The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007/03/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session March 26, 2007 6:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers Discussion Items Approximate Times 1. 6:30 pm Future Study Session Agenda Planning 2. 6:35 pm Duke Concept Plan and TIF Application 3. 7:20 pm Paperless Agenda 4. 7:50 pm Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Written Reports 5. Human Rights Commission Annual Report, Bylaws and Work Plan 6. Update on Highway 7 and Wooddale Interchange Project 7. Financial Report (February) 8:05 p.m. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD (952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 1 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 1 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next study session agenda. BACKGROUND: At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for the study session prior on April 9, prior to the Boards of Appeal and Equalization meeting and the special Council meeting. Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 1 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 2 Future Study Session Agenda Planning Monday, April 9, 2007 Tentative Discussion - 6:30 p.m. A. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) B. Human Rights Commission – Police Department (45 minutes) The Human Rights Commissioners and staff liaisons will discuss the revised Annual Report, Work Plan and Bylaws with Council. Council will provide feedback to the Commissioners. Are the documents complete? Should staff place the bylaws on the April 16 Council agenda? 7:20 p.m. End of Meeting St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 1 2. Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: The purpose of this discussion is to update the Council and seek direction regarding the Duke development proposal for the SW corner of I-394 & Hwy 100, referred to as the West End project; and their request for Tax Increment assistance. Representatives from Duke Realty will be at the study session to present their proposed project and assistance request; and, answer any questions the Council may have. BACKGROUND: At the 1/08/07 City Council Study Session Duke presented the concept plan for the West End project. Since that time staff has worked with Duke to address the issues raised by Council members that evening and to achieve further conformance of Duke’s plans with the development guidelines the City Council discussed at its study sessions in November and December 2006. The guidelines discussed previously are attached to this report for reference. Current Status The design process has reached a decision point. Significant additional work is necessary before a development plan and a redevelopment contract would be ready for formal approvals, but the basic concept plan the developer is prepared to build is set and the level of city assistance the developer is seeking is now known. Before the developer and staff proceed to the next level of plan refinement and start any contract negotiations, the City Council needs to decide whether the basic concept plan for the project and the general level of assistance requested by the developer are acceptable. The basic proposal has not changed appreciably since the 1/8/07 City Council meeting. The basic uses, the basic layout, the basic building sizes and relationships between buildings and streets and sidewalks shown on the attached plans are what Duke is willing to do. Only relatively minor changes are open for discussion. ANALYSIS: Concept Plan In general the proposed West End development meets many of the design guidelines the Council discussed at previous study sessions. The proposed project includes attractive sidewalks and streets that fit within the broader city systems and connect the proposed development to the rest of SLP and Golden Valley. The plan has been prepared to anticipate and connect with potential adjacent new development, in particular the possibility of new development on the Associated Bank property directly to the north of the West End project. The scale of this project is regional in size and scope. More than one million square feet of office and 350,000 square feet of retail are proposed. The extension of W16th Street into the Duke property provides for vehicular access to and through the site. It also accommodates and encourages transit and pedestrian movement. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 2 Duke has stated that the architecture will be of a high quality and that their intent is to follow the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards for at least the office buildings. The guidelines that are less successfully addressed mostly relate to the retail portion of the proposed project. A retail shopping center has not been part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan or zoning for this site. The acceptability of significant retail development on this site has been predicated on it being part of an overall master planned mixed-use development project that provides a unique, high quality environment for pedestrians and community gathering places. The design guidelines were crafted to help achieve that objective. The design guidelines that are not well met are some of the issues raised by the City Council when the concept plan was last presented in January of this year. Questions included: 1. The type, quality and extent of public spaces. 2. The location and massing of the proposed buildings along the major streets. 3. The character of street frontages, especially Park Place Blvd and Gamble Drive; would they be active places with store fronts, windows and entrances onto sidewalks along public streets. 4. The height of buildings in the retail portion of the project, would they be at least 2 stories? 5. The location of parking lots and ramps, would they be along street frontages, behind the retail buildings? 6. Would parking be shared between the uses? 7. Would the uses be mixed? The City Council specifically expressed concern at the 1/8/07 study session about the parking ramp along Park Place Blvd. They requested that Duke consider placing retail space on the first floor of the parking ramp along Park Place Blvd as a way to make it more active and attractive to pedestrians. Similarly, the City Council expressed concern about the level of activity and size of the buildings along Gamble Drive frontage especially at the corner of Gamble and Park Place Blvd. The City Council suggested that this area should have buildings taller than one-story and no surface parking lots. The goal was to create an active street frontage. In response to the Park Place parking ramp issue, Duke has concluded that while it is possible to put retail along Park Place Blvd, they don’t feel it is an appropriate thing to do. The current plan for City Council consideration retains the two-level parking ramp along Park Place Blvd shown on the 1/8/07 plan. The frontage will be landscaped and the ramp will be given an architectural treatment. Duke is also proposing significant retail store signage on the parking ramp. This is not allowed by our ordinances. Duke has stated that they must have this signage to successfully market their retail space. Regarding Gamble Drive and the Gamble/Park Place Blvd corner, Staff has discussed this issue with Duke at great length and the current Duke plan is more or less the same as the previous plan. Duke’s plans show a one story building at the corner and surface parking lots. They believe they need flexibility with regards to the development of this corner and are not comfortable committing to a more substantial building on this corner. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 3 With regards to the mix of land uses and sharing parking, the uses are generally segregated rather than mixed and sharing of parking is limited. The project includes a variety of uses, but all the office uses are on the east side of the project and all the retail/ service uses are on the west side. This means sharing of parking is limited. Some parking in the existing 1600 Tower/MoneyGram towers parking ramps will be shared with the movie theater, but generally separate parking supplies are provided for the office and the retail portions of the project. While introducing office development into the retail portion of the project was discussed, including the possibility of second or third floor office space over the retail space, Duke was concerned about the marketability of the office space and the added parking it would require. The Duke plan does not include any office space in the retail portion of the project. The retail buildings are mostly single story buildings. The exceptions are the building with the cinema, the anticipated book store at W16th Street and Park Place Blvd, and the anchor retail use at the south end of West End Blvd. Second or third level retail is very difficult to market. Most multi-story buildings in mixed-use settings have upper floors that are residential or office uses. Gathering Space Public gathering space has been a major goal for the city as part of this project. The primary public spaces in the proposed project are West End Blvd and an atrium along West End Blvd. Duke has indicated that the boulevard is designed to be a block long pedestrian mall, with seating, lighting, landscaping and a water feature. They also have indicated that the space is suitable for art fairs, farmers markets and other events as well as casual use and outdoor dining at restaurants along the street. The center section of West End Blvd is designed to be closed to vehicle traffic for events and still provide access to parking ramps. The atrium is a 5000 square foot indoor space that will serve both as the circulation/connection space to the 5 story parking ramp and the entrance to the second level cinema. It is also expected that a small police substation would be located on this space. There also will be a significant green space at the terminus of W16th Street located between two of the proposed office buildings. The exact layout of the space will depend on the actual office final office building configurations. The attached site plan and accompanying drawings show a 4 building configuration. It is possible that a 3 building layout could be developed depending on the needs of the office tenants. Assistance Request Duke’s request for assistance, addressed to the Mayor and City Council, is attached. The request provides a description of their project; and, the rationale and detail for their assistance request. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 4 Duke Realty has identified $48.9 million of TIF eligible expenses, but is seeking $35 million in assistance. The rest of the eligible expenses would be Duke’s responsibility. The potential expenses they have identified are for site improvements and parking structures and are summarized below. 1. Off-Site Improvements A. Off-site traffic improvements required within the AUAR $5,600,000 B. Dedicated roadways (16th Street, Utica Ave, Gamble Drive) $3,700,000 2. On-Site Improvements A. Demolition of five buildings and site clearance $1,750,000 B. Soil correction (bldg structural bearing capacity) $5,200,000 C. Storm water detention (underground) $1,650,000 D. Sanitary sewer relocation $ 500,000 E. Private roadways $4,100,000 3. Retail and hotel parking $26,400,000 The form of assistance could take many shapes including pay-as-you-go TIF notes or forgiveness of city fees such as parkland dedication fees. The City does not commit to provide assistance until a formal TIF application and project pro- forma have been received and fully reviewed. This level of analysis has not yet been completed, but it does appear that at least some level of assistance could be justified for redevelopment of the Duke property. Any development of the Duke site is likely to entail significant extraordinary development costs. The site has poor soils, a high water table, and utilities that will need to be relocated to maximize the development potential of this site. To create a special pedestrian retail environment also requires more intense and compact development. Creating more compact development drives up parking and other site costs. In addition any sizeable development on this site will require transportation improvements on and off site that are difficult to fund unless TIF is available to help. The EDA’s financial consultant, Ehlers & Associates prepared a preliminary TIF analysis for the proposed project. That analysis estimated that the project could potentially generate $33 million for development assistance over the full term of a redevelopment district (26 years). This assumes fiscal disparities are taken from within the district (as per City policy), a 5% city administrative fee from the TIF generated by the project, and no inflation. If a very modest inflation factor of 1% were included the proposed project could potentially generate the full amount of requested assistance. Devoting the increment from all 26 years of a TIF district’s life to a redevelopment project is not consistent with the City’s TIF practices. The EDA target is to provide no more than 15 to 18 years of tax increment to a project. Committing more years of tax increment to a project delays the return of the property to the general tax rolls. It also eliminates the financial cushion uncommitted years of tax increment provide for the project and the City. The Duke proposal would require the full 26 years of increment generated by their project. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 5 While the amount of financial assistance requested is considerable, the value of the proposed project is significant. The City’s participation would leverage approximately $360 million in new investment. As a percentage of total project cost the amount of financial assistance equals about 10% which would be considered reasonable given the level of assistance required by other projects the City has assisted. As with any request for financial assistance, the EDA will have to weigh the economic benefits of the proposed project and the extent to which it addresses community needs or land use challenges as well as meets the City’s stated planning goals. NEXT STEPS: Duke Realty has said that either we move forward with their proposed plan or they would essentially need to start over and pursue a very different development concept for this site. They have suggested that it would be a lesser project; less dense and more modest in value and ambition. Staff is seeking direction from the Council. If the project and the level of assistance are acceptable, we will proceed to work with Duke to refine their plans and start the zoning approval process. We will conduct a detailed analysis of their TIF application and their project pro forma. The intent would be to prepare a redevelopment contract term sheet for City Council consideration at a future meeting. If the proposed plans and level of assistance are not acceptable, staff proposes to offer to work with Duke to create a more acceptable proposal for future City Council consideration. The Duke proposal represents a unique opportunity. The location is regionally significant and potentially attractive to major corporate tenants. It is rare for anyone to have 32 acres of land available for development under single ownership at such a strong location. Duke itself is an experienced developer with the resources to build major projects. Duke is proposing a quality development at relatively high densities. They are also asking for significant city assistance. The magnitude and quality of the project deserves careful consideration by the city. Ultimately the question is whether the Duke proposal is sufficiently in alignment with the City’s values, vision and objectives to warrant moving forward; and, providing substantial public assistance. In general the office portion of Duke’s proposal is consistent with the City’s plans and objectives. The retail portion is more problematic. The City’s plans and objectives have never really identified a 350,000 sq. ft. retail center as the goal for this location. Considering the City is being asked to contribute significant assistance to make this project possible, staff questions whether this project comes close enough to meeting the City’s design standards and development objectives to warrant moving forward. This is a judgment for the City Council to make. If the city were able to choose what it would want for this site, we would probably choose something different. It would likely be a project that includes truly mixed-use, multi-story buildings; a project with more active street frontages, and possibly more, or different public spaces. The goal would be to create something of lasting community value and private sector viability. Whether something better than Duke’s proposed project could be achieved if the City chooses not to pursue this project further is an open question. We may want to pursue that option. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 6 Other actions will most likely come before the City Council in the next month or so regardless of which direction the Council chooses. The AUAR environmental review document will be on the April 9th Council meeting; and the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Golden Valley will be on the April 9th agenda or sometime shortly thereafter. It would be appropriate for the City to act on both of these items whether or not the current proposal is considered acceptable by the City Council. Both the JPA and the AUAR are documents that lay the stage for any future development of the Duke properties. Attachments: Design Guidelines West End Redevelopment Request and Case for Public Assistance West End plan Drawings (Supplement) Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 7 Design Guidelines 1) The Duke development needs to fit within the broader context of the Blackstone neighborhood. That means that the streets and sidewalks and trails and open space and other public elements surrounding the Duke site should be considered the framework into which the Duke development is placed. The Duke project should enhance the neighborhood and community. Duke’s project needs to fit with adjoining land uses, and recognize that changes may happen to the adjoining properties over time; and be designed to accommodate future changes. 2) In particular the Duke development needs to anticipate future expansion/redevelopment on many parcels in the area. The Associated Bank property and the Olive Garden and Chili’s restaurant sites along I-394 are directly adjacent to the Duke’s site on the north. Over time these sites and other parcels in the area may see intensification and new development. The Duke development plans should be capable of connecting with these developments. 3) The Duke site is part of the largest area in the City zoned for office development. It is located at one of the heaviest traveled freeway intersections in the state. It has high levels of accessibility, visibility and dramatic potential views. It has large scale commercial and office development as neighbors. This site is suitable for large scale regionally significant development and large buildings, but the site and the development should still be pedestrian friendly and encourage walking just the way development in central business districts consist of large buildings but provide pedestrian amenities and are walk-able places. 4) Duke’s buildings should provide a strong presence along Park Place Blvd. Park Place Blvd is the primary street serving this area of St. Louis Park. It is a big street that carries significant traffic. The buildings along the street should be at a scale suitable for the area and the street. There should be more building fronting the street than parking lots. The buildings and landscape treatments will set the character and image for the area; and, it should be one of substance. Just as Excelsior and Grand creates a strong presence along Excelsior Blvd, the Duke Development should create a strong presence of its own along Park Place Blvd. 5) Park Place Blvd is a key street for the City. Over time it should be established as a true urban boulevard with quality sidewalks and landscaping and it should provide for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit as well as cars. It should be a connecting element for the uses along Park Place Blvd and between St Louis Park and Golden Valley. The Duke development project should include improvements to its frontage along Park Place Blvd consistent with an overall plan for Park Place. 6) West 16th Street should be extended into the Duke development. It will be a key entrance/front-door to the Duke development. It should serve as an organizing element for the project, it should be attractively landscaped, a comfortable place for pedestrians and capable of accommodating public transit. 7) The Duke development should incorporate a mix of land uses potentially including housing. A mix of uses is a more efficient use of land, public infrastructure and parking; and, it adds to the character and vitality of a place. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 8 8) Duke’s development should contribute to and assist in creating significant high quality public space in this area of the city. It should include green space as well as sidewalks, public plazas and potentially other amenities. These spaces and facilities should be open and accessible to the community as whole, not just the users and employees of the Duke development. They should fit within the broader system of sidewalks and trails and open space within the neighborhood and the community. 9) The Duke development should accommodate and support public transit; and by design encourage use of transit. 10) In the end the Duke development should be more than a retail center and/or and office park.. It should be an integral part of the St. Louis Park and Golden Valley communities. It should be a place where we not only find goods, services, employment and places to live; but, a place in which the community takes pride and feels a sense of ownership. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 9 THE WEST END REDEVELOPMENT- REQUEST AND CASE FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TO: Honorable Mayor Jeffrey Jacobs and Saint Louis Park City Council Members FROM: Duke Realty Corporation DATE: March 21, 2007 I. INTRODUCTION Duke Realty Corporation is the sole owner of a 32 acre site situated at the southwest corner of I-394 and Highway 100 called “The West End.” The site has an hourglass shape- it is pinched in the middle by the existing MoneyGram Operations Center and the existing Olive Garden and Chili’s restaurants. The part of the site that is east of the pinch point is approximately 14 acres and was home to six vacant forty plus year old office buildings totaling 178,000 square feet. Duke has demolished three of those buildings; the other three remain. The part of the site that is west of the pinch point is approximately 18 acres and is currently home to the Novartis Warehouse on Park Place Boulevard- a forty-seven year old, 355,000 square foot warehouse/laboratory/distribution building- and the former Northwest Tennis Club Building on the corner of Park Place and Gamble. The Tennis Club Building has been vacant for years. Novartis will be vacating its warehouse in July, 2007. In addition to the Olive Garden and Chili’s restaurants, The West End site is also home to the MoneyGram Tower and the 1600 Tower, two Class “A” office buildings Duke owns. We believe that now is the time to redevelop the remainder of The West End site to an image consistent with and complementary to our Class “A” office buildings. Over the past year, we have worked closely with city staff to develop a master plan for this site, attached as Attachment 1, that features:  A Class “A” image  High density  A mix of uses  Public spaces and amenities This development, when completed, will provide all of these. It will also provide the City of Saint Louis Park, its residents and other area residents with a location and experience unlike any other in the Twin Cities and, perhaps, nationally. No other project in the Twin Cities combines the density and mix of uses this project will combine. It is a special project that will transform a blighted area into a new gateway to Saint Louis Park and a unique destination for many years to come. This project, however, is more expensive than most other projects and requires public assistance to make it a reality. The extraordinary costs that are eligible for public assistance are described in more detail in the cost breakdown attached as Attachment 2. In general, because this project is a redevelopment project, it is costlier than a new development on a “greenfield” site. Additionally, the project’s density demands that we St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 10 incur extraordinary infrastructure costs on and off the site and construct new public improvements that will benefit not only the project but nearby properties and the general public. Finally, certain unique characteristics of this site result in extraordinary development costs, including the following:  This site was formerly a quarry. Vertical development above two stories on the site requires massive soil correction in a number of locations throughout the site.  The density requires that we provide stormwater detention underground.  The density requires structured parking and offsite improvements to handle traffic.  We must relocate and rebuild a Metropolitan Council interceptor sanitary sewer that bisects a portion of the site. This is a unique opportunity for the City of Saint Louis Park and Duke. The market is ripe for this type and density of development. Duke owns the entire site and, with limited City assistance, has the financial resources to complete this development. The total cost of this development is approximately $360,000,000. Duke is willing to invest more than 90% of this cost into the project. However, the planned project is not financially feasible without $35,000,000 in public assistance. We believe this project will deliver public benefits that outweigh this investment and, in this memorandum, make our case for public assistance. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. COMPONENTS. 1. Retail/Restaurant/Entertainment. We propose to develop the western portion of the site fronting Park Place Boulevard into a 340,000 square foot destination that will feature (a) retail tenants consistent with an urban “lifestyle” center retail development, such as a gourmet grocer, upscale fashion, housewares and furnishings, electronics and casual dining, among other tenants; (b) sitdown restaurants and (c) entertainment in the form of a second level multi-screen cinema. This part of the master plan will feature a combination of single story and two story uses. We will provide parking with a two level parking structure on Park Place Boulevard and a five level parking structure opposite the existing MoneyGram and 1600 Tower parking structures. We intend to connect these existing parking structures to the new five level structure with a skyway to provide for shared parking within the development. We will park the buildings north of 16th Street with a mix of surface and underground parking. We intend to construct the retail/restaurant/entertainment part of the master plan in a single phase, commencing in 2007. 2. Hotel. We propose to reserve a parcel north of 16th Street (shown in purple on Attachment 1) for hotel or retail/hotel development when market conditions warrant such development. 3. Office. We propose to develop the eastern part of the site (at the southwest corner of I- 394 and Highway 100) as a Class “A,” approximately 1,100,000 square foot office development. We propose to develop office on this part of the site to (a) take advantage of the views of downtown Minneapolis and Cedar Lake; (b) provide visibility to the large corporate tenants we intend to attract and (c) overcome the twenty plus foot grade change from ground level to the surface of Highway 100. Substantial vertical density is required to overcome this grade change. The attached master plan shows four, nine story, 277,500 square foot office buildings, each connected to a seven level parking structure (mostly hidden by the grade change). However, this site can and should be flexible. The size St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 11 and height of these buildings can vary, up to the permitted maximum density and the twenty story height limitation described in the AUAR. An alternative plan is two nine story buildings flanking an eighteen story building in the center or some other three building configuration that could provide more green space on the site. We intend to develop the office buildings when market conditions warrant such development. B. ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY/LEED. The project will feature Class “A” architecture. Shell construction materials will feature brick, glass, architectural precast stone and metal. The office buildings will be similar in quality and image to the 1600 Tower. The development will contain sustainable design (“green”) features and we intend to obtain LEED Core and Shell Certification for any speculative office buildings we build on the site. III. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS/AMENITIES A. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS. To accommodate this development’s density, an additional entrance lane to eastbound I-394 is required and Park Place Boulevard must be expanded to add additional driving lanes. We will also dedicate additional right-of-way to the City so that the City may turn Park Place into a true boulevard with a center median that will accommodate trees or other landscaping or streetscaping. B. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 1. Utilities. We will construct all necessary utilities for the development within the project’s roadways. Additionally, we will build a new interceptor sanitary sewer line on the site as described in the Introduction in this memorandum. Finally, even though this development will have less impervious surface than the existing development, we must store and treat all stormwater underground to accommodate the density of the redevelopment plan. 2. Roads. a. Utica Avenue. We will rebuild Utica Avenue from the 1600 Tower to Wayzata Boulevard and dedicate it to the public. b. Existing Parking Structure Road. We will expand and rebuild this road and provide for a connection of this road with the Bank Building property to our north to allow the City a future connection of this road to Wayzata Boulevard. c. 16th Street. We will extend the existing 16th Street through the site and dedicate this road to the public. This new road will be an attractive serpentine and pedestrian friendly road that will provide direct access to all components of the project and, through its intersection with Utica Avenue, connect with Gamble Drive to the south and Wayzata Boulevard to the north. d. Wayzata Service Drive. We will rebuild the service drive extending south of Wayzata Boulevard connecting to Health Partners’ entry and receiving areas. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 12 3. Walkways/Connections. Pedestrians will be able to easily access all parts of the development from within and without the development. a. Public Roadways. Gamble Drive, Utica Avenue, Park Place Boulevard and 16th Street will all be pedestrian friendly roadways with attractive paved sidewalks and attractive landscaping, lighting and streetscaping. b. West End Boulevard. We will build West End Boulevard through the middle of the retail/restaurant/entertainment component of the development, connecting Gamble Drive to the new 16th Street extension. This “Main Street” private road will be a pedestrian oriented 80 x 300 foot space where people can walk, gather, sit, enjoy a cup of coffee and relax. c. Tyrol Hills/Cedar Lake Trail Connection. We will connect the development with the Tyrol Hills Neighborhood and the Cedar Lake Trail by providing a pedestrian connection through the parking structure on the office part of the site. This walkway will connect with Utica Avenue and 16th Street to provide convenient pedestrian access to the development. 4. Public Transportation. We will provide for a bus stop on the new 16th Street extension to provide for expanded bus service within the development. This bus stop will be conveniently located between the retail/restaurant/entertainment and the office components of the development. 5. Public Spaces. Large, open green spaces within the development are incompatible with the density we propose to develop on the site. However, we are able to provide other public spaces within the development, including the following: a. West End Boulevard. This Main Street will feature attractive landscaping, architecture, streetscaping and lighting. It will have areas to sit and congregate and will likely include a water feature. We anticipate that the restaurants will provide outdoor seating on West End Boulevard. Additionally, we may occasionally close a portion of West End Boulevard, without impacting access to the parking structures, to allow events such as farmers markets, concerts or art fairs on West End Boulevard. b. Central Atrium. The center of the project fronting the eastern side of West End Boulevard features a unique five level, 5000 square foot glass structure that will connect the new five level parking structure with the development and be the main entrance to the cinema on the second level of the development. We anticipate that this space will have active storefronts and will house a substation for the Saint Louis Park Police Department. IV. ECONOMICS A. COST. We estimate the cost of the project to be approximately $360,000,000. B. JOB CREATION. We estimate that the project will add approximately 5400 total jobs to Saint Louis Park with a total aggregate salary of $240,000,000. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 2 - Duke Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 13 V. ALTERNATIVES As part of our request for public assistance, we believe we have an obligation to inform the City that development alternatives exist that would not likely require public assistance. We have not studied these alternatives in great detail, but we believe it would be feasible to build a project with much less density than what we are proposing without any public assistance. Such a project will likely minimize or eliminate soil correction costs and perhaps eliminate the need for offsite improvements, rebuilding the Met Council’s interceptor sanitary sewer line and structured parking. The uses could include office, hotel and/or retail uses with surface parking or, perhaps, two level structured parking. “One off” vertical developments might also be feasible. VI. CONCLUSION This project will be a unique and special destination in Saint Louis Park, unlike any other project in the Twin Cities. Duke is prepared to invest approximately $325,000,000 into this project, and requests public assistance in the amount of $35,000,000 to make this project a reality. This assistance can include any combination of tax increment financing, waiver of city imposed fees such as parkland dedication fees, cash or other contribution of the City toward public or other improvements. This project will produce the tax increment necessary to support this assistance. For this reason and for all of the other reasons this memorandum describes, the public benefits of this project justify this investment by the public. We hope you agree and we thank you for your consideration of our request. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 3 - Paperless Agenda - Project Update Page 1 3. Paperless Agenda –Project Update Administrative Services ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION: Staff is returning to Council to provide an update on the paperless agenda project. The overriding policy question is whether or not the City Council wants staff to move forward with implementing a paperless agenda. BACKGROUND: Last year the City Council expressed an interest in possibly moving to a paperless agenda and asked staff to investigate this concept further. Over the last several months, an internal workgroup has been evaluating our current agenda processes to determine the necessary steps and technical requirements for producing the agenda in a paperless format. Although much of our current production is electronic, changing our agenda process will affect our staff, residents, council and others who research records or just want information about specific meetings. Staff’s involvement and feedback will assure a successful transition to paperless agenda packets. The workgroup reviewed the current agenda structure, technical pieces, software/hardware requirements and has researched other organizations which produce their agendas electronically. After review of data, methods and two site visits, we determined that the process used by the City of Minnetonka could be easily adapted for our city’s process. Template Update: Whether or not we move ahead with a paperless agenda, staff determined that a change is needed in the basic look or template of council staff reports. There are some programs embedded in the current council templates that have been causing many technical difficulties. An upgrade to paperless allows the opportunity to correct the technical difficulties we are experiencing. We are also concentrating on an upgrade that will ensure easy viewing by the end user in our community. It is important that agenda items and attachments look and function properly for Council, staff and those who will be viewing the items. Finally, we want to make sure we are providing the Council with the critical information they need in a consistent and easy to use layout. We plan to use the same timeline for compiling the agenda. Technology: When the agenda is paperless, those who view and use an agenda will need the proper tools to view it and work on it while making presentations and at various sites. Laptops will need to be issued to those based on business needs. We also need to upgrade equipment to allow scanning of non-electronic documents into the agenda. We plan to continue to use Word for our documents and they will be converted into Adobe Acrobat and bookmarked for use. A software needs assessment is underway to ensure staff who work on reports and make changes in Adobe have the technical capability and training to handle this function. Financial Considerations: Moving to paperless will save approximately $1,000 - $1,500 per year and an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 sheets of paper per month. Acquisition of hardware and software for Council will cost approximately $3,000 - $3,500 each. The City Manager will need to determine which staff will be issued hardware (laptops) and software upgrades for business use. Funds are available for this project in the 2005 A Bond Fund. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 3 - Paperless Agenda - Project Update Page 2 POLICY QUESTIONS: 1. Does Council want staff to move ahead to implement paperless agenda distribution? 2. As we move ahead to update the council templates for reports, what is most important to you when reviewing agenda items? 3. There are three sample updated templates for Council reports attached to this report. What are your comments and thoughts about the revised templates? 4. Do all Council members want a laptop? (If Council uses their own equipment – we need to discuss technical requirements and maintenance expectations). 5. If Council is issued a laptop, what type of use is allowed on the equipment? 6. Will Council allow use of email and internet during Council, study sessions, EDA and other meetings? NEXT STEPS: If Council directs staff to move forward on a paperless agenda process, staff will order equipment and provide training. Written procedures will need to be put into place for system use and guides for creating the agenda. Over the next several months, the final pieces would be put in place and we would run a parallel process on the agenda to work through the “bugs”. Once we have success with the parallel process, we would move it to paperless. Attachments: Agenda Template Samples Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 3 - Paperless Agenda - Project Update Page 3 EXAMPLE 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Insert Name of Preparer, Title Reviewed by: Insert Name of Reviewer(s), Title(s) Approved by: Insert Name of Approver, Title Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Other: ___________________________________________________________________ EDA Meeting Resolution Other: ______________________________________________________ Study Session Discussion Item Written Report; Other: _________________________________ Item for Consideration Insert Language. Must be completed. Example: Public Hearing ______________________________ Joint Powers Agreement Future Study Session Agenda Quarterly Investment Report Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions Recommended Council Action Insert Language. Must be completed. Examples: Motion to approve. . . Motion to designate. . . Motion to execute. . . Update City Council on status of . . . Financial Considerations Insert Language. Must be completed. Background Insert Language. Must be completed. Attachments: Insert if applicable, otherwise indicate None. Meeting Date: _____________ Item No.: _____ St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 3 - Paperless Agenda - Project Update Page 4 EXAMPLE 1 - COMPLETED To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Rick Birno, Superintendent of Recreation Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Other: ___________________________________________________________________ EDA Meeting Resolution Other: ______________________________________________________ Study Session Discussion Item Written Report; Other: _________________________________ Item for Consideration Application for a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the access and use of Roadside Park. Recommended Council Action Motion to approve Resolution supporting Application for a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the access and use of Roadside Park. Financial Considerations None. Within current budget. Background Parks & Recreation staff has been working with the Beehive relocation committee, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Nordicware, Three Rivers Park District, State Historical Preservation Organization and the St. Louis Park Historical Society to relocate and restore the historical features from Lilac Park to Roadside Park. To proceed with relocation, staff would need to apply for access and use of Roadside Park. This access would allow us to construct the trail access to the regional trail. Attachments: Resolution Meeting Date: 02/20/07 Item No.: 4e St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 3 - Paperless Agenda - Project Update Page 5 EXAMPLE 2 City Council Agenda Item #_____ Meeting of ___________________ Title: Examples: Public Hearing Joint Powers Agreement Future Study Session Agenda Quarterly Investment Report Appointment of Citizen Representative Description: Insert Language Recommended Action: Examples: Motion to approve. . . Motion to designate. . . Motion to execute. . . Update City Council on status of . . . Background: Insert Language. Must be completed. Financial Considerations: Insert Language. Must be completed. Recommendations: Insert Language. Must be completed. Attachments: Insert if applicable, otherwise indicate None. Respectfully submitted, Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager (we could also leave signature space, if desired) Prepared by (insert name of preparer) Reviewed by (insert name of reviewer, if necessary, otherwise remove) St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 3 - Paperless Agenda - Project Update Page 6 EXAMPLE 2 – COMPLETED City Council Agenda Item #4e Meeting of February 20, 2007 Title: Consent Item Description: Application for a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the access and use of Roadside Park. Recommended Action: Motion to approve Resolution supporting Application for a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the access and use of Roadside Park. Background: Parks & Recreation staff has been working with the Beehive relocation committee, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Nordicware, Three Rivers Park District, State Historical Preservation Organization and the St. Louis Park Historical Society to relocate and restore the historical features from Lilac Park to Roadside Park. To proceed with relocation, staff would need to apply for access and use of Roadside Park. This access would allow us to construct the trail access to the regional trail. Insert Language. Financial Considerations: None. Within current budget. Recommendations: Approve Resolution supporting Application for a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the access and use of Roadside Park. Attachments: Resolution Respectfully submitted, Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Prepared by Rick Birno, Superintendent of Recreation Reviewed by Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 3 - Paperless Agenda - Project Update Page 7 EXAMPLE 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park MN 55416 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Subject: Insert Title City Council Agenda Item #_____ Meeting Date: Insert Date Item for Consideration: Insert Language. Must be completed. Recommended Council Action: Insert Language. Must be completed. Financial Considerations: Insert Language. Must be completed. Background: Insert Language. Must be completed. AFTER THIS SECTION, ADDITIONAL SECTIONS, LANGUAGE MAY BE ADDED. Attachments: Insert if applicable, otherwise indicate none. Prepared by: Insert name of preparer. with title Reviewed by: Insert name of reviewer, if necessary, otherwise remove. Approved by: Insert name of approver, with title. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 3 - Paperless Agenda - Project Update Page 8 EXAMPLE 3 - COMPLETED OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park MN 55416 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Subject: Application for a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the access and use of Roadside Park City Council Agenda Item #4e Meeting Date: February 20, 2007 Item for Consideration: Application for a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the access and use of Roadside Park. Recommended Council Action: Motion to approve Resolution supporting Application for a Limited Use Permit with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the access and use of Roadside Park. Financial Considerations: None. Within current budget. Background: Parks & Recreation staff has been working with the Beehive relocation committee, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Nordicware, Three Rivers Park District, State Historical Preservation Organization and the St. Louis Park Historical Society to relocate and restore the historical features from Lilac Park to Roadside Park. To proceed with relocation, staff would need to apply for access and use of Roadside Park. This access would allow us to construct the trail access to the regional trail. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Rick Birno, Superintendent of Recreation Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 4 - Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 1 4. Planning Commission Annual Report & Work Plan Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To provide the Council with the work plan and annual report prepared by the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting with the commissioners on April 23. BACKGROUND: The City Council has requested draft copies of each commission’s work plan and annual report prior to the annual meeting with the commissions. The Planning Commission’s 2006 Annual Report and 2007 Work Plan is attached for Council’s review and discussion. Attachments: Planning Commission Annual Report (2006) Planning Commission Work Plan Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 4 - Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 2 St. Louis Park Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department Westmarke Condominiums, 1155 Ford Road St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 4 - Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 3 2006 St. Louis Park Planning Commission Lynne Carper, Chair Dennis Morris, Vice-Chair Jerry Timian, School Board Representative Claudia Johnston-Madison Robert Kramer Carl Robertson Richard Person St. Louis Park Planning Staff Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Sean Walther, Senior Planner Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 4 - Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 4 In 2006, the Planning Commission held numerous public hearings on various applications. The cases are listed by type, and the projects are described in the paragraphs to follow. Total 2006 Cases: 14 Conditional Use Permits 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2 Rezonings 3 Zoning Code Amendments 11 Subdivisions 7 Variances 3 Planned Unit Developments 2 Studies Multi-Family Housing Developments 2006 saw the introduction of several new multi-family housing developments within the City: Hoigaard Village - After receiving City Council approval of the first phase of construction in early 2006, the final approvals for the second phase of construction at Hoigaard Village came forward in mid-2006. Currently in the demolition phase, the developer anticipates construction beginning site-wide in early 2007. Inglewood Condominiums - The proposal for a 6-unit condominium building for 3125 Inglewood Avenue South required a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this development. The developer is currently planning to have construction underway in early 2007. Park Place II Apartments (Bigos) - Park Place II Apartments, located at 1361 Hampshire Avenue, represent another project that had received approvals in the past. In 2006 the environmental contamination on the site was addressed and the developer chose to move forward with the construction of the expected apartment building. The approval of the 49-unit development required a new Planned Unit Development agreement. Currently under construction, the developer anticipates completion in the fall of 2007. Village in the Park II - Rottlund Homes came forward with the second phase of the Village in the Park development in early 2006. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD for the development, and the developer anticipates coming forward for final approvals in early 2007. Westmarke Condominiums - The Westmarke Condominiums project, after being first approved in 2002 as a mixed-use apartment and office building, came forward for amendments to revise the building style. The Planning Commission St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 4 - Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 5 recommended approval to the amendments to the Conditional Use Permit for the structure, located on Ford Road in Shelard Park. At the current time, the 64 unit mixed-use building is under construction with completion anticipated in the spring of 2007. Single Family Developments 2006 was a quiet year for single family developments, with only a single developer proposing a subdivision: Hill Lane Plat - The developer at 2221 Hill Lane proposed a plat of the property, splitting one lot into three. This proposal resulted in a challenging process and a great deal of discussion, culminating with a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. The developer has filed the plat, but no construction is currently anticipated in the near-term. Excess Land Process The City Council’s excess land disbursement process continued in 2006. The Planning Commission reviewed several of the proposed sites for single family homes due to Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Plats required prior to the land sales: 7701 Edgebrook Drive 9019 Cedar Lake Road 2715 Monterey Avenue South 4525 Morningside Road 4200 Natchez Avenue South 2600 Natchez Avenue South Commercial Developments Several new developments, accompanied by various expected redevelopments, made 2006 a major year for commercial development: Highway 7 Corporate Center - The Golden Auto site remediation is enabling the redevelopment of one of St. Louis Park’s most pervasive brownfield sites. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the construction on this site; currently, remediation and construction are underway and completion is expected in fall of 2007. EDA Parking Lot - As part of the Golden Auto site remediation, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a plat and the development plans for a new parking lot serving Methodist Hospital located at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The construction of this parking lot was critical to the remediation occurring at the Golden Auto site – enabling the construction of a new office/warehouse building. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 4 - Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 6 Granite City - In March, the Planning Commission recommended approval of alterations to a PUD for the former Timberlodge Steakhouse to permit a new restaurant/brewery to enter the City, known as Granite City Food and Brewery. Hoigaard’s at Miracle Mile - Resulting from the redevelopment of their current site, Hoigaard’s retail store moved from West 36th Street to the Miracle Mile shopping center on Excelsior Boulevard. A minor expansion to the Miracle Mile required an amendment to the Special Permit. Construction is complete on the new Hoigaard’s store, which has been open since October of 2006. Cedar Pointe Redevelopment - Located at 5330 Cedar Lake Road, this development includes small retail shops, offices, and restaurants. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit required for this development to move forward. It is anticipated that construction will begin in the spring of 2007. Zoning Amendments Throughout the course of the year, the Planning Commission continuously looks at potential zoning Issues that may result in amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. During 2006, the Planning Commission helped create a new zoning district and recommended major modifications to the Zoning Ordinance. Amendments - Numerous amendments were discussed throughout the year. Addressed by the Planning Commission were: • Residential setbacks • Detached garages • Accessory buildings • Lot divisions • Allow studios in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district • Awnings and canopies • Permitted building materials (hardiboard) • Signs • Non-conformities • Parks and Open Space zoning district Studies R-1 Zoning District Study – The Planning Staff was directed by the City Council to conduct a study of R-1 zoning district areas in the city to present options related to potentially creating a new, larger lot zoning district. The Planning Commission discussed the issues at a number of public meetings in August and September. At the conclusion of the study, the Planning Commission recommended that the R-1 zoning lot size remain as is and the City Council accepted this recommendation without further action. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 4 - Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 7 Parks and Open Space zoning district – A new zoning district, created to more appropriately classify parks within St. Louis Park. The district included creating a new district in the zoning text and amending the zoning map to rezone city owned park land. Landscape and Off-Street Parking Code – The Planning Commission reviewed several changes to the landscaping and parking sections of the zoning code. These changes are expected to be finalized in 2007. Joint Meetings In November the Planning Commission met jointly with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to discuss the Park and Open Space zoning ordinance. It was agreed an annual meeting between the groups would be beneficial. The Planning Commission also met with the City Council several times to discuss proposed zoning ordinance amendments. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 032607 - 4 - Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 8 St. Louis Park Planning Commission 2007 Work Plan A. Review Planning Applications – Hear applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings, Preliminary Plats and variances. Hold public hearings, discuss planning impacts, and make recommendations to the City Council. Expected Applications: Duke development – rezoning, PUD, plat Rottlund VIP II – PUD Park Nicollet Eating Disorders Institute – rezoning, PUD, plat Methodist Hospital Cancer Center – PUD amendment B. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance – Continue work to update portions of the Zoning Ordinance including landscaping, parking, PUD and Administrative sections of the ordinance. C. Comprehensive Plan Update – Begin working on issues related to transportation, utilities, land use and parks and recreation. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 1 5. Human Rights Commission Annual Report, Work Plan and Bylaws Police Department PURPOSE OF REPORT: The City Council reviewed the draft of the Human Rights Commission’s work plan, bylaws and annual report at their study session on February 5, 2007. Council suggested changes and asked that the reports be re-submitted for review. Staff brought council’s recommendations to the Human Rights commission and the work plan and bylaws have been updated. The HRC and staff are submitting the revised 2007 work plan and bylaws that incorporate council’s suggestions for council’s review and will be available to discuss this report at the study session on April 9th. The council recently adopted the following Strategic Direction: “St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community” with one of the focus areas being “Directing the Human Rights Commission to examine the Diversity section of Vision St. Louis Park and develop goals/recommendations for actions.” The HRC will also be available to discuss this Strategic Direction with council at the April 9th study session. Attachments: HRC 2006 Annual Report HRC 2007 Work Plan HRC Bylaws Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 2 Human Rights Commission 2006 Annual Report The following report is based on the work that was performed by the HRC, set by the 2006-2007 HRC work plan. Priorities Connecting and supporting minority communities  Worked on proposing an Equal Access / City Separation Policy for St. Louis Park. o HRC attended a study session and updated the City Council on how other communities were dealing with immigrants o HRC researched various separation ordinances and policies and met with other community organizations to understand their positions and efforts. The HRC presented their findings as well as a proposed separation ordinance  As a result of this study session council asked to have more education opportunities for themselves and others within the community on this topic.  Identified and met with groups representing or serving minority populations within the city. o HRC worked with Jewish Community Action and Somali Action Alliance and conducted a forum with members of the Somali Community.  Attendees included various city officials, PAC members, and members of other community organizations  As a result of the forum, members of the Somali Community and SAA are working with the SLP police on culture sensitivity training.  Listened and gathered information about perceptions of bias. o The HRC received feedback about perceptions on bias from members of the Somali Community during HRC meetings and at the forum o Members of local synagogues attended an HRC meeting and discussed their views on bias  Partnered with adult ELL programs and other groups to support the work of the commission o The director of SLP ELL attended HRC meetings as well as the forum and would like to work with the commission to improve ELL opportunities. HRC will continue dialogue with the ELL program in 2007. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 3 Community & Youth Education  Promoted cultural competency and human rights education in the community including promoting the curriculum and video “This Is My Home” for use in groups and classrooms for discussion. (www.thisismyhome.org) o Commissioner Kristi Rudelius-Palmer facilitated a workshop for the Adult Options in Education Fall In-Service on This is My Home with approximately 35 educators. o Mayor Jeff Jacobs served as an inspirational panelist at the annual League of MN Human Rights Commissions in September. The HRC participated and coordinated the venue and technical support. A presentation on This is My Home was conducted. o Human Rights Commission training on This is My Home was conducted on October 1st. The focus was on school-commission partnerships in five cities throughout the state as a model. o Met with Superintendent Debra Bowers and the District Curriculum Coordinator to explore ways the This is My Home K-12 curriculum and school climate initiative can work with St. Louis Park Schools.  Worked together with schools to conduct anti-bullying and anti-teasing education. o The SLP schools are offering education on anti-bullying and anti-teasing. The HRC will reassess the need for any further education.  Increased diverse programming on public cable TV by engaging youth to develop and select programs. o Recommended by Mayor Jacobs, the HRC Education Committee worked to develop potential questions for the Bookmark in the Park interviews of immigrants in St. Louis Park, which aired on cable. o HRC worked with Reg Dunlap to begin showing the Twin Cities Public Television production of This is My Home, beginning in 2007.  Hosted a panel where people spoke about different cultures. o Members of the HRC attended a forum sponsored by the Tandem Project that discussed the separation of belief and state. o HRC will continue to host panels and forums with other immigrant communities within SLP Ongoing Commission Work  Responded to bias crimes as they occurred in partnership with the Police Department o HRC has responded to any bias crimes via the bias/crimes of hate response plan  Sponsored a Human Rights Essay Contest winner for the state competition each year o HRC continued to market and support the competition  Selected an annual Human Rights Award winners for St. Louis Park St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 4  Commissioner Matt Armbrecht attended the SLP Sunrise Rotary Club to promote the work of the HRC.  Commissioner Joe Polach was noted as a guest columnist by the Sun Sailor.  A commissioner helped to coordinate the first statewide K-12 Human Rights poster contest. Students were given their awards and recognized at the annual Human Rights Day event held on December 1st, sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Several commissioners attended the Human Rights Day event.  Sandy Johnson, HRC Liaison, and Kristi Rudelius-Palmer participated on the Diversity Committee for Vision St. Louis Park. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 5 Human Rights Commission 2007 Work Plan Mission: The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens. Priorities Connecting and supporting minority communities  Work with adult education to reach out to learners from diverse backgrounds.  Plan follow-up for July, 2006 Somali Community Forum.  Work with groups such as Somali Action Alliance and Jewish Community Action to reach out to immigrant and minority communities.  Begin plans for outreach to Hispanic Community, including possible forum.  Begin plans for an International Film series; consider partnering with Friends of the Arts.  Participate in community events such as Parktacular and Children First Ice Cream Social in order to reach out to the St. Louis Park community. Community & Youth Education  Promote cultural competency and human rights education in the community including promoting the curriculum and video “This Is My Home” for use in groups and classrooms for discussion. (www.thisismyhome.org)  Work with key individuals in the school district to explore outreach and education opportunities. Ongoing Commission Work  Respond to bias crimes as they occur in partnership with the Police Department  Sponsor a Human Rights Essay Contest winner for the state competition each year  Select annual Human Rights Award winners for St. Louis Park Other Ideas (If time allows)  Develop new neighborhood programs so that minorities feel welcome in single family areas and associations & crime watch programs are organized in multifamily housing areas.  Host a picnic or house party for specific minority populations as a means to foster connection and welcome feelings. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 6 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BY-LAWS Revised March 20, 2007 and Approved by City Council on _________________ The St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission was established May 20, 1968. Article I - The Commission 1.1 Name of Commission. The name of the Commission shall be the “St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission”, which is referred to herein from time to time as “The Commission”. 1.2 Powers. The powers of the commission shall be vested in the Commissioners thereof in office from time to time. 1.3 Mission, Vision, Values, and Goal Statements. The Commission shall operate under the tenets of these mission, vision, values and goal statements. 1.31 Mission • The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens. 1.32 Vision • The Commission adheres to the vision set forth by the City 1.33 Values • The Commission adheres to the values set forth by the City 1.34 Goals • Study and review programs and policies and advise and aid the city council in enlisting the cooperation of agencies, organizations and individuals in the city in an active program directed to create equal opportunity and eliminate discrimination. • Make recommendations to the city council regarding formulation and implementation of human rights programs for the city. The programs shall be directed toward increasing the effectiveness and direction of all individuals and agencies of the city through planning, policy-making and education in the area of human rights. • Advise the city council with respect to human rights issues arising out of or in connection with the plans or operations of any city department or agency and recommend the adoption of such specific policies or actions as may be needed to protect human rights in the city. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 7 • Advise and recommend to the city council programs or legislation to eliminate inequalities of opportunity in the area of human rights. • Publish and distribute to the public at large any materials necessary or advisable to carry out its functions, subject to requirements of the city council. • Make studies, surveys and investigations necessary or advisable to carry out its functions. • Sponsor such meetings, institutes, and forums and other educational activities as will lead to clearer understanding of local human rights issues and contribute to their proper resolution. Article II - Officers 2.1 Officers. The officers of the Commission shall be Chair, and Vice-Chair. 2.2 Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the commission. The chair shall also be responsible for appointing Commission members to task force committees. The Chair’s position rotates annually and the chair serves for one year. 2.3 Vice-Chair. The vice-chair shall perform the duties of the chair in the absence or incapacity of the chair; and in case of the resignation or death of the chair, the vice-chair shall perform such duties as imposed on the chair until such time as the commission shall select a new chair. The Vice-Chair serves for one year. 2.4 Secretary (if applicable). The secretary shall be responsible for ensuring proper notice of all meetings is given. The secretary shall also be responsible for the minutes of all meetings and for the recording of all official actions of the commission in accordance with MN Statute and City policy. The secretary shall perform other duties as the commission shall prescribe. 2.5 Staff Liaison. A staff liaison to the Human Rights Commission shall be appointed by the city manager and shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the city. The staff liaison may facilitate or assist in the meetings and shall be responsible for recording attendance of commission members. The staff liaison is responsible for keeping the city manager informed regarding the business of the commission and shall communicate to the city manager any problems or issues that may arise. The staff liaison shall also be responsible for assisting the commission in considering their financial needs and, if deemed necessary by the commission, shall request appropriate funding from the city council through the annual budget process. 2.6 Delegation of Duties. Officers may delegate duties of their position to other personnel as deemed appropriate by the commission. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 8 Article III - Election of Officers 3.1 Elections and Terms of Office. The chair and vice-chair shall be elected from the commission membership by its members at the regular meeting in December of each year, or as shortly thereafter as possible. Terms of office shall be for one year and shall run from January 1st through December 31st of each year, or until a duly elected successor takes office. 3.2 Vacancies. Should the office of chair or vice-chair become vacant, the commission shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said office. Article IV - Meetings 4.1 Meetings. All meetings of the commission shall be conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. 4.2 Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the commission shall be the regular meeting in December at which time elections will be held and the schedule for the following year’s regular meeting schedule will be considered. 4.3 Regular Meetings. The regular meetings of the commission shall be held on the third Tuesday of the month at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. The commission may, by a majority vote, change the regular meeting dates for any reason provided proper public notice of the changed meeting is provided to the public. 4.4 Holidays. The Commission shall hold regular meetings as set forth in section 4.3. [provided however, that when the day fixed for any regular meeting of the Commission falls upon any of the following holidays: Ash Wednesday, Chanukah, Christmas, Veterans Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, President’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, New Year's Day, Passover (first two nights), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur, such meeting shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding Tuesday not a holiday. (For Chanukah, Christmas, Passover, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiday includes the evening before the holiday.) All regular meetings of the Commission shall be held in the City Hall of the City or other public building as noticed. 4.5 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the chair or two commissioners, or by the city council, for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for special meeting shall be delivered in compliance with state law. The secretary must deliver to the commissioners at least three days prior to the meeting a notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the special meeting. If however, all commissioners attend and participate in the meeting, these notice requirements are not necessary. The presence of any commissioner at a special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any formal notice unless the commissioner appears for the special purpose of objecting to the holding of such meeting. Notice of the date, time, place and purpose of a special meeting must also be posted by the secretary on the principal bulletin board of the city at least three days prior to the date of the meeting. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 9 4.5 Emergency Meetings. An emergency meeting may be called by the chair due to circumstances which require immediate consideration. The staff liaison may notify commissioners by any means available. A good faith effort shall be made to provide notice of the meeting to any news medium that has filed a written request for notice of meetings. The notice shall include the purpose of the meeting. 4.5 Quorum and Voting. The presence of a majority of all currently appointed members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes. In the event a quorum is not reached, a smaller number of members may meet to discuss the business of the commission and recommendations may be made, however, formal action must be reserved for such time as a quorum of the commission is reached. Article V - Agenda and Records of Proceedings 5.1 Agenda Preparation. The agenda for regular and special meetings of the commission shall be prepared by the staff liaison subject to approval by the chair. Items to be placed on the agenda may be proposed by the chair, a commission member, the staff liaison or at the request of the city council. Residents, businesses, or other interested parties may contact individual commission members or the staff liaison to request that an item be placed on the agenda for consideration. All agenda topics presented by the city council will be placed on an appropriate agenda, requests from other parties will be placed on an appropriate future agenda at the discretion of the chair. . 5.2 Approval of the Agenda. The agenda shall be approved at each meeting prior to discussion of any item on the agenda. At the time of agenda approval, items may be removed and the order of business may be modified by a majority vote of members present at the meeting. Prior to adjournment, members present may communicate items recommended for inclusion on future agendas. 5.3 Record of Proceedings. All minutes and resolutions shall be in writing and shall be copied in the journal of the proceedings of the Authority. Records shall be kept in accordance with MN Statute and Rules regarding preservation of public records and the MN Data Privacy Act. Article VI - Attendance and Performance of Duties 6.1 Attendance. Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued membership. Commission members are expected to attend regular and special commission meetings and assigned committee meetings. Planned absences communicated to the commission chair or committee task force chair in advance of the meeting will be deemed excused. Any other absence will be deemed unexcused. The commission will approve and record the approval of all excused and unexcused absences. 6.2 Reporting. Council will be informed if a member receives three unexcused absences in any calendar year, if a member attends scheduled meetings irregularly or if a member is frequently absent from scheduled meetings. 6.3 Performance of Duties. Commissioners are expected to adequately prepare for meetings. Commissioners unable to complete an assigned task should notify the St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 10 commission chair or task force chair as soon as possible. The commission may ask the Council to review a member's appointment based upon its assessment of significant non- performance of duties. Article VII - Commission Activities 7.1 Annual Work Plan. The commission will adopt an annual work plan that details activities and projected timelines for the calendar year. • The chair may appoint commission members to be primarily responsible for each work plan activity. • The commission may establish task force committees to oversee work plan activities, chaired by members appointed by the chair. • Commission work plans will be submitted to the City Council by January 1st or as shortly thereafter as practicable. • Commission members will attend a study session to discuss the annual work plan with the City Council. A written mid-year progress report is due by July 31 of each year. 7.2 Task Forces. The commission may create task force committees to investigate and perform duties related to subjects of interest to the commission and to oversee work plan activities. • Task force committees will be chaired by commission members appointed by the commission chair. • A task force consists of at least two appointed commission members, one of whom will be designated committee chair or committee co-chair by the commission chair. A majority of the task force must be present to conduct business, including at least two commission members. • The commission may consolidate or dissolve existing task forces at any time. • The task force chair may appoint other commission members and representatives from the broader community to the task force. • The task force chair shall report about task force activities as an agenda item at regular commission meetings. 7.3 City Council Annual Report. The commission will submit an annual report to the City Council summarizing the past year's activities. The report may highlight issues of concern and other information the commission feels appropriate to convey to the city council. • The commission chair or designee will prepare the report for approval by the commission. Commission members may submit signed addenda presenting alternative conclusions or perspectives. • The report and addenda are submitted with the current year work plan by January 1 or as soon thereafter as possible. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 5 - Human Rights Comm. Annual Report, Work Plan, Bylaws Page 11 Article VIII - By-Laws and Rules 8.1 Amendments. These By-Laws may be amended by a majority of all voting member of the commission. Commission members must be given one month's advance notice regarding proposed amendments prior to formal commission action. Amendments to these procedures can only be considered at a regular meeting of the commission. 8.2 City Council’s Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions. These by-laws are subject to the City Council’s Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions, amended by Resolution 06-148 on September 18, 2006 and Chapter 2, Administration, the St. Louis Park City Code. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 6 - Highway 7 Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 1 6. Highway 7 / Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update Public Works PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on planning and design activities associated with the Highway 7/ Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project. BACKGROUND: As part of the Elmwood Land Use and Transportation Study, conducted in 2002 and 2003, the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue/36th Street area was identified for redevelopment. Consistent with this study, redevelopment projects have begun to move forward in this area. As the City's traffic consultant, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) completed several traffic studies for the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue/36th Street area at that time. SRF and City staff then participated in discussions with Mn/DOT staff regarding potential grade-separated concepts for the intersection of Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue. As a result of those discussions, the City submitted a request for federal funding during the Regional STIP Solicitation process in 2005. From this solicitation, the City of St. Louis Park was successful in obtaining about $5.9 million in federal funds to aid in constructing a proposed grade-separated intersection at Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue. Shortly after receiving notice of being awarded these federal funds, Council directed staff to tentatively schedule this project for construction in 2009. To aid the City in the development of this project, SRF developed a planning guide last year for us to meet that timeline. The SRF planning guide proposed four phases to move this project to the construction stage. During October of 2006, staff entered into a contract with SRF for Phase I of this process, an areawide traffic study which consisted of:  An update of the 20-year forecast volumes for all major roadways in the City  An evaluation of the TH 7/Excelsior Boulevard/Louisiana Avenue/Monterey Drive subarea to determine existing and future system needs from a mid-level context  An operations analysis of the future interchange area of TH 7/Wooddale Avenue/36th Street to guide the development of a preferred interchange concept This work was necessary to prepare for the analysis and modeling necessary to more fully evaluate the earlier developed interchange concepts plus lay the foundation for the eventual preparation of project design layouts. SRF recently completed their work on Phase I and submitted their reports for further use. PHASE 1 STUDY FINDINGS: For brevity sake, staff has attached the Study Summary plus relevant tables and figure 4 from SRF’s Final Report dated March 15, 2007. These documents provide relevant summary information from the Phase I study effort; the complete final reports containing detailed study information can be made available for Council use if desired. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 6 - Highway 7 Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 2 Several SRF study findings, however, are worth noting at this time: 1. No PN Clinic expansions have been included in the study’s traffic projections. This finding/assumption was based on conversations with Park Nicollet. 2. Highway 7 is nearly at capacity now (37,000 ADT) and is expected to be at capacity (41,000 ADT) by year 2030. For Highway 7, a 10 percent total growth over 20 years equates to 1/2 percent per year, which is typical for cities in within the core. 3. Excelsior Blvd (west of Highway 100) is expected to be near capacity (34,000 ADT) by year 2030; this was previously thought to happen no later than year 2015. As a result, an earlier proposed new bridge over Highway 100 does not appear necessary at this time. However, providing local connections between residential areas and commercial/medical uses is good for the overall system, because short trips will not be forced to use Highway 7 or Excelsior Blvd. Any expansions at PN Clinic will most likely affect Excelsior Blvd and the near-term need for a bridge will again surface. 4. Under future conditions, the intersection of TH 7/Wooddale Avenue will operate at LOS E under a “best-case” scenario without a railroad crossing, LRT crossing or an emergency vehicle pre-emption. The overall operations will only worsen to LOS F with these conflicts incorporated into the model. Therefore, it appears at this time that all future rail operations should be grade separated from Wooddale Avenue traffic. 5. This study verifies the need for the grade-separated intersection at Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue as it is expected to operate poorly, without taking into account the added complexity to serve the RR and potential LRT crossings. Earlier ideas about improving the Highway 7/Wooddale intersection by relocating the frontage road intersection with Wooddale to the south; and, adding a second left turn lane for north bound Wooddale to West bound Highway7 are still ineffective solutions. NEXT PHASE - PHASE II EFFORT: The next phase of this project development process, Phase II, is best described as a public development and comparison of interchange concepts. Undertaking this work is necessary to keep the Hwy 7/Wooddale interchange project moving along. A brief summary of the work proposed for this phase is outlined below. The estimated cost of undertaking the Phase II work is $117,000. The initial source of funds to undertake this work would be HRA Levy proceeds: Concept Design Work/Project Management The concept design work will build on the work that was previously completed for the STIP application (two concepts), as well as the traffic forecasting and operational analysis work recently finished in this area. We anticipate the use of the existing two concepts, with minor modifications based on the traffic forecasts, as well as the creation of a third concept. We have anticipated further revisions to these concepts throughout the project process and have included those revisions in our work plan. Tasks included under this category include:  Collection/review of the base map data. We will use the data previously prepared for this area, with minimal site survey work to update the topography (Dworsky site). Property lines and ownership will be verified.  Develop up to three (3) concept alternatives (and typical sections) and refine as needed.  Preparation of bridge design concepts and rendering at the interchange for the preferred alternative. Includes one artist rendering of the bridge, one gateway concept and one gateway detail. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 6 - Highway 7 Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 3  Compute environmental impact areas for each alternative and summarize in a matrix.  Compute concept cost estimates for each of the three alternatives.  Prepare alternatives analysis matrix and report to summarize and document the preferred alternative selection.  General correspondence, coordination, scheduling and PMT meetings. Assumes six (6) Project Management Team (PMT) meetings. PMT to consist of SRF and City staff, Mn/DOT, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority, Metro Transit, and Federal Highway Administration. Traffic Operations Analysis To assist in the selection of the preferred concept, an operations analysis will be conducted for up to three (3) concepts. Year 2030 intersection volumes for each of the alternatives will be developed using the year 2030 (no-build) volumes from Phase I of this study. The appropriate software program (such as Rodel or VISSIM) will be used. The operations analysis will also take into consideration the potential at-grade freight operations, LRT operations and pedestrian/bicycle traffic on the nearby rail corridor. A memorandum describing the results of the traffic analysis will be completed as part of this work. This category also includes preparation and attendance for up to two meetings with Mn/DOT and City staff to discuss technical details of the traffic operations analysis. Environmental Inventory/Investigation A solid evaluation of alternatives requires a thorough understanding of potential environmental and permitting issues prior to determining a preferred alternative. Federal laws require proactive avoidance of wetlands, cultural resources, parks, trails, wildlife refuges, threatened/ endangered species and low income/minority populations and must be addressed in the early stages of the project. Completion of an environmental inventory during the concept alternative development phase of the project will assist in alternative evaluation and lay the initial groundwork for completion of necessary environmental documentation. The environmental inventory will begin with gathering data about the project area from a variety of sources including federal/state/county/local databases on soils, identified contaminated sites, previously inventoried cultural resources, threatened/endangered species, wetlands and other community issues. Data gathered from these sources will be mapped and documented and used to evaluate and compare alternatives, noting the limitations in data availability at this early stage. While impact calculations cannot be at the level of precision required for later environmental documentation given limitations of both design development and available data, they are a valid base for relative comparisons between alternatives. The resulting environmental analysis will then be placed within the overall evaluation matrix to facilitate comparison of alternative cost and performance as well as impacts. Public Involvement With a project of this nature and complexity, it is important to begin the process of agency and public involvement/coordination early in the project development. The public input, combined with the multidisciplinary experience of the project management team and the approach employed by SRF and the City, will result in a quality end product. SRF will work with the City to develop a public involvement and agency coordination process that best fits the City's needs. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 6 - Highway 7 Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update Page 4 A suggested number of proposed agency coordination, public, and neighborhood organization meetings, as well as individual meetings with businesses/schools are detailed below. Tasks included under this category include:  Early coordination/communication/meetings with other agencies.  Public Meetings includes up to six (6) small group meetings (Canadian Pacific Railroad, Central Community Center/Park Spanish Immersion Elementary School, and nearby businesses), one meeting for each of the Elmwood and Sorenson Neighborhood Groups, two public informational meetings and up to three City Council Work Sessions.  Preparation of up to three project newsletters - SRF is to prepare up to 700 copies of each newsletter and distribute via U.S. Mail based on electronic mailing/distribution list to be prepared by City of St. Louis Park.  Development of material for the City website - graphics/text for initial information and two updates. PROJECT SCHEDULE: As mentioned earlier in this report, SRF developed a planning guide last year to aid the City in the development of this project. The SRF planning guide proposes four phases to move this project to the construction stage. The project schedule has been updated to reflect the recently completed Phase I work and the Phase II work proposed above. The attached Project Schedule (Updated March 2007) provides the basic steps in each of the four phases along with a project timeline. NEXT STEPS: To meet the project schedule, Phase II activities should be commenced immediately. Staff will be requesting Council approval on April 9th of an agreement with SRF to provide engineering services associated with Phase II activities. The amount of this contract is estimated at this time to be $117,000. Attachments: Attachment “A” - Study Summary, Tables, and figure 4 from SRF’s Final Report dated March 15, 2007 (Supplement) Attachment “B” – Project Schedule (Updated March 2007) (Supplement) Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 7 - February 2007 Financial Statements Page 1 7. February 2007 Financial Statements Finance PURPOSE: This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation fund. These funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the city’s financial health because they represent the primary discretionary use of tax levy dollars. For the first two month period of the year, actual revenues and expenditures should generally not exceed 17% of the annual budget. Items that exceed the norm are highlighted below along with a general discussion of the cause for the variance. General Fund Revenue: • Licenses and permit revenue is higher than expected because many of the annual license such as liquor licenses, rental licenses, and other items are received early in the year. Parks and Recreation Expenditures: • The Environmental Division has expended 30% of its budget for the year. This is because tree trimming/pruning expenditures of $60,000 so far. This service is safer to perform in winter because it reduces the chance of disease transmission. Attachment: Monthly Financial Statements Prepared by: Bruce M. DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 7 - February 2007 Financial Statements Page 2 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 7 - February 2007 Financial Statements Page 3 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 7 - February 2007 Financial Statements Page 4 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 032607 - 7 - February 2007 Financial Statements Page 5