HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/09/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session
September 24, 2007
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
2. 6:05 p.m. Wireless Update
3. 6:50 p.m. Duke Realty’s Updated West End Concept Plan and Revised TIF Assistance
Request
4. 7:50 p.m. Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
5. 8:50 p.m. Traffic Signal Project Update–Beltline Boulevard @ SW LRT Trail, City
Project 2007-2700
Written Reports
6. Solid Waste Program Changes
7. August 2007 Monthly Financial Report
8. Environmental Study
9:20 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.
Meeting Date: September 24, 2007
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the October 8, 2007 study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the regularly scheduled study session on October 8.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: Tentative Study Session Agenda for October 8, 2007
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Monday, October 8, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2008 Budget – Finance (60 minutes)
This is the first of a four planned budget discussions with Council, scheduled for study
sessions on October 8, October 22, November 8 and November 22. On October 8,
Police, Fire and Inspections will briefly discuss their proposed budgets for 2008 with the
Council. Does the Council want to direct staff to make any changes prior to the adoption
of the budget in December?
3. Small Redevelopment Project Policies – Community Development (45 minutes)
Council directed staff to develop draft policy ideas to guide when to provide financial
assistance to small redevelopment projects. What changes, if any, should staff make to
the draft policy ideas?
Reports:
• Tobacco Penalties – Administrative Services
• Liquor Licenses for Establishments with Bowling Alleys – Administrative Services
• Electronic Agenda – Administrative Services/Information Resources
8:20 p.m. End of Meeting
Meeting Date: September 24, 2007
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Wireless Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To update Council on the wireless project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
At its September 10, 2007 study session, Council received and discussed an update on the
wireless project. Following preliminary remarks by City staff, ARINC representatives Ruth
Hough and Mike Siok presented an update to Council. That was important for at least a few
reasons: First, so ARINC could present both its commitment and plan to complete this project
citywide such that service is available in all four phases by the end of November 2007. Second,
so City Council could ask questions of ARINC and express its concerns to ARINC from a
Council and communitywide perspective. Third, so project progress expectations could be
established.
On September 10, ARINC provided its plan to complete this project such that service is available
per contract performance requirements in all phases by November 30, 2007. As agreed on
September 10, ARINC representatives are planning to be in attendance again on September 24 to
report on progress made in the last two weeks, and particularly with respect to ARINC’s
milestone schedule. September 24 project milestones that ARINC presented on September 10 are
attached. These goals revolve around two major themes: First, to continue design and build out
of Phase 2, the southeast quadrant of the city. Second, to resolve coverage holes in Phase 1, the
northeast quadrant of the city. ARINC presented a map of Phase 1 coverage holes at the
September 10 study session.
It is anticipated that at the Study Session ARINC will describe progress-to-date, and current
plans to achieve its November 30, 2007 goal.
It should also be noted that the number of calls to the help desk in Phase 1 are averaging about
30 per day. That average number has been higher, but has also not seen any significant drop for
some time. These calls are primarily due to coverage and speed of service complaints. ARINC
has suggested a different approach be taken in Phases 2, 3, and 4, whereby those phases would
not be made available to any subscribers until fully tested and troubleshot. Based on the current
status of Phase 1 and remaining significant subscriber service issues, it may be appropriate to
consider suspending service to Phase 1 subscribers until ARINC can complete its work in
Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 2
Subject: Wireless Update
providing required coverage and speed of service to all subscribers in Phase 1. While this would
be a difficult decision, this may be the most credible approach that can be taken with Phase 1
subscribers until ARINC completes its work. The major concern with such a decision is there are
also current subscribers using the Phase 1 network at various levels of service quality who have
canceled their previous Internet service and are now relying on ParkWiFi for their personal or
business use.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: ARINC “Plan for the next 2 weeks”, presented September 10, 2007
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
u:
Z.FrO-r!(E
u,
E(u
EOgz
r- .-C
a=(Do
7aE9-. o)
Fi'' I
6o-
o
L.,().F, O
b'6.og
=q'=:
.:<
o
=
.4,
o
,.-oo
=
sl
{r,xoc
o
.C+.
Lorl-
cg
o.
Ea
.E*
@
S
:
CIo
:
o
Eo
c)
C?
c!
=
Q
s
cl
;
F
q
s
R
ct
;=
E2
g
c o
Meeting Date: September 24, 2007
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Duke Realty’s Updated West End Concept Plan and Revised TIF Assistance Request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff wishes to review and receive feedback on the revised request for TIF assistance related to
Duke Realty’s West End redevelopment project proposed for the Southwest corner of I-394 and
Highway 100. Specific items staff wishes to discuss include:
• Updated West End concept plan.
• Revised TIF assistance request.
• Next steps.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Previously it was determined that Duke’s West End project qualifies for tax increment financing
assistance as outlined in state statutes and the City’s TIF Policy. Now the question is how much
TIF assistance should be provided and over what time period. 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
goals as outlined in the Strategic Plan and Vision St. Louis Park.
BACKGROUND:
On May 21, 2007 the EDA and City Council approved a Preliminary Development Agreement
with Duke Realty relative to its proposed West End project. This agreement was subsequently
amended September 4th
The EDA/Council reviewed the preliminary TIF application from Duke Realty at the March 26,
2007 study session. The project and the requested amount of TIF assistance was discussed again
on April 23rd. On July 23rd, the EDA/Council discussed a list of preliminary Business Terms for
an eventual Redevelopment Contract with Duke. The proposed Terms were generally acceptable
and staff was directed to work further with the Redeveloper to determine the mutually acceptable
amount of tax increment assistance necessary to bring the proposed project to fruition. Staff, the
EDA’s financial consultant and the Redeveloper have subsequently negotiated this matter and
wish to present the culmination of these discussions with the EDA/City Council.
Property Value
Currently, the six (6) properties within the proposed redevelopment area in St. Louis Park have a
total market value of approximately $43 million. The projected market value of this area upon
redevelopment is estimated at approximately $244 million. The property taxes payable in 2007
on these same properties was approximately $1.1 million. Upon redevelopment, the currently
proposed project would generate over $8 million in property taxes.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 2
Subject: Updated Business Terms for Duke Realty’s Proposed West End project.
Redeveloper’s Assistance Request
The Duke redevelopment site is within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and is
identified on the City’s Future Redevelopment Areas Map. The proposed project would require
that a new TIF District be created. The EDA had a TIF Feasibility Analysis conducted in 2006
and had it updated in 2007. That study concluded that the proposed project area qualifies for a
Redevelopment TIF District. The maximum term of such a district is 26 years.
In its initial TIF Application Duke Realty requested $35 million in public financial assistance to
cover a substantive portion of the costs associated with building demolition, soil correction,
utility elocations, on and off-site roadway improvements, and structured parking. These on and
off-site public improvements are summarized below.
1. Off-Site Improvements
A. Off-site traffic improvements required within the AUAR $5,037,800
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 Office parking $22,150,000
Since the March 26, 2007 Study Session, Duke has made substantial changes to the retail portion
of its project plan to improve the market viability and community benefits of the proposed
project. The revised concept plan is the result of input from new partner, Jeffrey R. Anderson.
In addition, it has more accurately estimated the construction costs of the overall project and
reviewed its target yields. As a result, Duke has revised its financial assistance request to $29
million. This assistance could take the form of TIF Pay-Go Notes, reductions in municipal fees
(such as Parkland Dedication) or other funding sources.
Staff requested Ehlers & Associates to review the Duke’s latest proforma reflecting its revised
assistance request. Ehlers analyzed the proforma in comparison with general industry standards
for land price, construction costs, lease rates, return on equity/profit, various fees, etc. Overall,
Ehlers believes Duke’s cost and revenue assumptions are reasonable and appropriate. In addition
all the projected market values per square foot in the project have been reviewed by the City’s
Assessor who concurs they are within appropriate market ranges.
In its review Ehlers confirmed that the proposed project cannot fully support the costs of the
necessary public improvements noted above. Ehlers therefore concluded the proposed West End
project is not economically feasible without the use of public financing and that the requested
level of financial assistance was justified.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 3
Subject: Updated Business Terms for Duke Realty’s Proposed West End project.
TIF Analysis
Ehlers also prepared a TIF analysis reflecting the office and retail portions of the proposed
project combined. At 20 years and a modest inflation factor of 1%, the proposed project
generates $23. 4 million in tax increment on a net present value basis. At 26 years, (the
maximum allowable term) the project generates just over $27 million. These amounts fall short
of the Redeveloper’s request for $29 million and leave an assistance gap that will need to be
resolved for the West End project to proceed.
The EDA’s past practice has been to provide a maximum level of financial assistance based on
the tax increment generated over a 16 to 18 year term. Given that the West End met many
community goals, the EDA previously discussed 18 to 20 years worth of tax increment to
facilitate the project. Devoting the increment from all 26 years of a TIF district’s life is not
consistent with the City’s TIF practices. 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. Nonetheless, it’s up to
the EDA to decide if the current redevelopment as revised warrants additional investment.
The Duke proforma includes $1.8 million in Parkland Dedication fees. Waiving a portion of the
Parkland Dedication fee could be supportable given the quantity and quality of public space,
gathering places, and other public amenities the Redeveloper will be incorporating into the
project. All such fee waivers are at the discretion of the City Council and is a means of reducing
the assistance gap.
Duke’s current proforma and requested $29 million of assistance would allow it to achieve a
stabilized yield on the retail portion of the project of 6.96 percent which is 1.5 to 2 % below
typical yield rates for comparable projects. On the office portion, Duke would be achieving a
stabilized yield of 8.77% which is about 1% below the market average. The proposed tax
increment would be financed on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the desired financing method
under the city's TIF Policy. Fiscal Disparities would be taken from inside the district which also
is consistent with the city’s Policy. A 5% administrative fee would also be charged to the district
which is the EDA’s typical rate. The Redevelopment Contract will allow Duke to issue a TIF
Note related to each phase of the project in order to allow the Redeveloper to monetize the Notes
upfront.
Any development of the Duke site is likely to entail significant extraordinary development costs.
The site has poor soils, a high water table, substantial buildings that need demolition and utilities
that need to be relocated to maximize the development potential of this site. To create a
successful, urban, pedestrian-friendly, 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 provided to offset these costs.
Duke’s request for TIF assistance is considered reasonable given the complexity, quality,
projected total value, and other residual economic benefits derived from the proposed West End
redevelopment. The City’s participation would leverage approximately $375 million in new
investment. As a percentage of total project cost the requested amount of financial assistance is
less than 8%. This is reasonable given the level of assistance required by other projects the City
has assisted.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 4
Subject: Updated Business Terms for Duke Realty’s Proposed West End project.
Redevelopment Contract
Duke’s preliminary TIF application was reviewed at the March 26, 2007 study session. The project
and the requested amount of TIF assistance was discussed again on April 23rd. On July 23rd, the
EDA/Council discussed a list of preliminary Business Terms for an eventual Redevelopment Contract
with Duke. These terms were generally acceptable. New proposed project commencement and
completion dates are listed below.
Project Phase Commencement Completion
IA&B (Retail & 2nd story Office) October 1, 2007 September 15, 2008
II (Office Bldg 1) July 31, 2008 November 30, 2009
II (Office Bldg 2) November 3, 2009 March 30, 2011
II (Office Bldg 3) March 30, 2011 July 31, 2012
II (Office Bldg 4) July 31, 2012 November 30, 2013
As with other recent redevelopment projects with which the EDA has been involved, Duke has
been asked to consent to a "look back" provision in the redevelopment contract. Such a
provision would enable the EDA to review Duke's gross margins at a specified time once the
redevelopment is completed or sold to third parties. The EDA proposes that if actual profit for
the Redeveloper exceeds a negotiated rate of return on total project costs, then fifty percent
(50%) of excess amount of profit will be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal
amount of the TIF Note. This is an important provision as it ensures that if the Redevelopment
Property is subsequently sold for a higher than projected price, the EDA shares economically in
the success of the project.
Next Steps
While a financial gap still exists the Redeveloper and staff believe it can be overcome with a bit
of compromise on both sides. Staff believes an acceptable means to fill the gap can be found and
that it would be appropriate to set a hearing date for consideration of creating the TIF district for
the Duke project. Setting a hearing date does not commit the EDA to providing any specific
level of TIF assistance or even to create the district, but it keeps matters moving forward in a
timely fashion. Staff proposes to ask the EDA/City Council on October 1st to schedule a public
hearing for November 19, 2007 to formally consider the creation of the West End
Redevelopment TIF District to facilitate the proposed project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Duke Realty is requesting $29 million in Tax Increment Financing and other financial assistance
to offset substantial public improvement costs associated with the proposed West End
redevelopment project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community and
the focus area of creating community gathering places.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 5
Subject: Updated Business Terms for Duke Realty’s Proposed West End project.
Attachments: Updated West End Concept Pan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, EDA Deputy Executive Director
N1
W1 W2
W3
W4
W5 W6
E4
E5
E2
E1
N2
EXISTING MONEYGRAMEXISTING 1600 TOWEREXISTING
RAMP
EXISTING
DATA CENTER
E3 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD GAMBLE DRIVE WEST END BOULEVARD16TH STREET
HOTEL PAD SITE
PROPOSED
PARKING
STRUCTURE
PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS
OFFICE TOWER
2
OFFICE TOWER
3
OFFICE
TOWER
1
OFFICE
TOWER
4
EXISTING
HEALTH
PARTNERS
OVERALL SITE PLAN
THEATER/PARKING
SECOND LEVEL
(LOBBY)
(OFFICE)
E3
W3
W4
(SKYWAY ABOVE) (SKYWAY ABOVE) SKYWAY SKYWAY
UNDERGROUND
PARKING
(1000 PARKS)
(500 STALLS)
NEW 5
LEVEL
PARKING
RAMP
Meeting Date: September 24, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this discussion will be to provide the City Council information regarding traffic
volume changes and shifts in usage of the existing street / highway systems since the Hwy 100
Interim Project was completed and to allow Council an opportunity to provide input on
anticipated Phase 2 traffic study tasks and public involvement activities.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should staff continue forwarding the evaluation and proposed public discussion of the Mn/DOT
Hwy 100 project design options?
BACKGROUND:
History and Recent Activities
On May 14, 2007, staff presented Council an update on this project and was directed to
implement Phase I of a proposed traffic study aimed at understanding what neighborhood traffic
patterns and volumes may result depending on underpass and ramp location options being
offered by Mn/DOT. Staff contracted with Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc (SEH) on June 1st for
the Phase I activities which have just been completed. Phase I study activities were aimed at
obtaining base information regarding traffic volume changes and shifts in usage of the existing
street / highway systems since the Hwy 100 Interim Project was completed. Our consultant will
attend the study session to provide a brief summary of their Phase I findings and answer
questions.
Traffic Study Completion
Phase II study activities are expected to complete the traffic study and are planned to consist of:
• Transportation Sketch Planning (system possibilities)
• Future System(s) Evaluation
Phase II activities will be aimed at evaluating the impacts of underpass and ramp location
options earlier provided by Mn/DOT as related to the local and county transportation systems in
the city. Auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic will be considered in this evaluation. In
addition, the proposed Southwest Corridor LRT Project as well as the Vision St. Louis Park goal
of “Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for the
community” will also need to be considered in this evaluation. As a part of the study session, we
intend to do a “Transportation Sketch Planning” exercise to obtain Council member input into
possible future transportation system(s). Based on this input, our consultant will create and
model a variety of local transportation networks to project probable traffic impacts or changes.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 - Item No. 4 Page 2
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
Next Steps and Schedule
Staff has identified possible next steps and schedule to move the Hwy 100 reconstruction project
forward:
1. Complete Phase II traffic study activities:
• This technical work should be completed with results back to Council before the end
of November. It is possible additional modeling and evaluation may be necessary
based on future Council and resident input or questions during the public involvement
process.
2. Create a list of advantages/disadvantages associated with each of the Hwy 100 design
options Mn/DOT has given the city:
• This work should be completed in conjunction with the completion of the Phase II
activities.
3. Conduct a public involvement process to obtain input on transportation network options
and associated impacts. Possible steps and schedule being considered by staff are:
• Provide information on Mn/DOT options, possible north/south community
transportation options, and associated impacts via various citywide communications
beginning in October
• Conduct a project open house in December or January to provide information on the
proposed design
• Conduct area or neighborhood meetings beginning in January or February to explain
options and impacts and obtain associated resident input
• Conclude the public process in the spring or summer of 2008 with a public meeting or
open house to present staff recommendations for a local transportation system and
options to the public and Council
4. Upon completion of the above described public involvement process, Council discusses
and:
• Selects or designates a preferred Mn/DOT design (ramp and underpass locations)
• Provides direction on a future local transportation system for this northeast area of the
city
Mn/DOT will have to be consulted with and involved to some degree in the various steps
described above.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This entire study is estimated to cost about $60,000. Phase I activities were estimated at nearly
$25,000 with the balance of the study costs attributed to Phase II activities. Specific funds for
this work / project are in the process of being identified.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This traffic study and proposed highway project complement the following areas of the recently
completed Vision process:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus areas:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 - Item No. 4 Page 3
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
• Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for the
community.
• Increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility
throughout the community.
Attachments: Study Session Report of May 14, 2007
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting of September 24, 2007 - Item No. 4 Page 4
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
From Study Session May 14, 2007 – Item No. 3
3. Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to provide the City Council a brief oral update on the progress
of this project and to request the Council reconsider beginning a traffic study at this time as
described at the April 9 Study Session.
BACKGROUND:
On April 9th staff proposed the need to conduct a study to understand what neighborhood traffic
patterns and volumes may result depending upon underpass locations offered by Mn/DOT. Such
a study would cost approximately $60,000 and would determine at a system level the needs for
local arterials / collectors and for neighborhood connectivity. Included in this would be the
identification, discussion, and evaluation of the following:
• opportunities and constraints
• community assets/values
• minor arterial routing plans
• transit, pedestrian and bicycle needs
Traffic changes and volumes would be projected for local arterials / collectors looking at
neighborhood connectivity. A study like this will take several months to complete and is
expected to provide traffic information to be used in answering the following questions:
1. Where does the City desire an underpass under Hwy 100 north of Minnetonka Blvd?
2. Where does the City desire the Southbound Hwy 100 on-ramp to be located?
3. What possible traffic implications in the area neighborhoods may be expected in
relation to the respective underpass options?
4. To what extent will planned LRT affect the regional highways and local street
facilities in the future? Will regional State and County highways and the local
transportation system work in conjunction with the planned Southwest LRT?
DISCUSSION:
Council expressed a concern over the need for this work now when state funding for this project
is not specifically available at this time. Council also expressed concern over unnecessarily
starting a public involvement process if the project is delayed beyond 2014. Staff believes it is
necessary to begin this work as soon as reasonably possible as it will take quite some time to do
this type of study. In addition, there is no need to begin a public involvement process at this
time; actually, that effort should wait until the funding / scheduling issue has been resolved and
relevant information regarding underpass options and impacts is available. And, the first part of
this study will be to obtain base information regarding traffic volume changes and shifts in usage
of the existing system since the Hwy 100 Interim Project was completed. This base work will be
needed to aid in our comprehensive planning process even if the Hwy 100 project ultimately
ends up being delayed for any reason.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 - Item No. 4 Page 5
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
NEXT STEPS:
To provide neighborhood traffic information to aid Council in considering Mn/DOT design
options, a study as described above should be conducted. In that regard, the following general
steps have been identified:
1. Determine Hennepin County role and respective cost participation in this effort (April -
June)
2. Retain a consultant for this proposed study (May)
3. Perform the proposed study (June - October)
4. Evaluate the project funding and scheduling situation (May - June)
5. Develop a public involvement plan / process to consider Mn/DOT options assuming
project funds become available (June - July)
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, P.E., Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 24, 2007
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Traffic Signal Project Update – Beltline Boulevard @ SW LRT Trail – Project No. 2007-2700
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To discuss and direct staff to pursue one of the following options for the Beltline SWLRT Trail
Crossing:
1. Identify and secure a local (city) funding source and proceed with a traffic signal
installation in the spring of 2008. The installation would be considered “temporary” until
Three Rivers Park District constructs their long term improvement (separated grade
crossing). All signal fixtures will be salvageable for use elsewhere when removed
(salvage value estimated at $75,000, or less).
2. Discontinue consideration of a temporary signal and defer to the long term permanent
improvement being pursued by Three Rivers Park District, currently scheduled for 2010.
In the meantime, minor improvements (temporary bituminous median and striping) could
be installed at the Beltline Crossing at a minimal cost (estimated at $10,000, or less),
similar to the improvements recently installed at the Wooddale Ave crossing.
3. Leave the crossing as is. The crossing as it currently exists is satisfactory until the long
term permanent improvement being pursued by Three Rivers Park District is completed.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Which of the three options provided by staff above will best serve the interests of the
community?
BACKGROUND:
History
At the February 26, 2007 Study Session, the City Council received and reviewed a report from staff
that provided relevant background information and possible changes which could be considered for
the SWLRT Regional Trail crossings on Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue. At the Study
Session, Council discussed possible street crossing options, safety, and long term improvements at
these crossing locations. Council directed staff to develop the following interim improvements at
these two locations:
1. Beltline Boulevard: Install a pedestrian actuated traffic signal (signalized crosswalk). At the
time, the estimated cost to construct such a signal was estimated to be $150,000 to $250,000.
Three Rivers Park District had previously been successful in attaining funds for a separated
grade trail crossing (bridge or tunnel) under the Federal Surface Transportation Program
(STP). However, the funding is not available for release until 2010. As a result, Council
decided to pursue installation of an interim signal improvement until a separated grade
crossing is constructed.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 - Item #5 Page 2
Subject: Traffic Signal Project Update
2. Wooddale Avenue: Install a 12’ wide raised median, pavement markings, traffic signs, etc;
and, widen the street and extend the RR crossing surface accordingly. These improvements
were subsequently constructed in the spring of 2007 at a cost of less than $50,000.
On March 17, 2007, the City Council approved a resolution that established Improvement
Project No. 2007-2700 (Beltline Crossing) and directed the City Engineer to proceed with
moving the project forward. Because no funding sources were readily available for this project,
staff was directed to apply for a grant through the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program
(Oberstar monies).
Project Update
In conjunction with the grant application process, the City’s consulting engineer completed a
preliminary plan and cost estimate for a traffic signal at the Beltline Crossing (drawing attached).
The signal would essentially consist of a state of the art system that would rely on motion
detectors and sensors that would enable pre-emption and timing based on the relative speed of
the trail user and the presence of motor vehicles. Coordination and pre-emption with the CP Rail
Traffic Signal is also required as part of the signal design. As a result, constant warning time
(CWT) circuitry would be required for the two sets of tracks that cross Beltline, and would cost
at least $50,000 for the railroad portion alone.
As a result of the signal design and the railroad requirements, the estimated construction cost for
the signal installation is estimated to be nearly $200,000. With engineering and administrative
costs, the total cost for this signal project is currently estimated to be about $250,000.
Project Considerations
During the summer we were informed our application for federal funding under the Non-
Motorized Transportation Pilot Program was not successful. Therefore, the project will have to
be funded entirely by the city.
We were recently informed Three Rivers Park District is now working to advance their separated
grade project forward to a proposed 2009 letting, which if successful, would provide for
construction in 2010. However, decisions with regards to future LRT in this corridor could have
an impact on the Park District’s ability to deliver their project in a timely fashion. The Three
Rivers Park District is currently beginning discussions with Mn/DOT and the Hennepin County
Railroad Authority (HCRRA) in order to advance their project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Option 1: Estimated total project cost: $250,000 (currently unfunded)
Option 2: Estimated total cost of $10,000 (PW Operations Budget)
Option 3: No cost.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
An improved trail crossing complements the following area of the recently completed Vision
process:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
• Focus area: Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
Attachment: Signal Preliminary Construction Plan
Prepared by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
0 40
scale feet
2-2 2-1
6-2
6-1
1
3
NO SCALE
CONTROLLER PHASING, PEDESTRIAN
INDICATIONS & PUSHBUTTON LAYOUT
02/P4-1PB4-1
P4-2 PB4-2/06CEDAR
L
A
K
E
L
R
T
REGION
A
L
T
R
A
I
L
BELTLINE BLVD.GYR
LED SIGNAL INDICATIONS
FACE
SHALL BE 12"
-EACH SIGNAL FACE SHALL HAVE A
BACKGROUND SHIELD
-ALL VEHICLE SIGNAL INDICATIONS
2-1,2-2
6-1,6-2
1
1 - ONE WAY SIGNAL OVERHEAD
ONE WAY EVP DETECTOR AND
1
LUMINAIRE - 250 WATT H.P.S.
1 - 3/C #20
1 - 3/C #14 (LUM.)
1 - 3/C #14
1 - 12/C #14
EXTEND INTO HH-3:
3" NMC
PA90 POLE FOUNDATION
TYPE PA90-A-15-D40-9 (DAVIT AT 350^)
(0’ FROM END OF MAST ARM)
CONFIRMATORY LIGHT (PHASE 2)
3
1 - ONE WAY SIGNAL OVERHEAD
ONE WAY EVP DETECTOR AND
2
LUMINAIRE - 250 WATT H.P.S.
1 - 3/C #20
1 - 3/C #14 (LUM.)
2 - 3/C #14
1 - 12/C #14
EXTEND INTO HH-2:
3" NMC
1 - PED. PB AND SIGN (R10-4b)
PA90 POLE FOUNDATION
TYPE PA90-A-20-D40-9 (DAVIT AT 350^)
(0’ FROM END OF MAST ARM)
CONFIRMATORY LIGHT (PHASE 6)
1
1
32
1
2
- 02 & 06 SHALL BE ON VEHICLE RECALL
SIGNAL OPERATION NOTES
- FLASH MODE SHALL BE ALL RED
- NORMAL OPERATION IS 3 PHASE
EQUIPMENT PAD - SEE DETAIL
CONTROLLER & CABINET
EXTEND 4" NMC INTO HH-1 WITH:
A
EXTEND 2" NMC INTO HH-1 WITH:
EXTEND 2" NMC INTO CONTROLLER
SIGNAL SERVICE CABINET
2 - 3/C #14 (LUM.)
CABINET WITH:
2 - 1/C #6 AND 1 - 1/C #6 INS.GR.
A
B SOURCE OF POWER
3 - 1/C #2
NOTES:
AND PAINTING OF SIGNAL SYSTEM.
LED PEDESTRIAN INDICATIONS, LED VEHICLE INDICATIONS
AND CABINET SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.
2) EXACT LOCATION OF HANDHOLES, POLES, LOOP DETECTORS
3) A 3/4 INCH HALF COUPLING, 3/4 INCH PIPE NIPPLE AND
EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MOUNTED 6’ FROM THE END OF EACH MAST ARM.
CONDUIT OUTLET BODY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION
5) HANDHOLES SHALL BE PVC TYPE WITH METAL FRAMES AND COVERS
#R01
3" NMC
1 - 12/C #14
2 - 3/C #14
1 - 3/C #20
1 - 3/C #14 (LUM.)BELTLINE BLVD.(30 M.P.H.)CEDAR
L
A
K
E
L
R
T
REGIO
N
A
L
T
R
A
I
L
06 EVP
02 EVP
EXTEND 3" NMC INTO RAILROAD BUNGALOW WITH:
1 - 1/C #6 INS. GR.
1 - 1/C #6 INS. GR.
1 - 1/C #6 INS. GR.
1 - 12/C #14 AND 1 - 1/C #6 INS. GR.R-1R-2D6-1D6-2D2-2D2-13
2
2
2 - 3/C #14
EXTEND INTO HH-3:
3" NMC
1 - PED. PB AND SIGN (R10-4b)
PEDESTAL FOUNDATION
DESIGNATION LOCATIONNO. & SIZE/FT.
LINE IN FEET
120’
120’
RADAR DETECTORS
R-1
R-2
D2-1,D2-2
D6-1,D6-2
2
04/
/04
2 - 12/C #14, 5 - 3/C #14, 2 - 3/C #20,
4 - 5PR AND 2 - 1/C #6 INS. GR.
3" NMC
1 - 12/C #14
3 - 3/C #14
1 - 3/C #14 (LUM.)
1 - 3/C #20
1 - 1/C #6 INS. GR.
1 - POLE MOUNTED ONE WAY SIGNAL AT 225^
1 - POLE MOUNTED PEDESTRIAN INDICATION
AT 45^
1 - POLE MOUNTED ONE WAY SIGNAL AT 225^
1) SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CITY FURNISHED MATERIALS,
(SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS).
(SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS).
CANAD
I
A
N
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
SEE NOTE 4
SEE NOTE 4
4
4) FURNISH AND INSTALL CROSSWALKS AND STOP BARS AS SHOWN ON PLAN
INTERSECTION AND SIGNING LAYOUT
D4-Y1
D4-Y2
D4-X2
D4-X1
INP. GROUND MOUNTED
B
1 - 5PR
3 - 5PR
1 - 5PR
1 - RADAR DETECTOR
1 - RADAR DETECTOR
1 - 5PR
16’ PEDESTAL AND BASE
1 - PEDESTAL MOUNTED PEDESTRIAN INDICATION
2 - RADAR DETECTORS
2 - 1/C #6 INS. GR.
2 - 5PR
3" RSC
3 - 1/C #2
3" RSC
3 - 1/C #2
R-X 165’D4-X1
D4-X2 R-X 65’
D4-Y1 R-Y 165’
D4-Y2 R-Y 65’W3-3(36"x36")W3-3
(36"x36
"
)
R8-8
(24"x3
6
"
)
R-X
R-Y
TRANSFORMER
(APPROX. LOCATION)
EXTEND 2" RSC
INTO HH-4 WITH:
3 - 1/C #2
CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE
CONNECTION W/ XCEL ENERGY
EXTEND 2" RSC INTO HH-1 WITH:
3 - 1/C #2
-LOCATION: DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY/STOP BAR
DO NO
T
STOP
ON
TRAC
K
S
NO DATE BY CKD REVISIONAPPR
SHEET
OF
DRAWN BY
#XXX
Date License #
Print Name:
CITY PROJECT NO. X COMM. NO. 0076036
DESIGNED BY
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
CHECKED BY
Date License #
Print Name:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Licensed Professional Electrical Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 9:41:13 AM7/30/2007h:\projects\6036\SD\Plan\6036_r01.dgn...\6036\SD\Plan\6036_r01.dgn
21428 40780
COUNTY PROJECT NO.
X
STATE PROJECT NO.
X
STATE AID PROJECT NO.
X
X
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKM. BRESSLER
M. BRESSLER
J. KRIEG
JONATHAN J. KRIEGBRIAN D. HOLT
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRAIL CROSSING
AT BELTLINE BLVD. SIGNAL
Meeting Date: September 24, 2007
Agenda Item # 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Solid Waste Program Changes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is intended to provide Council an update on activities and findings.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
History
At the March 12, 2007 Study Session, staff provided Council with current program information,
a basic process to follow to consider future solid waste program collection services, and
requested Council input on program and contract concerns or issues. The major focus of the
discussion was how to enhance the existing recycling program as well as a desire to expand
recycling to the entire community.
At the May 14, 2007 Study Session, staff provided Council with options to consider for
increasing recycling and improving environmental stewardship as well as asked if Council was
interested in renegotiating a contract (extending the existing collection contract) with Waste
Management, Inc. (WMI). Council provided input on the proposed program changes, expressed
an interest in a public involvement process to consider possible changes, and stated they desired
staff to utilize an RFP process to establish the next collection contract.
At the May 29, 2007 Study Session, staff provided Council with a summary of all possible
program changes, both contract related and non-contract related. The following timeline was
discussed to allow a new contract to be put in place to avoid extending the current contract:
1. Review and revise the existing program / services - complete by September 31, 2007.
2. Review and revise the existing contract (program and service delivery requirements) -
complete by October 31, 2007.
3. Begin and complete the RFP process (new contract in place) - complete by January 31,
2008.
4. New contract begins October 1, 2008.
Staff also provided Council with the proposed public process to 1) Inform residents of future
service / contract changes or offerings; and, 2) Inform commercial / industrial and high density
residential property owners of our intent to offer them collection services and assess their interest
in that regard.
Council then directed staff to assess public interest in the proposed program changes listed in
Attachment “A” Proposed Program Changes and shown in bolded text.
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 2
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
Survey Results
Staff met with the Business Council, SPARC, spoke to residents and then mailed surveys to
residents, businesses and multi-family property owners to determine their program preferences.
The following questions were asked of residents, businesses and multifamily facility owners and
managers:
• Asked all customers of their interest in organics collection as an optional service.
• Asked businesses and multi-family owners/managers about interest in weekly recycling,
yard waste and garbage collection by the city hauler
• Asked residents and multi-family owners/managers about additional drop-off sites for
household hazardous waste and electronics in the city.
• Asked businesses about offering their business as a local household hazardous waste or
electronics drop off site.
• Asked businesses about their willingness to promote and sell reusable bags.
The survey response rate was lower than hoped for, but results indicate residential and multi-
family would utilize organics collection, multi-family and business responses split fairly even on
whether they would utilize on the optional city collection of solid waste. Residential and multi-
family favor additional drop-off sites for household hazardous waste and electronics, and the
majority of businesses did not support promoting and selling reusable bags. A matrix showing
the number of surveys sent, surveys received, and interest level from the residential, multi-
family, and businesses is attached (see Attachment “B” Solid Waste Program Survey Data).
Analysis
Based on the survey results, the following customer base might be interested in the proposed new
optional services being considered:
• Organics collection - approximately 7,000 residential, multi-family, and businesses
customers might be expected (see Attachment “C” Solid Waste Program Survey Results
and Analysis for detailed information)
• Solid waste collection - approximately 800 multi-family and businesses customers might
be expected (see Attachment “C” Solid Waste Program Survey Results and Analysis for
detailed information)
Summary
Staff is currently analyzing and evaluating how the city could deliver the proposed services and
intends to present this information to the City Council for discussion at the October 22, 2007
Study Session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There will not be any cost implications to the General Fund resulting from any program changes,
as costs will be covered by the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. Staff anticipates that there could be
some startup costs for organics collection which are currently being evaluated. By adding
organics collection, that cost to customers will increase, however a portion of that increase may
be offset by a decrease in garbage costs due to lower garbage disposal costs. Staff is currently
assessing costs and logistics of organics collection.
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 3
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
The activities above support or complement the following Vision areas:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus area:
• Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and
best practices.
Attachments: Attachment “A” Proposed Program Changes
Attachment “B” 2007 Solid Waste Program Survey Data
Attachment “C” 2007 Solid Waste Program Survey Results and Analysis
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Administrative Coordinator
Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 4
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
Attachment “A”
PROPOSED PROGRAM CHANGES
May 30, 2007
REFUSE/GARBAGE
Possible modifications to the Pay-As-You Throw (PAYT) Program
Provide a smaller service level (30 gallon bi-weekly)
Change PAYT rates to enhance incentive to reduce waste
Possible modifications to Reduce Litter
Provide waste collection at bus stops/shelters where there is a need
Increase public education efforts aimed at proper use of current carts / bins
Provide recycling containers with lids
Enforce indoor storage of carts / bins
RECYCLING
Possible modifications to the Residential Program (single family – 4 plex)
Increase allowable cardboard size beyond the 3’x3’ tied bundles and allow boxes
Increase the amount of the “Get Caught Recycling Award”
Change the name of the “Get Caught Recycling Award” due to cultural concerns
Offer an organics collection service to residents
Require/provide an organics collection service for all properties
Provide single sort collection with carts
Reinstatement of the recycling credit
Create a mandatory ordinance requiring all single family residences to recycle
Possible modifications to the Multi-family Dwellings (MFD - residential larger that 4-plex)
Program
Require larger recycling areas at MFD’s (new construction)
Expand the recycling education program for MFD
Enforce recycling ordinance/state law requiring MFD owners to offer recycling
Offer city recycling collection services to MFD’s
Create financial penalties for not recycling
Require MFD’s to participate in city provided recycling collection services
(organized collection)
Possible modifications to the Commercial/Industrial Program:
Enhance the Green Business recycling education program
Educate businesses regarding the benefits of organics recycling
Encourage businesses to donate perishable food and other items to local charities
Encourage businesses to do organics recycling
Provide recycling collection at bus stops/shelters where there is a need
Offer city recycling collection services to the commercial/industrial community
Create financial penalties for not recycling
Require businesses to do organics recycling
Require commercial/industrial properties to participate in City provided recycling
collection services (organized collection)
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 5
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
YARD WASTE / COMPOST
Possible modifications to the current Program
Encourage the use of containers and biodegradable bags for yard waste
collection
Eliminate the use of plastic bags for yard waste collection
Allow single family residential properties to compost organics on site
Provide a drop-off site for leaves and brush
OTHER WASTE / “GREEN” INITIATIVES
Possible modifications to the current Program
Promote the use of reusable (i.e., canvas) shopping bags within the city at
grocery & retail stores
Ban retail plastic bag use within the city (i.e. grocery & retail stores)
Promote local household hazardous waste drop off sites
Provide curbside pickup of household hazardous wastes
Provide for the free curbside collection of bulk items & appliances
EDUCATION AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
No changes identified at this time
Items in bold are recommended changes. (If we move ahead with recommendations,
further investigation may be needed prior to implementation)
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 6
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
Attachment “B”
2007 Solid Waste Survey Data Revised 9-20-07
Residential Multi-family Businesses
Number Mailed 1,000 863 963
Total Responses Received 232 89 49
Rate of Return 23% 10% 5%
Optional Organics Collection
Yes
percentage 53% 43% 23%
responses 123 38 11
No
percentage 32% 32% 65%
responses 75 29 32
No response to question
percentage 15% 25% 12%
responses 34 22 6
Optional Solid Waste Collection
Yes
percentage NA 41% 47%
responses NA 37 23
No
percentage NA 33% 45%
responses NA 29 22
No response to question
percentage NA 26% 8%
responses NA 23 4
Local Hazardous Waste Drop Off
Yes
percentage 83% 75% 16%
responses 192 67 8
No
percentage 13% 17% 68%
responses 30 15 33
No response to question
percentage 4% 8% 16%
responses 10 7 8
Promote & Sell Reusable Bags
Yes
percentage NA NA 21%
responses NA NA 10
No
percentage NA NA 63%
responses NA NA 31
No response to question
percentage NA NA 16%
responses NA NA 8
*NA = Not applicable ** Businesses were asked if they'd host a HHW drop off site.
Residents and MFDs were asked if they would utilize a HHW drop off site.
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 7
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
Attachment “C”
2007 SOLID WASTE PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
I. INTRODUCTION
In March 2007, the City Council directed staff to assess the interest of residents, multifamily
property owners and businesses regarding the use of proposed optional services. Surveys were
written for each of these types of property owners and mailed to 1,000 residents, 863 multi-
family and 963 businesses properties on August 20, 2007. There was a 23% return from
residents, a 10% return from multi-family properties and a 5% return from businesses.
II. SURVEY
The following questions were asked of residents, businesses and multifamily facility owners and
managers:
• Interest in source separated organics collection as an optional service.
• Asked businesses and multi-family owners/managers about interest in weekly recycling,
yard waste and garbage collection by the City Hauler
• Asked residents and multi-family owners/managers about additional drop-off sites for
household hazardous waste and electronics in the city.
• Asked businesses about offering their business as a local household hazardous waste or
electronics drop off site.
• Asked businesses about their willingness to promote and sell reusable bags.
See the attached Attachment “B” 2007 Solid Waste Survey Data matrix for a list of the
responses.
II.A. Organics Collection
Fifty-three percent (53%) of the residents who responded are interested in the optional organics
collection, 32% were not interested, and 15% didn’t answer. Most of the comments thanked the
city for offering a new way to reduce garbage and to recycle. One person remarked that it was “a
positive step for the environment.” There were questions about cost and requests for more
information on logistics.
Forty-three percent of multi-family property owner responded said they were interested, 32%
were not interested, and 25% didn’t answer.
Twenty-three percent (23%) of businesses responded said they were interested in optional
organics collection, 65% were not, and 12% didn’t answer. For businesses, we did not track the
type of business responding, so of the ten businesses interested, they could be grocery stores,
restaurants, or doctor’s offices. This survey was kept simple to elicit as many responses as
possible. From this we can conclude that an optional organics collection would probably do well
in the residential areas of the city and may even pick up a few businesses.
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 8
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
Based on the above information, the following customer base is projected for this optional
service:
Type of Customer Percentage Total Customers
Citywide
Possible Customers Citywide
Residential Property 53% 12,200 6,470
Multi-family
Facilities
43% 863 370
Business Property 23% 963 210
Staff is currently assessing costs and logistics of organics collection.
Types of Organic Collection
There are essentially two types of organics collection: source separated organics and
co-collection and benefits to each. In source separated organics collection, organics are collected
separate from refuse and yard waste, usually in a cart with a secured lid. In co-collected
organics, organics are mixed with yard waste and collected at the same time in the same cart.
Yard waste and organics can also be collected in carts, (but bagged separately). Yard waste that
doesn’t fit into the carts is bagged separately in biodegradable or kraft (brown paper) bags.
There are a limited number of compost site options for disposal and processing of organics and
they are generally related to the hauler being used. Locations and agreements between the
compost site owner and hauler will have an impact on the cost of this service.
Pros and Cons of Types of Organic Collection
Source separation of organics involves more trucks, creates more traffic and safety issues and
thus creates additional environmental impacts. Source separated organics could be collected
every other week with two trucks or weekly with three trucks. Source separation also requires a
special organics cart. This could be either the small cart earlier previewed to Council or a larger
cart similar to what is currently being used for refuse. Sixty-four gallon carts are recommended
for source separated collection as paper will be added to the kitchen organics, which is expected
to increase volumes. The major concern of using the small cart is that the cart cannot fit in the
truck tippers and the cart has to be dead-lifted by the driver.
Co-collection of organics can occur weekly with yard waste in 96-gallon carts. Due to pizza
boxes and other paper products mixed in with the kitchen waste, the cart fills quickly. The
homeowner could bag all organics in the cart (biodegradable or kraft bags) and as much yard
waste as will fit. Extra yard waste may be placed outside the cart in biodegradable or brown,
kraft bags. This would require one more yard waste / organics vehicle to handle the increased
volume and additional service times associated with this. It is possible that one refuse collection
vehicle may be eliminated as a result of this shift in waste collection and processing.
Co-collection appears to be the better practice of the two methods.
Impacts to the City:
• Increase in disposal cost of yard waste
• Decrease in disposal cost of MSW (municipal solid waste)
• Increase number of carts needing to be purchased
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 9
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
• Startup costs (a possible source may be from Hennepin County Waste Abatement
Incentive Grant money)
• Improved aesthetics with fewer yard waste bags at curb with co-collection (will be in
carts)
• More carts at curb and needing to be stored
Issues to consider:
• If people will participate, the program will work
• Marketing is important
• Ownership/storage of additional carts
• Color of the carts or the lids
• Availability of the bags needed for the program (retail outlets). Brown paper kraft bags
should be encouraged as they completely biodegrade. The plastic biodegradable bags do
not completely biodegrade in the compost rows – plastic remnants remain. Non-
biodegradable bags should not be used
Startup:
• Lids for organic & yard waste co-collection carts.
• Extra 96-gallon carts (same carts are used for either garbage or organic co-collection).
• Startup kits may be provided (i.e. under sink containers, 12 startup liners for pails, 20
biodegradable or kraft bags for yard waste).
• Marketing of program.
• Delivery of startup kits (if used) & carts.
• City would apply for a grant from Hennepin County or MPCA to cover startup costs for
kits and maybe lids and marketing of program.
II.B. Proposed Optional Weekly Recycling And Garbage Collection For Multi-Family
Housing And Businesses
Forty-one percent (41%) of multi-family property owners who responded were interested in this
service (33% were not). Those interested want to do a better job recycling and of educating their
tenants. Forty-seven percent (47%) of business respondents were interested (45% were not).
The businesses which commented said they needed more information about the services being
offered.
Based on the survey results, the following customer base is projected for this optional service:
Type of Customer Percentage Total Customers
Citywide
Possible Customers
Citywide
Multi-Family
Facilities
41% 863 360
Business Properties 47% 963 450
The program for smaller sized businesses and multi-family facilities would be integrated into the
current solid waste program which is listed below. Some changes for larger sized businesses and
multi-family facilities would have to be made to accommodate the larger buildings and tenants.
See changes listed below.
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 10
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
Refuse/Garbage
Offer weekly garbage collection by City Hauler
Service levels (volume) to suit owner needs
No charge for changing service levels
Offer organics collection as an optional service at additional cost
Recycling
Offer weekly recycling collection by City Hauler
2-sort collection (paper & containers)
Cardboard collection
All items set out by 7:00 a.m. on collection day
II.C. Household Hazardous Waste & Electronic Drop Off Sites At Businesses In St. Louis
Park
The City staff proposes to work with local businesses to promote and arrange for drop-off sites in
St. Louis Park. This question was posed in two forms. The residents and multi-family owners
were asked if they’d be interested in additional drop-off sites for household hazardous waste and
electronics in the City. Eighty-three percent (83%) of residents responded YES and 13% said
NO. Most of the comments mentioned convenience, but free, no charges. Those who responded
NO, said the county sites and drop off event were sufficient. Seventy-five percent (75%) of
multi-family owners responded YES based on convenience and 17% responded NO.
Businesses were asked if they would offer their business as a local household hazardous waste or
electronics drop off site. Sixteen percent (16%) of businesses (8 businesses) responding said
“yes”. As we did not ask the nature of their business, we do not have a way to identify the
business. In working with businesses, it would probably be retailers of electronics who would
collect electronics and so on.
Hennepin County operates two year-round sites in Brooklyn Park and in Bloomington, and a
3-day event locally, all with free drop-off of household hazardous waste, including electronics.
These sites, including the local, temporary site, are for Hennepin County residents only.
Hennepin County is searching for another county-owned drop off site location. They are
currently looking in the Minneapolis area.
II.D. Promotion And Selling Of Reusable Bags
Businesses were asked in the survey if they would be interested in promoting or selling reusable
bags. We do not know whether the businesses responding are retail concerns, but surmise they
are. Twenty-one percent (21%) of the respondents said YES and 63% said NO. Of those
responding, comments included: “Canvas bags are a great step toward eliminating the bag
problem.” “This is a great idea.” “We should have been doing this years ago.”
The following paragraph was included as an educational piece on all surveys mailed:
What is wrong with using paper or plastic shopping bags? Recycling is great. Reusing a
canvas bag over and over without expending more energy renewing it is even better. Each year,
Americans throw away 100 billion plastic bags. Only 0.6 percent of plastic bags are recycled
Meeting of: September 24, 2007 Page 11
Subject: Solid Waste Program Changes
[World Watch Institute]. Both plastic and paper bags can be reused too rather than thrown in the
trash. Think twice about taking a plastic bag if your purchase is small and easy to carry. Keep
canvas bags in your home, office, and car so you always have them available when you go to the
supermarket or other stores.
III. CONCLUSION
III.A. Optional Organics Collection Services for Residential
Staff recommends that the City offer optional organics collection. It is anticipated there will be
additional cost for the user of this service. Staff needs to work on cost and logistics. This
service would probably be marketed more heavily to residents – both single family and multi-
family, rather than businesses, although it could service businesses as well. The customers
would completely pay for their service so this collection would not be subsidized. There may be
some startup costs that would come from the Solid Waste Fund, although grant money may be
available through Hennepin County to cover this expense.
III.B. Optional Solid Waste Collection Services for Multi-Family and Businesses
Staff recommends that the City offer this service. The customers would completely pay for this
service just as is the case for the current customers. This program would not be subsidized or
need startup costs.
III.C. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection and Drop Off Sites
Residents want a local drop off site for HHW and electronics. However, regulations around
electronics and HHW collection, storage, transportation and disposal are rigorous and costly. It
may be difficult to convince a business to follow through with this activity. However, seven
businesses have expressed interest. Staff recommends that we target a campaign toward retailers
and producers of hazardous waste and electronics to establish new drop off sites in the City.
III.D. Promotion and Selling of Reusable Bags
Staff recommends that we target a campaign toward retailers within the city to encourage the
promotion and selling of reusable bags. We would also target a campaign toward residents to
use reusable bags. We started that campaign already this year by selling reusable bags at City
Hall and Westwood Nature Center and by putting information on plastic versus paper bags (and
canvas bags) on our web site and in the survey itself. We have had positive comments from
residents regarding how much they liked the canvas bags.
Meeting Date: September 24, 2007
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
August 2007 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This is a written report for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues
and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds
should be a primary concern in analyzing the city’s financial health because they represent the
discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
For the first eight months of the year, actual revenues and expenditures should generally run
about 66% of the annual budget. Significant items that exceed the norm are highlighted below
along with a general discussion of the cause for the variance.
General Fund
Expenditures:
• Finance expenditures look high because two contract employees hired to help fill
vacancies left by departing staff have not been allocated out to departments. The Finance
employees who have left were allocated to the enterprise funds and EDA.
• Community Development expenditures are now on budget since salary allocations have
been recorded through August. Several Community Development employees are
allocated to Housing and EDA activities.
• Community Outreach looks high because there is one large payment that is made
annually to fund a school district outreach program. That $33,000 payment has been
made for the year. This department is below budget in other respects.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• Organized Recreation expenditures are higher due to the bulk of their activities occurring
during the summer recreation season.
• The Environmental Budget is high because most of the Dutch Elm work is done early in
the year when the beetles are dormant.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 2
Subject: August 2007 Monthly Financial Report
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None required at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Bruce M. DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
9/19/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:04:13R5509FDO SLCOUNCIL1
1Page -Expenditure Report by CompanySt Louis Park Monthly Expenditure Council Report
8/31/2007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current Month
Actual
YTD
Balance Balance
Exp.
%
Avail.
%
01000 GENERAL FUND
100 GENERAL 21.50 21.50-.0 .0
110 ADMINISTRATION 982,930.60 66,848.58 603,150.76 379,779.84 61.4 38.6
120 FINANCE 1,053,032.00 131,138.05 752,770.65 300,261.35 71.5 28.5
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 568,372.46 41,429.35 377,297.41 191,075.05 66.4 33.6
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,024,954.14 88,376.70 689,357.71 335,596.43 67.3 32.7
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,164,367.24 77,360.52 683,779.86 480,587.38 58.7 41.3
145 TECHNOLOGY & SUPPORT SERVICES 1,490,175.71 126,349.82 995,767.74 494,407.97 66.8 33.2
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 218,751.47 7,951.00 124,507.80 94,243.67 56.9 43.1
160 POLICE 6,676,103.09 507,583.17 4,142,292.63 2,533,810.46 62.0 38.0
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 116,397.35 5,835.28 87,428.79 28,968.56 75.1 24.9
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,756,522.00 229,430.89 1,818,057.67 938,464.33 66.0 34.0
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 1,793,306.00 143,230.71 1,138,449.27 654,856.73 63.5 36.5
175 PUBLIC WORKS 3,840,552.01 281,143.66 2,412,311.55 1,428,240.46 62.8 37.2
01000 GENERAL FUND 21,685,464.07 1,706,677.73 13,825,193.34 7,860,270.73 63.8 36.2
9/19/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 15:05:20R5509FDO SLPCOUCIL2
1Page -Expenditure Report by CompanyExpenditure report for Park & Rec
8/31/2007
Description
Annual
Budget
Current Month
Actual
YTD
Balance Balance
Exp.
%
Avail.
%
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 1,223,354.00 103,615.64 896,099.07 327,254.93 73.2 26.8
210 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,333,381.73 111,847.94 929,060.98 404,320.75 69.7 30.3
220 ENVIRONMENT 276,597.52 91,660.27 289,708.95 13,111.43- 104.7 4.7-
230 WESTWOOD 452,084.59 39,242.97 303,173.66 148,910.93 67.1 32.9
240 RECREATION CENTER 1,319,599.56 130,869.04 930,354.78 389,244.78 70.5 29.5
250 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 994,373.73 61,461.77 657,160.61 337,213.12 66.1 33.9
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 5,599,391.13 538,697.63 4,005,558.05 1,593,833.08 71.5 28.5
R5509FIN4 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9/19/2007 15:05:36LOGIS001
Monthly Financial Report w/ YTD BudgetBy Co (pb), Obj.Sub 1Page -
8/31/2007 2007 <===================== =====================>2007 20068/31/2007 2007
Description
Current
Period Actual
Current
Period Budget
Year to Date
Actual
Year to Date
Budget
Per Cent
Used
Annual
Budget
|
|
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
4011 CURRENT AD VALOREM 13,170,348.00-13,170,348.00- |13,001,118.00-6,073,616.51- 46.72
4012 DELINQ AD VALOREM |27,494.57-
4013 FISCAL DISPARITY |523,752.49-
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST |1,841.57-
4018 MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT |987,893.68
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 13,170,348.00-13,170,348.00-|13,001,118.00-5,638,811.46-43.37
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS
4101 LICENSES 10,272.00-546,152.66- 507,700.00- 107.57 507,700.00- |491,700.00-299,302.70- 60.87
4200 PERMITS 190,848.93-1,435,794.37- 2,128,800.00- 67.45 2,128,800.00- |2,233,800.00-1,880,029.26- 84.16
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 201,120.93-1,981,947.03-2,636,500.00-75.17 2,636,500.00-|2,725,500.00-2,179,331.96-79.96
4270 FINES & FORFEITS
4271 MUNICIPAL COURT 20,814.21-160,451.38- 300,000.00- 53.48 300,000.00- |300,000.00-206,952.52- 68.98
4273 FORFEITURES/PENALTIES 650.00-675.83- 6,500.00- 10.40 6,500.00- |6,500.00-2,290.00- 35.23
4275 LIQUOR VIOLATION FINES 3,000.00-3,000.00- |3,000.00-7,000.00- 233.33
4276 MISC LICENSE VIOLATIONS 35.00-100.00- 35.00 100.00- |100.00-105.00- 105.00
4277 NON-COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS/FEES 425.00-955.00-|
4279 CONTRACT REIMB.-SNOW REMOVAL 70.00 |
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 21,889.21-162,047.21-309,600.00-52.34 309,600.00-|309,600.00-216,347.52-69.88
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
4310 FEDERAL |12,888.00-17,013.01- 132.01
4350 STATE 20,410.70 228,604.29- 1,189,229.00- 19.22 1,189,229.00- |1,335,706.00-1,558,579.95- 116.69
4400 OTHER 25,424.75-313,200.98- 439,575.15- 71.25 439,575.15- |411,120.00-300,595.63- 73.12
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 5,014.05-541,805.27-1,628,804.15-33.26 1,628,804.15-|1,759,714.00-1,876,188.59-106.62
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES
4601 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 47,239.28-346,715.02- 625,028.63- 55.47 625,028.63- |603,339.32-361,827.24- 59.97
4700 PUBLIC SAFETY 10,656.81-53,855.02- 117,800.00- 45.72 117,800.00- |117,800.00-59,274.23- 50.32
4800 HIGHWAYS/STREETS 650.00-3,580.00- 303,000.00- 1.18 303,000.00- |284,000.00-125,212.37- 44.09
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 58,546.09-404,150.04-1,045,828.63-38.64 1,045,828.63-|1,005,139.32-546,313.84-54.35
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5102 CURRENT |804.51-
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |804.51-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 146.20-108.20-
R5509FIN4 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9/19/2007 15:05:36LOGIS001
Monthly Financial Report w/ YTD BudgetBy Co (pb), Obj.Sub 2Page -
8/31/2007 2007 <===================== =====================>2007 20068/31/2007 2007
Description
Current
Period Actual
Current
Period Budget
Year to Date
Actual
Year to Date
Budget
Per Cent
Used
Annual
Budget
|
|
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
5300 RENT REVENUE 8,333.33-68,383.32- 111,400.00- 61.39 111,400.00- |101,400.00-68,966.67- 68.01
5330 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS |5,000.00-12,945.11- 258.90
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 8,333.33-68,529.52-111,400.00-61.52 111,400.00-|106,400.00-82,019.98-77.09
4001 REVENUES 294,903.61-3,158,479.07-18,902,480.78-16.71 18,902,480.78-|18,907,471.32-10,539,817.86-55.74
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES
6010 SALARIES 1,109,182.73 8,531,757.28 13,070,190.81 65.28 13,070,190.81 |12,429,864.67 8,556,762.74 68.84
6060 PERA 94,361.47 719,169.98 1,103,634.75 65.16 1,103,634.75 |957,521.77 659,922.93 68.92
6075 FICA 55,011.99 431,491.85 638,521.59 67.58 638,521.59 |603,690.84 438,573.39 72.65
6080 INSURANCE 89,728.34 1,056,722.03 1,676,253.67 63.04 1,676,253.67 |1,677,294.84 1,130,735.23 67.41
6100 OTHER 32,531.25 281,252.24 369,461.25 76.12 369,461.25 |353,734.54 280,794.23 79.38
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,380,815.78 11,020,393.38 16,858,062.07 65.37 16,858,062.07 |16,022,106.66 11,066,788.52 69.07
6210 SUPPLIES
6211 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,891.43 29,643.48 50,550.00 58.64 50,550.00 |47,200.00 26,066.34 55.23
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 8,153.42 33,881.54 82,400.00 41.12 82,400.00 |82,760.00 39,665.41 47.93
6213 FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 1,781.79 3,518.86 7,000.00 50.27 7,000.00 |5,000.00 2,446.12 48.92
6214 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,473.98 58,915.72 156,825.00 37.57 156,825.00 |132,600.00 48,058.30 36.24
6215 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 725.37 3,750.00 19.34 3,750.00 |3,500.00 576.47 16.47
6217 SMALL TOOLS 212.55 1,879.11 5,200.00 36.14 5,200.00 |4,536.00 3,466.78 76.43
6218 MOTOR FUELS 2,000.00 2,000.00 |1,500.00 23.70 1.58
6221 EQUIPMENT PARTS 543.50 9,330.75 21,600.00 43.20 21,600.00 |24,400.00 9,670.93 39.63
6222 BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 10.60 8,465.52 43,530.00 19.45 43,530.00 |34,750.00 9,470.46 27.25
6223 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 23,545.58 201,902.29 271,000.00 74.50 271,000.00 |268,000.00 167,050.66 62.33
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 240.97 4,340.94 6,500.00 66.78 6,500.00 |6,500.00 2,156.42 33.18
6225 SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 103.81 2,053.54 5,150.00 39.87 5,150.00 |5,000.00 2,470.58 49.41
6226 CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,652.32 13,036.05 29,943.00 43.54 29,943.00 |28,643.00 13,945.13 48.69
6227 MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE 1,000.00 1,000.00 |
6210 SUPPLIES 40,609.95 367,693.17 686,448.00 53.56 686,448.00 |644,389.00 325,067.30 50.45
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6301 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 13,726.87 16,684.07 8,500.00 196.28 8,500.00 |8,770.00 7,137.63 81.39
6302 POLICE EQUIPMENT 8,660.26 22,150.00 39.10 22,150.00 |23,160.00 16,067.96 69.38
6303 OTHER 11,042.23 31,600.00 34.94 31,600.00 |43,860.00 45,765.02 104.34
6304 FIRE EQUIPMENT 1,700.00 1,700.00 |5,700.00 149.90 2.63
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 13,726.87 36,386.56 63,950.00 56.90 63,950.00 |81,490.00 69,120.51 84.82
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6400 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113,757.16 722,530.29 1,257,925.00 57.44 1,257,925.00 |1,257,704.38 541,470.99 43.05
6700 POSTAGE 3,560.51 99,404.94 133,470.00 74.48 133,470.00 |130,715.00 61,045.84 46.70
6720 DELIVERY |39.35
R5509FIN4 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9/19/2007 15:05:36LOGIS001
Monthly Financial Report w/ YTD BudgetBy Co (pb), Obj.Sub 3Page -
8/31/2007 2007 <===================== =====================>2007 20068/31/2007 2007
Description
Current
Period Actual
Current
Period Budget
Year to Date
Actual
Year to Date
Budget
Per Cent
Used
Annual
Budget
|
|
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
6830 COMMUNICATIONS 13,224.21 124,564.63 232,710.00 53.53 232,710.00 |213,425.00 131,745.30 61.73
6900 AWARDS/INDEMNITIES 200.00 200.00 |200.00 23.94 11.97
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 816.90 2,810.03 11,000.00 25.55 11,000.00 |13,000.00 3,932.69 30.25
7050 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,204.33 48,190.46 62,760.00 76.79 62,760.00 |54,758.00 20,967.40 38.29
7100 INSURANCE 9,074.80 71,248.16 96,882.00 73.54 96,882.00 |96,882.00 62,623.68 64.64
7200 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 13,149.65 177,685.73 421,023.00 42.20 421,023.00 |360,820.00 163,580.74 45.34
7300 UTILITIES 18,196.87 329,013.42 550,096.00 59.81 550,096.00 |419,496.00 266,847.57 63.61
7410 COMPUTER SERVICES 40,310.32 342,412.61 504,000.00 67.94 504,000.00 |493,000.00 326,146.24 66.16
7500 RENTALS 3,021.17 23,596.39 42,878.00 55.03 42,878.00 |737,951.00 487,598.00 66.07
7550 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE 35,668.66 285,349.28 428,024.00 66.67 428,024.00 |419,447.00 279,631.36 66.67
7600 EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT 12,103.50 146,008.25 294,266.00 49.62 294,266.00 |266,564.00 131,383.39 49.29
7620 TRAVEL/MEETINGS 6,591.51 21,269.14 31,450.00 67.63 31,450.00 |30,695.00 14,656.06 47.75
7650 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 715.54 3,334.90 7,000.00 47.64 7,000.00 |5,718.00 11,797.67 206.33
7670 LICENSES 130.00 2,103.00 3,320.00 63.34 3,320.00 |3,220.00 2,097.00 65.12
7699 CAPITAL LEASE PAYMENT |4,422.05
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 271,525.13 2,399,521.23 4,077,004.00 58.86 4,077,004.00 |4,503,595.38 2,510,009.27 55.73
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY
7805 OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,199.00 |
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,199.00 |
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,706,677.73 13,825,193.34 21,685,464.07 63.75 21,685,464.07 |21,251,581.04 13,970,985.60 65.74
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN
8013 CABLE TV 12,921.92-103,375.36- 155,063.00- 66.67 155,063.00- |155,063.00-103,375.36- 66.67
8014 HOUSING REHABILITATION 16,066.42-128,531.36- 192,797.00- 66.67 192,797.00- |199,211.00-132,807.36- 66.67
8017 MSC 728.83-5,830.64- 8,746.00- 66.67 8,746.00- |41,575.00-27,716.64- 66.67
8019 WATER UTILITY 43,197.17-345,577.36- 518,366.00- 66.67 518,366.00- |483,516.00-322,344.00- 66.67
8021 REFUSE UTILITY 27,362.58-218,900.64- 328,351.00- 66.67 328,351.00- |312,171.00-208,114.00- 66.67
8022 STORM WATER UTILITY 24,765.00-198,120.00- 297,180.00- 66.67 297,180.00- |311,671.00-207,780.64- 66.67
8023 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY 64,194.42-513,555.36- 770,333.00- 66.67 770,333.00- |722,612.00-481,741.36- 66.67
8024 PENSION 32,000.00-256,000.00- 384,000.00- 66.67 384,000.00- |384,000.00-256,000.00- 66.67
8010 TRANSFERS IN 221,236.34-1,769,890.72-2,654,836.00-66.67 2,654,836.00-|2,609,819.00-1,739,879.36-66.67
8060 DISPOSAL OF ASSET
8065 SALE OF SALVAGE 10,063.00-|
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,033.24- 1,500.00- 68.88 1,500.00-1,000.00-1,381.55- 138.16
8070.831 Police 122.17-1,308.88-500.00- 261.78 500.00- |270.62-
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 122.17-2,342.12-2,000.00-117.11 2,000.00-|1,000.00-1,652.17-165.22
8080 BONDS
R5509FIN4 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9/19/2007 15:05:36LOGIS001
Monthly Financial Report w/ YTD BudgetBy Co (pb), Obj.Sub 4Page -
8/31/2007 2007 <===================== =====================>2007 20068/31/2007 2007
Description
Current
Period Actual
Current
Period Budget
Year to Date
Actual
Year to Date
Budget
Per Cent
Used
Annual
Budget
|
|
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
8084 CAPITAL LEASE
8100 INTEREST
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 61,040.46 301,099.00- 20.27- 301,099.00- |173,500.00-53,649.19- 30.92
8102 OTHER INTEREST |.25-
8100 INTEREST 61,040.46 301,099.00-20.27-301,099.00-|173,500.00-53,649.44-30.92
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,479.50-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |2,479.50-
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 2,500.00-
8171 REVENUE BOND FEES 5,000.00-5,000.00- |5,000.00-
8174 NSF FEES 200.00-1,525.00- 1,000.00- 152.50 1,000.00- |1,000.00-1,121.33- 112.13
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 200.00-1,525.00-6,000.00-25.42 6,000.00-|6,000.00-3,621.33-60.36
8200 MISC REVENUE 34.75-328.55-|141.00-1,373.29- 973.96
8001 OTHER INCOME 221,593.26-1,723,108.93-2,963,935.00-58.14 2,963,935.00-|2,790,460.00-1,802,655.09-64.60
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 11.10 |297.95
8580 MISC EXPENSE 272.81 650.00 41.97 650.00 473.00 410.36 86.76
8580.995 Contingency Budget 4,789.04 180,000.00 2.66 180,000.00 |445,580.00 11,142.50 2.50
8580.996 Uncollectable Debt 2,023.55 |75.00
8580 MISC EXPENSE 7,085.40 180,650.00 3.92 180,650.00 |446,053.00 11,627.86 2.61
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 5,495.06 300.00 1,831.69 300.00 |300.00 11,752.16 3,917.39
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 12,591.56 180,950.00 6.96 180,950.00 |446,353.00 23,677.97 5.30
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,190,180.86 8,956,196.90 1.71-***********1.71-|2.72 1,652,190.62 *********
01000 GENERAL FUND 1,190,180.86 8,956,196.90 1.71-***********1.71-|2.72 1,652,190.62 *********
R5509FIN4 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9/19/2007 15:05:36LOGIS001
Monthly Financial Report w/ YTD BudgetBy Co (pb), Obj.Sub 5Page -
8/31/2007 2007 <===================== =====================>2007 20068/31/2007 2007
Description
Current
Period Actual
Current
Period Budget
Year to Date
Actual
Year to Date
Budget
Per Cent
Used
Annual
Budget
|
|
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
4011 CURRENT AD VALOREM 3,540,854.00-3,540,854.00- |2,887,292.00-1,322,053.80- 45.79
4012 DELINQ AD VALOREM |5,986.80-
4013 FISCAL DISPARITY |114,006.04-
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST |402.06-
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 3,540,854.00-3,540,854.00-|2,887,292.00-1,442,448.70-49.96
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS
4200 PERMITS 450.00-5,725.00-|6,810.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 450.00-5,725.00-|6,810.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
4350 STATE |50,000.00-26,500.00- 53.00
4400 OTHER 22,351.00- 56,402.00- 39.63 56,402.00- |44,702.00-27,826.27- 62.25
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 22,351.00-56,402.00-39.63 56,402.00-|94,702.00-54,326.27-57.37
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES
4601 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 56,416.52-89,313.03- 113,150.00- 78.93 113,150.00- |148,700.00-140,790.11- 94.68
4900 PROGRAM REVENUE 113,111.04-850,532.94- 964,070.00- 88.22 964,070.00- |999,188.00-818,710.18- 81.94
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 169,527.56-939,845.97-1,077,220.00-87.25 1,077,220.00-|1,147,888.00-959,500.29-83.59
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5102 CURRENT |34,794.67-
5103 DELINQUENT |537.62-
5100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS |35,332.29-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS
5300 RENT REVENUE 45,094.86-326,112.61- 807,061.00- 40.41 807,061.00- |681,072.00-373,331.53- 54.82
5330 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 1,275.23-5,211.33- 2,000.00- 260.57 2,000.00- |2,000.00-3,436.44 171.82-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 46,370.09-331,323.94-809,061.00-40.95 809,061.00-|683,072.00-369,895.09-54.15
4001 REVENUES 216,347.65-1,299,245.91-5,483,537.00-23.69 5,483,537.00-|4,812,954.00-2,868,312.64-59.60
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES
6010 SALARIES 252,575.57 1,809,291.49 2,575,797.79 70.24 2,575,797.79 |2,161,008.62 1,565,087.22 72.42
6060 PERA 11,849.38 90,445.41 131,415.11 68.82 131,415.11 |101,694.45 73,233.76 72.01
6075 FICA 19,418.54 139,804.55 196,435.35 71.17 196,435.35 |164,380.53 120,121.76 73.08
6080 INSURANCE 16,959.08 197,760.23 310,528.22 63.69 310,528.22 |262,438.32 176,152.32 67.12
6100 OTHER 9,880.09 80,467.14 72,151.66 111.53 72,151.66 |50,148.53 57,887.87 115.43
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 310,682.66 2,317,768.82 3,286,328.13 70.53 3,286,328.13 |2,739,670.45 1,992,482.93 72.73
R5509FIN4 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9/19/2007 15:05:36LOGIS001
Monthly Financial Report w/ YTD BudgetBy Co (pb), Obj.Sub 6Page -
8/31/2007 2007 <===================== =====================>2007 20068/31/2007 2007
Description
Current
Period Actual
Current
Period Budget
Year to Date
Actual
Year to Date
Budget
Per Cent
Used
Annual
Budget
|
|
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
6210 SUPPLIES
6211 OFFICE SUPPLIES 436.30 5,476.45 6,950.00 78.80 6,950.00 |5,900.00 4,851.04 82.22
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 19,494.45 120,659.20 188,030.00 64.17 188,030.00 |159,880.00 112,588.48 70.42
6214 OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 397.47 10,481.63 18,502.00 56.65 18,502.00 |16,002.00 17,019.99 106.36
6216 CONCESSION SUPPLIES 12,840.43 60,946.19 64,600.00 94.34 64,600.00 |64,900.00 48,201.52 74.27
6217 SMALL TOOLS 450.34 3,027.18 6,550.00 46.22 6,550.00 |3,550.00 2,722.26 76.68
6218 MOTOR FUELS 3,065.88 177,525.65 259,000.00 68.54 259,000.00 |9,000.00 8,324.97 92.50
6219 LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 8,082.37 11,588.23 9,300.00 124.60 9,300.00 |
6220 TIRES 2,173.04 13,481.98 14,000.00 96.30 14,000.00 |
6221 EQUIPMENT PARTS 5,093.19 74,089.36 106,800.00 69.37 106,800.00 |2,500.00 231.00 9.24
6222 BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 6,600.80 28,105.74 36,150.00 77.75 36,150.00 |33,400.00 20,164.97 60.37
6223 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,965.06 35,276.58 47,100.00 74.90 47,100.00 |47,000.00 34,635.94 73.69
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 660.77 4,598.98 11,100.00 41.43 11,100.00 |12,000.00 3,425.66 28.55
6226 CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 169.02 530.56 750.00 70.74 750.00 |404.61
6210 SUPPLIES 62,429.12 545,787.73 768,832.00 70.99 768,832.00 |354,132.00 252,570.44 71.32
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6301 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 200.00 |
6303 OTHER 8,029.09 4,500.00 178.42 4,500.00 |4,500.00 2,614.95 58.11
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 8,229.09 4,500.00 182.87 4,500.00 |4,500.00 2,614.95 58.11
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6400 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,285.49 434,295.90 502,304.00 86.46 502,304.00 |525,779.00 455,234.63 86.58
6700 POSTAGE 3,689.54 8,047.14 11,375.00 70.74 11,375.00 |10,275.00 6,872.99 66.89
6830 COMMUNICATIONS 1,676.51 14,166.70 25,200.00 56.22 25,200.00 |23,550.00 14,550.56 61.79
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 200.00 200.00 |
7000 ADVERTISING 191.50 5,075.67 5,650.00 89.83 5,650.00 |5,650.00 8,353.89 147.86
7050 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 10,166.61 24,357.71 36,000.00 67.66 36,000.00 |36,000.00 24,559.04 68.22
7100 INSURANCE 9,197.07 62,055.78 102,146.00 60.75 102,146.00 |58,346.00 42,814.50 73.38
7200 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 82,917.53 217,812.38 239,550.00 90.93 239,550.00 |162,550.00 263,574.26 162.15
7300 UTILITIES 23,443.61 247,422.63 409,350.00 60.44 409,350.00 |448,783.00 246,265.83 54.87
7500 RENTALS 328.74 3,433.44 12,280.00 27.96 12,280.00 |240,617.00 159,269.08 66.19
7550 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE 10,751.42 86,011.36 129,026.00 66.66 129,026.00 |112,575.00 75,050.08 66.67
7600 EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT 2,426.43 16,733.97 34,525.00 48.47 34,525.00 |27,385.00 14,632.89 53.43
7620 TRAVEL/MEETINGS 1,511.40 3,363.18 11,125.00 30.23 11,125.00 |10,725.00 3,567.94 33.27
7670 LICENSES 1,607.68 2,000.00 80.38 2,000.00 |1,000.00 280.00 28.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 165,585.85 1,124,383.54 1,520,731.00 73.94 1,520,731.00 |1,663,235.00 1,315,025.69 79.06
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY
7803 IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 7,000.00 7,000.00 |4,500.00
7804 MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 8,923.11 12,000.00 74.36 12,000.00 |10,000.00
R5509FIN4 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9/19/2007 15:05:36LOGIS001
Monthly Financial Report w/ YTD BudgetBy Co (pb), Obj.Sub 7Page -
8/31/2007 2007 <===================== =====================>2007 20068/31/2007 2007
Description
Current
Period Actual
Current
Period Budget
Year to Date
Actual
Year to Date
Budget
Per Cent
Used
Annual
Budget
|
|
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
7806 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 465.76 |117.16
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 9,388.87 19,000.00 49.42 19,000.00 |14,500.00 117.16 .81
6001 EXPENDITURES 538,697.63 4,005,558.05 5,599,391.13 71.54 5,599,391.13 |4,776,037.45 3,562,811.17 74.60
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN
8011 GENERAL 100,000.00-100,000.00- |
8010 TRANSFERS IN 100,000.00-100,000.00-|
8060 DISPOSAL OF ASSET
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES |25.00-
8100 INTEREST
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 8,000.00-8,000.00- |8,000.00-1,569.64- 19.62
8100 INTEREST 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00-1,569.64-19.62
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 50.00-9,134.42- 9,100.00- 100.38 9,100.00-10,000.00-15,595.66- 155.96
8130.980 Fee assistance 500.00 500.00 7,500.00- 6.67- 7,500.00- |4,300.00-500.00 11.63-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 450.00 8,634.42-16,600.00-52.01 16,600.00-|14,300.00-15,095.66-105.56
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES
8200 MISC REVENUE |108.78-
8001 OTHER INCOME 450.00 8,634.42-124,600.00-6.93 124,600.00-|22,300.00-16,799.08-75.33
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8510 TRANSFERS OUT
8511 GENERAL 728.83 5,830.64 8,745.73 66.67 8,745.73 |
8510 TRANSFERS OUT 728.83 5,830.64 8,745.73 66.67 8,745.73 |
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 22.13 22.13 |4.14
8560 SCHOLARSHIP PAYMENTS |500.00
8580 MISC EXPENSE
8580.995 Contingency Budget |59,217.00
8580.996 Uncollectable Debt 1,316.50 |62.75
8580 MISC EXPENSE 1,316.50 |59,217.00 62.75 .11
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 4,302.76 |10,228.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 750.96 11,472.03 8,745.73 131.17 8,745.73 |59,217.00 10,794.89 18.23
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 323,550.94 2,709,149.75 .14-***********.14-|.45 688,494.34 *********
R5509FIN4 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9/19/2007 15:05:36LOGIS001
Monthly Financial Report w/ YTD BudgetBy Co (pb), Obj.Sub 8Page -
8/31/2007 2007 <===================== =====================>2007 20068/31/2007 2007
Description
Current
Period Actual
Current
Period Budget
Year to Date
Actual
Year to Date
Budget
Per Cent
Used
Annual
Budget
|
|
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 323,550.94 2,709,149.75 .14-***********.14-|.45 688,494.34 *********
Meeting Date: September 24, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Environmental Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This is a written report for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past few years and through our Vision process we find that we have more service
demands and expectations in the environmental area. Before jumping ahead or making other
changes in how the city delivers environmental services, we determined that we needed to take
time to review environmental functions and analyze our business needs.
To do this, we interviewed a number of consultants and Barbara Strandell from the firm What
Works Inc. was selected to help the city determine what would be required to “Take the City to
the Next Level” as it pertains to being a leader in environmental stewardship. In the scope of
work, Ms. Strandell interviewed staff from various departments to gain an understanding of all
the work that is happening in the environmental area across city departments. The attached
executive summary will be used as a guide as we move ahead in strengthening our connection,
activities and service delivery in the environmental area.
Environmental Services Review Executive Summary - Attached
The Executive Summary of the Environmental Services Review, complied by What Works Inc.
is the result of the consultant working directly with employees to review current environmental
operations and made recommendations for implementation. This included a general audit of
current practices and interviews with a number of staff and directors.
The consultant set out to answer the following questions:
1. What environmental services are being provided by the city?
2. What services should be provided by the city?
3. What changes need to be made to increase effectiveness and efficiency?
4. What is the best organizational structure and staff to deliver services now and in the future?
5. What best practices should be use for benchmarking and evaluating services?
Based on feedback from employees, the consultant developed general findings and
recommendations which are highlighted in the report. Below are next steps which will allow us
to move to a higher service level in the environment over the next 18 months to two years.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 2
Subject: Environmental Update
Next Steps
1. Beginning in October 2007, Administrative Services will take the lead role in working
with staff to connect environmental activities for the next eighteen months to two years.
As stated by the consultant, there is a lot of energy and advocacy directed toward
environmental programs and initiatives. Although everyone is working very hard, the
consultant found we have fragmentation and lack of leadership around our environmental
programs. The need to prioritize, communicate and coordinate these efforts is critical to
achieving long term goals in this area. After discussion with Directors, it was determined
that Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager, will lead this work.
2. As part of our connecting our activities, we will bring together staff from departments
that work on environmental issues and programs to review items in the executive
summary discuss how our work in this area will align with Vision.
Below is an outline of how this will work:
• Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director, will be the point person.
• Marcia Honold, Management Assistant, will assist with projects, tasks, challenges,
research etc. Some of the work will be to look at what other cities, agencies and
organizations are doing in this area to help us develop better models as we make
recommendations in this area.
• There will be a representative staff group (yet to be named). Its purpose shall be:
a. To enhance interdepartmental communication
b. To serve in a consultative role in defining purpose, goals, priorities
c. To keep Vision at the forefront
d. To help set expectations for moving forward with this work
e. To help make recommendations on programs, projects, activities and coordination
of work that will bring us to the next level.
f. Monthly meetings will be held.
3. There are no plans to reorganize or create a new environmental division in the next two
years. Administrative Services will work with departments and employees to identify
and make recommendations on how to work through issues within divisions.
4. We will work to define success and develop measurements to transition environmental
services away from an activity driven framework to a strategic framework.
5. Work will connect with IR on areas to improve marketing and communication of
environmental services, internally and externally.
6. Staff will continue discussions with staff to resolve challenges around constrained
resources and competing interests, taking environmental services to the next level.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at the present time. Staff has requested $50,000 to fund environmental initiatives related to
Vision for the 2008 budget. If approved, the City Manager would have funds available for work,
programs, activities or initiatives based on specific business needs.
Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 3
Subject: Environmental Update
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The review and analysis of the city’s environmental functions and business needs is consistent
with the Council’s Strategic Direction 18-Month Guide for the Environment and will help us our
journey to becoming a leader in environmental stewardships, increasing environmental
consciousness and responsibility in all areas of business.
Our objectives are as follows:
• to provide high quality environmental services to our customers which align with the
Mission, Vision and Values of the City of St. Louis Park.
• to build capacity into the environmental function to handle the increased environmental
needs as reflected in Vision – 18 Month Strategic Direction Guide adopted March 19,
2007.
• to clarify roles and establish accountability for working together across departments and
divisions.
• to coordinate communications for all of our environmental activities, both internally and
externally.
• to position Westwood Nature Center as a demonstration site and showcase for
environmental stewardship.
• to continue to provide Council updates and recommendations on environmental
initiatives, priorities and activities.
Attachment: Executive Summary – Environmental Services Review
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager