of the 2009 grant will be utilized to reimburse the City for administrative salaries. With the exception of personal services, expenditures for the 2008-09 estimated CDBG allocation are not broken down by individual agencies, but rather shown as a lump sum “to be allocated”. In recent years, CDBG grant funds have been utilized primarily to fund capital improvements and contract costs. The 2009 budget amounts represent expenditures of CDBG funds in several areas including: rehab of multi-family developments in the community, funding for the City’s Emergency Repair Program and Deferred Loan programs, and funding for park programming at Ainsworth and Meadowbrook Parks. 92 Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2009 Budget Page 6 City of St. Louis Park 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Charges For Services 477,344$ 525,491$ 500,000$ 500,000$ Transfers In - - - - Interest Income 48,217 82,958 48,300 80,000 Miscellaneous 101 20 - - Total Revenues 525,662$ 608,469$ 548,300$ 580,000$ 2006 2007 2008 2009 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 156,149$ 297,646$ 328,659$ 336,000$ Supplies 14,223 15,808 17,000 16,000 Services & Other Charges 56,734 80,407 105,783 151,500 Capital Outlay 36,461 468 40,000 - Transfers Out 161,041 158,109 155,063 155,063 Other Expenses - 2 - - Total Expenditures 424,608$ 552,440$ 646,505$ 658,563$ Budget Highlights Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues 2009 Budgeted Expenditures Information Resources: Cable Television The state of communications, entertainment, and data delivery via land lines (coaxial cable, fiber optics, or twisted pair) and RF - radio frequency - (wi fi, satellite, cellular, spread spectrum, TV broadcasting) is ever changing. Staff will continue to monitor and influence policies through participation in pertinent government associations. Over recent years, there have also been increases in funds transferred to the General Fund. While appropriate in the past, continued significant or increasing allocations of Cable TV funds transferred to the General Fund ultimately threaten Cable TV staffing and resources necessary to do the quality work on various cable TV channels requested by the City Council and community. • The 2009 budget includes $50,000 in item 6630 primarily for a fiber optic use / ordinance study. It is anticipated that this study will also include a review of other technologies that could yield public benefit. • 2008 budget includes an increased School District franchise fee grant of $51,000, and $13,000 for a franchise fee audit, both items at the direction of the Telecommunications Commission. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2009 Budget Page 7 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed General Property Taxes 604,023$ 868,796$ 803,634$ 1,046,366$ Intergovernmental 87,499 65,401 - - Charges For Services - 6,000 - - Special Assessments 159,183 140,196 - - Transfers In 399,340 - 464,916 - Rent Revenue 160,344 184,849 183,188 158,500 Interest Income 1,010,041 1,589,615 918,800 1,200,000 Miscellaneous 3,059 - - - Total Revenues 2,423,489$ 2,854,857$ 2,370,538$ 2,404,866$ 2006 2007 2008 2009 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 445,852$ 442,621$ 510,471$ 514,000$ Supplies 2,515 179 3,000 2,600 Services & Other Charges 431,990 874,296 515,338 411,373 Capital Outlay 5,290 253,720 - 10,000 Transfers Out 1,993 1,016 - - Total Expenditures 887,640$ 1,571,832$ 1,028,809$ 937,973$ Development Fund Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Economic Development Authority Development Fund Service Overview Budget Highlights The Development Fund was created in 1996 as a source of financing to be used to foster and promote a wide range of public and private development and redevelopment activities in St. Louis Park. The source of funds used to create and maintain this fund consists of proceeds from the repayment of loans and other revenues such as: the sale of real and personal property, federal and state grants, and other funds designated from time to time by the City Council and Economic Development Authority (EDA). Some of the major redevelopment projects with which the EDA is currently involved include: Duke Realty's West End project, Park Nicollet's Melrose Institute, Hoigaard Village, Highway 7 Corporate Center and the Lake Street Office Center. The EDA will also remain involved with the Excelsior & Grand, Village in the Park, the expansion of the Park Nicollet's medical facilities, and various other redevelopment projects. Expenditures budgeted within the 2009 Development Fund include costs related to EDA operations (including the salaries of personnel associated with the EDA), planning studies to aid future redevelopment initiatives, and four housing rehabilitation programs. The line item property tax revenue of $1,046,366 is the expected amount of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) levy in 2009. This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected to use the proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some of the HRA levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies and analysis for future improvement projects. By law these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future (particularly transportation infrastructure), staff recommends that the HRA levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2009 budget year. The EDA, as well as the City Council, is required to approve this levy. As outlined per resolution, the HRA levy cannot exceed .0185 percent of the taxable market value of the City. As of August, 2008, the market value of the City is $5,656,034,000. This market value allows the City to levy $1,046,366 in 2009. In 2008, the allowable levy amount was $796,848 or .0144 percent of the taxable market value. Staff will review market values prior to final certification in December. The levy amount is included as part of the Development Fund budget. At this time, a portion of HRA levy dollars is being used to fund an infrastructure analysis in the Park Nicollet area. 1 Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2009 Budget Page 8 City of St. Louis Park 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed General Property Taxes 459$ 872$ -$ -$ Licenses & Permits 2,788 14,428 1,500 - Intergovernmental - - - - Charges For Services 2,786,613 3,173,811 3,260,622 - Special Assessments 55,234 80,621 130,000 - Transfers In - - - - Interest Income 28,048 100,771 40,000 80,000 Miscellaneous 134,534 77,562 130,000 - Total Revenues 3,007,676$ 3,448,065$ 3,562,122$ 80,000$ 2006 2007 2008 2009 Expense Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 637,832$ 804,329$ 806,590$ 935,400$ Supplies 330,459 374,191 356,200 431,800 Services & Other Charges 1,529,505 1,675,211 1,518,847 1,575,415 Depreciation 331,438 362,438 - - Capital Outlay 2,719 - 1,031,000 1,351,000 Transfers Out 506,965 538,882 533,656 610,652 Other Expenses 12,895 15,691 - - Total Expenses 3,351,813$ 3,770,742$ 4,246,293$ 4,904,267$ Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues Budget Highlights Public Works: Water Utility Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenses The Water Utility Department has completed a 15-year review of the water infrastructure. The major project scheduled in 2009 is water main replacement. The rehabilitation of Water Treatment Plant # 8 will be started in 2008 and is expected to be completed in the spring of 2009. The other water treatment plants are scheduled to be rehabilitated over the next few years. The rehabilitation provides for improved water quality and the addition of treatment to ensure compliance to the radium standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act. Additional dollars have been allocated to contract out services to assist the Utilities division staff in meeting recommended American Water Works Association best management practices. Utility revenue is generated through water rates and billed services. No property tax dollars are allocated for the operation of the water utility. Finance will evaluate the rate structure in the fall of 2009. For budgetary purposes, depreciation is not included as an expense. Instead, the amount projected to be expended for infrastructure improvements (capital outlay) is included as an expense to the operations. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2009 Budget Page 9 City of St. Louis Park 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Intergovernmental -$ 55,730$ -$ -$ Charges For Services 4,584,159 4,764,471 4,788,905 - Special Assessments 642 520 - - Interest Income 105,283 166,201 120,000 145,000 Total Revenues 4,690,084$ 4,986,922$ 4,908,905$ 145,000$ 2006 2007 2008 2009 Expense Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 436,403$ 261,392$ 330,213$ 259,700$ Supplies 29,859 17,581 43,450 38,700 Services & Other Charges 3,557,264 3,733,144 3,978,005 3,820,791 Depreciation 231,862 187,543 - - Capital Outlay - - 247,245 328,295 Transfers Out 746,060 790,849 741,335 790,876 Other Expenses - - - - Total Expenses 5,001,448$ 4,990,509$ 5,340,248$ 5,238,362$ Budget Highlights Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenses Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues Public Works: Sanitary Sewer Utility The Finance Department is expected to re-evaluate the Sanitary Sewer rates in the fall of 2009. MCES charges to the City account for over 80% of the total expenditure budget not including the capital improvement program and transfers to the general fund. Additional dollars have been added to the operations budget for repairs to decrease Inflow and Infiltration (I&I). The budgeted amounts for engineering services for I & I studies were decreased along with estimated charges by MCES. Administrative and overhead fee transfer to General Fund - in prior years, this fund has transferred a nominal amount to the General Fund for administrative services and overhead. Beginning in 2004, this fund began contributing the full amount for overhead and services received. For budgetary purposes, depreciation is not included as an expense. Instead, the amount projected to be expended for infrastructure improvements (capital outlay) is included as an expense to the operations Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2009 Budget Page 10 City of St. Louis Park 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Intergovernmental 91,516$ 90,016$ 94,000$ 90,000$ Charges For Services 2,124,203 2,395,469 2,364,503 2,418,080 Interest Income 89,511 125,969 90,000 120,000 Miscellaneous 3,000 Total Revenues 2,308,230$ 2,611,454$ 2,548,503$ 2,628,080$ 2006 2007 2008 2009 Expense Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 34,382$ 34,281$ 53,283$ 128,225$ Supplies 50,948 23,131 46,600 48,500 Services & Other Charges 1,943,973 1,962,182 2,141,544 2,290,050 Transfers Out 335,617 348,866 356,784 314,732 Total Expenses 2,364,920$ 2,368,460$ 2,598,211$ 2,781,507$ Public Works: Solid Waste Utility Budget Highlights Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenue Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenses In 2003 the solid waste program was changed to a pay-as-you-throw program, changing the rate structure to conform with the current contract. Collection & disposal rates are subject to change annually based on the collection contracts and disposal costs at the variouis facilities used by the city. As directed by Council, the revenues need to balance expenditures and the Solid Waste Fund reserve should not be expected to subsidize the costs. With the current Solid Waste Fund balance, rates may be able to be reduced or maintained at their current rate over the next few years to lower the fund balance. The rate forecast is reviewed annually by Finance and revised as necessary. One of the Solid Waste program's primary goals is environmental stewardship which is now a citywide goal as well. In view of this goal, the current residential collection program has been expanded to include smaller businesses and multi- family residential properties. In 2009 an effort will be made to provide elective garbage and recycling collection services to commercial and high-density residential properties. And as noted above, the development of an organics co-collection program is expected to be well received by the residents. We expect these new opportunities to have a positive effect on recycling participation which affects our SCORE funding. Hennepin County has been providing SCORE funding (Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment) to municipalities to offset costs for providing curbside recycling collection to residents since the mid-1980s. The money is allocated based on a city’s share of total households served on curbside collection routes with a few performance based contingencies. In 2008 we received approximately $90,000 in SCORE funding from the County. The SCORE funding actually comes from the garbage taxes collected by the state. With increased fuel costs, contract costs will be higher. The garbage and yard waste contract contains a fuel escalation clause which hold the contractor harmless from increasing fuel costs. Increased fuel costs have been factored into the 2009 budget. Yard waste volume is dependent upon the weather and length of the growing season, both of which change from year to year. One program option allows residents to choose a reduced service and receive a $3 credit on their quarterly utility bill in exchange for not bagging grass clippings and setting them out for collection. Approximately two-thirds of residents have the reduced yard waste service. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2009 Budget Page 11 City of St. Louis Park 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Intergovernmental 353,942$ 117,256$ 37,500$ -$ Charges For Services 1,169,915 1,470,529 1,548,659 - Special Assessments - - - - Transfers In - - - - Interest Income 18,553 73,893 19,000 60,000 Miscellaneous - 3,366 - - Total Revenues 1,542,410$ 1,665,044$ 1,605,159$ 60,000$ 2006 2007 2008 2009 Expense Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 152,158$ 188,983$ 212,881$ 222,500$ Supplies 12,627 4,249 12,150 34,700 Services & Other Charges 477,245 445,928 413,116 641,043 Depreciation 372,128 432,725 - - Capital Outlay - - 100,000 350,000 Transfers Out 335,118 317,694 328,437 395,123 Other Expenses 18,482 16,133 18,000 18,000 Total Expenses 1,367,758$ 1,405,712$ 1,084,584$ 1,661,366$ Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenue Budget Highlights Public Works: Storm Water Utility Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenses The Storm Water Utility was established in 2000 to create a revenue source for the capital improvement program and continued repair and maintenance on the storm water system. The rate consists of a basic charge for single/two family residential lots and an acreage charge for multiple residential and commercial use. The current rate of $12.25/quarter per residential parcel is scheduled to be evaluated by finance in the fall of 2009. The Storm Water Utility has evolved with new regulations required by federal mandate. The new regulations require cities to develop and implement management plans to control pollution of the storm water system. The City submitted a revised Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that established new procedures and policies to meet the new regulations and reduce pollution of the storm water system. The additional inspection and maintenance programs have a significant impact on the budget. Currently the City is not staffed to meet these requirements and the 2009 budget reflects the costs associated with hiring contractors to deliver the mandated work. It is recommedned that the contracting out of this new work versus adding additional staff to do this should be evaluated to see which method is in the best long term interests of the City. For budgetary purposes, depreciation is not included as an expense. Instead, the amount projected to be expended for infrastructure Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2009 Budget Page 12 Meeting Date: December 8, 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: Employee Opinion Survey Results. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. Staff will be present at the Study Session to share the employee opinion survey information with Council. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None. BACKGROUND: In June 2008, the City hired a consultant from Employer’s Association to conduct an employee opinion survey to gather the thoughts of City employees. Surveying employees is a best practice of high performing organizations for many reasons. Asking employees how they feel about their jobs, the City, and other areas allows management to find out if there are any serious concerns that need to be addressed in the organization. Management can also use survey results to get a pulse on the culture or atmosphere of the organization, and improve employee engagement and morale by allowing staff to be heard. Finally, survey results are helpful to management when making future decisions. All individual responses have been kept confidential. Informational Video: The City Manager has shared the results of the opinion survey and the proposed City-wide action plan with all employees via a video. The City Manager will update Council on the survey and show the video during the Study Session. In addition, a hard copy of the survey results presentation is attached. Next Steps: Although reviewing employee responses to the survey is important, it is even more critical that management uses the data to make effective decisions or changes. A City-wide action plan has been created in response to the employee input, and departments are also implementing their own department-specific action plans with the goal of improving our “opportunity for improvement” areas. Staff is pleased with the results of the survey, and is working on implementing action plans to address our opportunities for improvement. A follow-up survey is recommended for 2010 to measure our progress. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The expense of undertaking the survey was included in the 2008 budget. Any costs associated with following up on the employee input will need to be undertaken within future budget parameters. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Employee Opinion Survey Results Presentation Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager ! Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 3 Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 4 ! " # $% &’ (’ ) Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 5 ’ *’+ &’,, ’% -%’%% . $’%% . Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 6 !"#$ % &$ ’ ( ) Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 7 #’%’’ / *01+ " *01+ !*21+ Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 8 34502466*+, !34782462*-+ %+’ . 34152420-+$, #34002476/-+% +’.0 340524721+, $$% +’. 345924702+ + 34092400/+, %+’. $$ !3 ( 3 ( Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 9 (3405248545+! , "34112489*1+ "3458243:*2+ $ 6 !34182431-7+.$ 6$ 3457246:7+, $8$$8 $ "34112463*/+#$$ !34572463**+$$8$ !33 ( Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 10 "340924:3*9+ $ !345624:2-2+%$$ &’3450248:75+$$ 6 8$8 $ ,$$ &’3402248617+ (340624824/+ "34552482*7+. ,$ "34512480/5+$$8 , !3 ( 3 ( Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 11 ’% ; ’’2*8<7 ’+ %’/ ! " Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 12 #’%’’ / ) *25+ *20+ $%*21+ Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 13 &’342164781:+!$ )3451642072+3$$$ $ &’340:642314+!6$ #34716466/*+ 34216439-1+!%+’ .6$ $ )3478349177+! $;< &’3470349712+! $ !3 ( 3 ( Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 14 $%34096403*4+$ $ $%340:640:/4+ $ )347564757/+)$$ 6 (3425647041+ $$ $%3406647715+ )3469647371+!%$ $ !34776478*5+#, $ $ !3 ( 3 ( Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 15 $%34266451/9+!% $$8$ $$ 34266452-*+$$ $$8 $ 34706456-/+$ 8 #34726405//+! 34766400--+ $ , !34026400-9+. $ $%340664061/+ $$ !3 ( 3 ( Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 16 =’’ ’; % *+ >’ Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 17 #>’ %% 4 &/ ’ >?’ @’ Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 18 AB%% / )’% % $C " $ Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 19 &’%% / -%D "C A -% ’% )’’% ? Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 20 " &’B’ %’ >’ Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 21 =,% ; ’ ’ !’% %*C’’% 3:8:+4 Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 22 "’ %E’ 4 )B730 =’ - Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 3) Subject: Employee Opinion Survey Results Page 23 Meeting Date: December 8, 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: 2009 City Council Workshop RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Council feedback and input on the topics to be discussed at the upcoming City Council workshop. Based on this feedback, staff will develop a more specific agenda for Council’s review prior to the workshop. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What topics does the City Council feel would be appropriate to discuss at its annual workshop? BACKGROUND: For the last several years the City Council has met in a day and one half workshop setting to enhance relationships and discuss policy related matters. Last year the focus of the workshop was on the City’s marketing and branding initiative, Vision SLP and the City Council’s adopted Strategic Directions and Long Range Financial Planning. This year’s workshop is scheduled for the late afternoon and evening of Friday, January 30 and during the day on Saturday, January 31. All Department Directors will be available as needed to participate in the workshop. The location of the workshop has not yet been determined. In the recent past I have suggested some bigger picture topics/policy related matters (“Big Bowl” items) that we should consider discussing at the workshop. I have outlined below some suggestions for consideration. If the agenda is packaged appropriately it is felt these topic areas could compliment one another. • Overview of the Decision Resources Citizens Survey • Revisit where we are at with Vision SLP and Strategic Directions • Review updated Long Range Financial Plan as related to 2009/2010 budgets and beyond • Discuss 2010 budget process FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The practice of the City Council has been to use an off-site facility for the workshop and keep costs to a minimum. This same approach is proposed for this coming workshop and is budgeted for accordingly. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Subject: 2009 City Council Workshop VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachment: None Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: December 8, 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: 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: December 8, 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: Public Art Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. This report is to update Council on the status of the five public art projects being considered. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None. BACKGROUND: Staff is working on five public art projects at this time. Each one of the projects has or will involve input from a committee made up of local residents, City staff, Friends of the Arts and City Commission representatives. PUBLIC ART PROJECTS IN PROCESS 36th Street Streetscape The public art for the 36th Street Streetscape will be done in conjunction with the work being done by SRF Consulting Inc. The artist, Marjorie Pitz, is working on the construction and implementation phase of the streetscape art. She will be constructing 7 bollards, 31 wall panels and 4 benches to be incorporated into the sidewalk streetscape along 36th Street. Ms. Pitz has proposed a concept theme of “people on the street” by adding art that is human in form and whimsical. The intent is to have the area come alive with activity. Three seating areas on 36th St. (2 on the north side and 1 on the south side) have been designed to serve as a gathering place along the sidewalk. A circular wall will define the seating area, provide a sense of enclosure and buffer people from street traffic. Two benches within the circular space will serve as sculptural seating. Bollards will be made of cast stone in a design that harmonizes with the benches. Planters mounted within these benches will be relief cast stone wall panels that sculpturally represent people joyfully talking. Staff expects that the artwork will be done in conjunction with the other streetscape additions this coming spring and early summer. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Subject: Public Art Update Dream Elevator at Corner of 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue Randy Walker is the artist who has been commissioned to design the development plans for the “Dream Elevator” to be located at the corner of 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue. Mr. Walker has completed the design/development phase of this contract; however, the City is not ready to construct the art piece. The City does not currently own the property on the corner where we were proposing to place the art. This property would be provided to the city as part of the redevelopment of the adjacent property. Although the City has provided the necessary land use approvals, the developer of the Wooddale Pointe project is still in the process of obtaining funding for this project. Once the project goes forward, staff will obtain the easement to allow this horizontal art piece to be constructed. Bridge at Hwy 7 and Wooddale City staff members from Parks and Recreation, Community Development and Engineering have been working with the bridge design team from SRF Consulting Inc. to enhance the exterior design of the bridge. Although we are not planning to use an artist to assist with this process, the design team has offered various options to improve the look of the bridge. The architecture and design throughout the bridge will give it a unique look to make it stand out from a typical “off the shelf” bridge design. A final design of the bridge will include decorative railings incorporating color into the project as well as street lights and textured concrete. West End Development As a part of the Shops at West End, staff is working with Jack Becker from FORECAST Public Artworks and Duke Realty, the developer, to incorporate two public art projects in to this first phase of the development. A RFQ has been sent out to solicit interested artists. A committee has been assembled, made up of residents and representatives from the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee, Friends of the Arts and staff to review artist proposals. The committee will meet on December 11 to review the proposals and select finalists. The finalist for each project will be paid a small stipend to develop their work for a presentation to this committee in February. An interactive outdoor sculptural element is planned to be a part of the outdoor gathering place and plaza located at 16th Street and West End Boulevard. The site sits at the apex of two streets joined by pedestrian crosswalks and is adjacent to a large grocery store and parking lot. The landscape architects working with Duke will be involved in the project to ensure that the art fits in with the space. In addition to the outdoor sculptural element, we are seeking an artist to create an interior interactive art experience as part of the multiplex cinema and retail center. This would be located in the two-story atrium. A unique, interactive art project is desired to attract and retain audiences, engage viewers in whimsical ways, and encourage repeat visits. The RFQ suggests that artists may consider the use of sound, light, projection and audience interactive media. The intent is that the end result will include the use of the large vertical wall surface. Meeting of December 8, 2008 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Subject: Public Art Update The Ellipse at Corner of France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard City staff has been working with Bader Development and their landscape architect, Damon Farber and Associates, to create a public art opportunity in the plaza area of the development. Since this area is a gateway to the eastern edge of the City, it offers a unique design opportunity. Public art in this area will be a way to enhance and animate the plaza to make it inviting, welcoming and experiential. The art in this area may be a sculptural piece or it may be several elements incorporated into the design of the plaza. A committee, including representatives from the Minikahda Vista and Minikahda Oaks neighborhoods, will be involved in the selection process. The committee will meet on January 12 to review and select the finalists. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The public art process and artist selection is being paid for out of the Development Fund. The construction and installation of the public art is largely being paid by the developers or from previous public art contributions made by developers to the City. VISION CONSIDERATION: The five public art projects represent St. Louis Park’s commitment to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. Attachments: None Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager