HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/10/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
OCTOBER 9, 2017
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 16 & 23, 2017
2. 6:35 p.m. Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates
3. 8:05 p.m. Fastpitch Softball Facility Update
4. 8:50 p.m. Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
9:35 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
9:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. 2018 Fee Schedule
6. Modifications of Wooddale Bridge at Highway 7
7. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Consultant Contract
8. Perspectives – Resolution of Support for Brownfield Gap Financing Program Grant
9. Sidewalk Snow Removal Pilot Program
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning October 16 & October 23, 2017
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the
Special Study Session on October 16 and the Regular Study Session on October 23.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the Special Study Session on
October 16 and the Regular Study Session on October 23, 2017. Also attached to this report is the
Study Session Prioritizaton & Tentative Discussion Timeline.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – October 16 & 23, 2017
Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 16 & October 23, 2017
OCTOBER 16, 2017
6:00 p.m. – Special Study Session – Police Department
(Councilmember Miller Absent)
Tentative Discussion Items
1.SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning (Session 3 of 4) – Police (80 minutes)
Examples of current issues facing officers, including difficult citizen contacts, mental health
crisis calls and use-of-force training. This will be an interactive session for council with a
demonstration of the training system used by officers.
End of Meeting: 7:20 p.m.
OCTOBER 23, 2017
6:30 p.m. – Study Session – Westwood Room
(Councilmember Miller Absent)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2.Audit Firm Presentations – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
The top 2 recommended audit firms from our RFP process will make a presentations to the
City Council.
3.TIF Management Plan – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
Annual review of development/redevelopment projects taking place in the City and overview
of the TIF Districts. Stacie Kvilvang from Ehlers will be joining us for the review/overview.
4.PLACE Update – Community Development (30 minutes)
PLACE risks losing a $900,000 DEED grant unless it commences its Via project before the
end of the year. The 217-unit mixed-use apartment building to be constructed on the North
Side of Wooddale Station is ready to go so PLACE wishes to close separately on the North
and South Side redevelopment parcels owned by the EDA so as to allow construction to begin
immediately on the North Side Site.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Written Reports
5. September 2017 Monthly Financial Report
6. 3
rd Qurter Investment Report (July – Sept)
7.WHNC Update
8. Development Update
End of Meeting: 8:25 p.m.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 16 & October 23, 2017
Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline
Priority Discussion Topic Comments Date Scheduled
5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident
Planning Session 1 of 4 (held on 8/14/17) Ongoing
5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident
Planning Session 2 of 4 (held on 9/25/17) Ongoing
5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident
Planning Session 3 of 4 October 16, 2017
5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident
Planning Session 4 of 4 November 13, 2017
4 Preserving the Walker Building Combined w/Walker Lake Branding
Discussion (held on 8/28/17) Ongoing
4 Race Equity Communication to HRC
on Outreach & Next Steps Most recently discussed on 9/11/17 Ongoing
4 Race Equity/Inclusion
Courageous Conversations Most recently discussed on 9/11/17 Ongoing
4 Affordable Housing Preservation
Policies/Ordinance
Discussed 9/25/17; Work Group being
formed. Ongoing
4 Flavored Tobacco Ordinance Discussed on 10/2/17 1st Reading 11/20/17
4 Climate Action Plan Consultant updating draft. Review by E&S
Commission & staff before council-ready. 4th Qtr 2017
3 Revitalization of Walker/Lake Area Part of Preserving Walker Building report
(held on 8/28/17); report also provided 9/25) Ongoing
3 Utilization of DBE Vendors Discussed on 9/11/17 Ongoing
3 Ranked Choice Voting Sent to Charter Commission on 10/2/17 Ongoing
3 Policy for Funding Non-Profits Part of 2018 Budget item October 9, 2017
3 Field Imprvmts/Girls Fastpitch Softball Council discussion on 10/9 Ongoing
3 Historical Society Space Part of Preserving Walker Building report November ____
3 Living Streets Policy After Vision 3.0 work is completed 4th Qtr 2017
3 The Nest Postponed to 2018 per their request. January 2018
3 Develop a Youth Advisory Commission 1st Qtr 2018
2 Bird Friendly Glass
2 Dark Skies Ordinance (Light Pollution)
2 Community Center Project
? Overview of Crime Free Ordinance Priority not yet determined. Fall 2018?
? SEED’s Community Green House /
Resiliant Cities Initiative Priority not yet determined ?
TH 169 Mobility Study Direction provided on 9/11/17
3 Property Tax Relief for Seniors Part of 2018 Budget item (Councilmember
Brausen: "No further study needed.") October 9, 2017
2 Sidewalk Snow Removal Part of 2018 Budget item (Majority of council
determined no need to discuss further at this time.) October 9, 2017
2 Active Space Matching Grants w/
Multi- Family Communities
Part of 2018 Budget item (Will be included in
2018 Budget Proposal.) October 9, 2017
Priority Key
5 = High priority/discuss ASAP
4 = Discuss sooner than later
3 = Discuss when time allows
2 = Low priority/no rush
1 = No need to discuss
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. This report is to assist with the study
session discussion regarding the 2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial
Management Plan (LRFMP) and Utility Rates.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the Council have any questions or suggested changes to the attached CIP?
• Is there other information that Council would like to review in more detail?
SUMMARY: Included is information on the process involved for creating the 2018 – 2027 CIP,
and how it is used in the LRFMP. Definitions for each LRFMP fund are provided as well as some
key items that are included and not included in the CIP. Directors or designees who have a key
role in the CIP will be present to discuss some significant projects being proposed and answer any
questions the Council may have.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The CIP and LRFMP work in conjunction
with the City’s annual budgeting process in helping to determine an appropriate property tax, HRA
levy and aids in maintaining the City’s AAA bond rating.
VISION CONSIDERATION: All Vision areas are taken into consideration.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Location Map of Some 2018 Parks & Pavement Mgt. Projects
2018 – 2027 CIP Projects by Funding Source
Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)
2018 Proposed Utility Rates Impact on a Property
Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates
DISCUSSION
Capital Improvement Plan – (CIP)
Each year, starting at the end of March or early April, staff is asked to determine the needs of the
City and their respective departments regarding purchases or construction of capital items.
Generally speaking, a capital item has a cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life of 3 years or
more. The CIP is adopted and updated annually.
As departments prepare their respective CIP’s, they are asked to provide specific information
which is inputted into the City’s Capital Improvement software. They are asked to consider the
importance of the capital need and classify them as follows:
1) Have to do – meaning required by mandate, to maintain a system or business need.
2) Smart to do – meaning makes sound business sense, anticipates opportunities and
takes advantage of them.
3) Would like to do – meaning if resources became available or made available, it would
make business sense but not as crucial as the Smart to do items.
Items such as name, useful life, staff contact, description, justification, cost, funding source and
budget impact are some pieces of information that staff prepare. Staff is asked to work with other
departments and especially with Finance on items such as cost and funding source, especially when
the proposed project or purchase impacts several departments or needs to be funded by several sources.
The first draft of the CIP is due to Finance by the middle of May each year, with additional
opportunities for revisions occurring in late July and late September or early October. These
revision periods are meant for fine tuning costs or funding sources for projects and any possible
additions or deletions of projects based on updated business needs or council direction. A draft of
the 2018-2027 CIP was included in the September 5, 2017 budget staff report.
Long Range Financial Management Plan – (LRFMP)
Upon submission of the CIP in the middle of May, Finance is then able to take the information and
input the data into the LRFMP. During this process the projects are reviewed by funding source
and year, and then are input by funding source total, not individually, into the LRFMP. Next, each
fund is looked at individually to determine if current funding projections are adequate to fund the
proposed capital items, maintain long-term sustainability and meet suggested fund or cash balance
guidelines. Where there are possible challenges, Finance looks at funds that may have potential
available resources to reallocate, possible changes in funding, such as debt issuance or revenue
enhancements, or delaying/reducing/eliminating some proposed capital items. The latter occurs
through discussions with the City Manager and the affected department(s) to determine the best
course of action for the City.
Fund Definitions Used in the LRFMP
To help facilitate the discussion on the LRFMP, staff thought it would be beneficial to provide
definitions of the funds in the LRFMP, in addition to some basic information on each fund. The
following definitions are in the order of the attached LRFMP document:
Cable Television Fund - Produces and broadcasts all cable television programming for cable
channels 14, 15, 16, 17 & 96. Revenues are generated from Comcast franchise fees and a Time
Warner Grant specifically for capital. The current franchise agreement is scheduled to end in 2021.
Significant expenditures paid by this fund are for personnel and capital.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates
Police & Fire Pension Fund – This fund was created from an overfunded portion of the state
mandated PERF pension that was refunded back to the City a number of years ago. These funds
can only be used for capital needs and certain personnel costs related to police or fire purposes.
These one-time proceeds have been and will continue to be used primarily for capital purchases.
For example, the fund contributed over $2 million to the Fire Stations, is being utilized for the
purchase of the dispatch hardware and software and for the purchase of a ladder truck. Starting in
2025 we will need to find another funding source for the capital outlay items. In the next few
years we will begin transitioning the remaining capital items out of this fund.
A few of the 2018 projects in this fund include:
Fire-Patient Contact System
Police-800 MHZ mobile police radios
Police-Dispatch camera viewing workstations.
Housing Rehabilitation Fund - Primarily covers costs for programs related to maintaining quality
and diverse housing stock within the City. The programs in this Fund are funded through the
administration fee the City receives from Private Activity Revenue Bonds and some Park Center
TIF dollars. The Housing Improvement Areas (HIA’s) are also shown in this Fund, with the fees
from each HIA covering the costs of each project.
Starting with the 2018 budget, $10,000 is included for Senior Community Services.
Development Fund - Used for general City or EDA projects. The fund was created from excess
tax increment revenues from pre-1979 districts when the rules on tax increment were much less
restrictive. The current sources of revenue are interest income, parking ramp/lot revenues,
interfund loan repayments and special assessments. This fund is used to help finance projects by
loaning money to other funds, for land purchases or other short-term EDA projects. The
Development Fund is essentially a non-renewable fund that cannot be replenished from excess
increment any longer due to more strict rules regarding the use of tax increment.
Please note that the fund anticipates some land sales in 2017 and 2018. Depending on the timing
of these land sales the cash position would decrease significantly until the sales take place - $6.8
million in 2017 and $7.5 million in 2018.
HRA Levy - This fund is to be used for infrastructure construction in redevelopment areas and
qualifying housing programs. The revenue source for this fund is the HRA Tax Levy. This Fund
has financed both the Highway 7 & Wooddale project and the Highway 7 & Louisiana project.
Currently, this fund’s full resources are obligated until 2019 or 2020 for paying for the Highway
7 and Louisiana project and repaying the Development Fund for funds advanced to cover that project.
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) – Provides cash flow for project construction
and is repaid through reimbursements from Municipal State Aid (MSA), or special assessments.
The PIR Fund is also used as a short-term borrowing mechanism to other City funds for year-end
accounting purposes. The fund anticipates short-term borrowing to the pavement management
fund in 2018 and 2020.
Park Improvement Fund - This fund is responsible for financing capital expenditures within City
parks and improvement of park facilities. The primary sources of revenue are property taxes and
Park Dedication Fees. While Park Dedication revenues are programmed in the future years, the
timing is only an estimate as it is tied to development projections.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates
A few of the 2018 projects include:
Birchwood Park playground equipment replacement
Roxbury Park playground equipment replacement
Shelard Park playground equipment replacement
Rec Center Door replacement (front & arena)
Rec Center Roof replacement – east arena/front office
Rec Center west arena bathroom and catering kitchen remodel
Note: The draft CIP does not include anything for the fast pitch project at this time. We can model
any scenarios at the meeting.
Pavement Management Fund - Funds are used for pavement rehabilitation within the City. The
revenue sources for this fund are CenterPoint and Xcel franchise fees charged to customers within
the City. The LRFMP does anticipate franchise fee increases in 2019 and 2021.
A few of the 2018 projects include:
Local Street Rehab (Area 6)
Commercial Street Rehab
Sealcoating and alley construction projects
Parking Lot- City Hall East
Sidewalk and Trails Fund (Connect the Park) – This fund accounts for revenues and
expenditures related to the enhancement of the City’s sidewalks and trails system. The major
source of revenue for this fund is General Obligation Bonds (G.O. Bonds) which are repaid through
a property tax levy. The possibility of receiving grants in the future will also be explored for
financing some of the projects in the plan. The plan also includes the various GAP sidewalk segments.
Capital Replacement Fund – Funds technology, buildings, and equipment capital expenditures.
The primary funding sources are property taxes and charges to other funds for equipment
replacement. The Local Government Aid allocated by the State is projected through 2019 and is
also in this Fund. Staff has been working really hard to ensure this fund is well maintained over
the next 10 years as it finances various capital expenditures.
A few of the 2018 projects include:
Various ongoing software licenses and maintenance
Ongoing hardware and network replacements
Office 365 implementation and training
Police body and dash cameras
Police cubicle remodel
Fire department AV replacement/upgrades
Annual fleet vehicle replacements
Westwood Nature Center Design Fees (continued from 2017)
Utility Funds: The rate plans for the various Utility Funds were included in the September 5, 2017
Council work session packet. A summary of the funds is as follows:
• Water: For 2018, the City will be in the eighth year of the ten year plan for increasing the
fixed rate charges to reduce volatility in the fund due to seasonal usage fluctuations. Usage
rates will also be increased to meet more aggressive demands for infrastructure
replacement within the City’s aging system. Water mains within the programmed
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates
pavement management areas are evaluated for age, condition and number of
breaks. Sections that are more than 50 years old, in poor condition, or have had more than
five breaks are considered for replacement. All coordination is done with our pavement
management planning team.
Significant expenses for this fund are capital, staffing, the Reilly Superfund site and debt
service. In 2018, staff will upgrade the SCADA control system at all sites. This cost will
be split 1/3 water, sewer, storm sewer ($800,000 each). Staff is anticipating to issue bonds
in the amount of $6.3m in 2018 for the remaining portion of the Water Treatment Plant 4
project and other 2018 capital projects. These bonds will be repaid with utility revenues.
The rate change is consistent with last year at 6 percent.
Staff is further studying water conservation, irrigation and rates to prepare for
recommendations for 2019 rates. This could include adding a lower first tier to our
residential tier structure and adding a second tier for commercial.
• Sewer: Rates are also expected to increase due to the City’s more aggressive infrastructure
replacement plan. In conjunction with the Water bond issue we anticipate issuing a sewer
bond in the amount of $840,000 in 2018. These bonds will be repaid with utility revenues.
Sewer costs are mainly to support the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services
charge (MCES), staffing and capital costs. The rate change is proposed at 5 percent in
2018. The fund has 1/3 the cost of the SCADA project for 2018 ($800,000).
Staff is further studying the sewer winter average credit to see if we could adjust rates to
billing based solely on gallons used. Staff will be evaluating impacts to customers and
financial modeling to ensure it makes sense for 2019 rates.
• Storm Water: With the strong interest the Council and community has in surface water,
staff will continue to develop, modify, connect and communicate programs to both the City
Council and the community. With the updated 10-year plan staff is recommending the rate
increase by 6 percent for 2018. These increases will help meet the increased capital needs
and debt service obligations. Significant expenses for this fund currently are capital and
staffing. The fund has 1/3 the cost of the SCADA project for 2018 ($800,000).
• Solid Waste: Staff is recommending a 5 percent rate adjustment to our solid waste
customers for 2018. This fund will have to be actively reviewed once the new contracts
are in place to monitor how many customers continue to downsize container sizes. For
2019, staff will look to determine if the rate structure meets all needs once the new contracts
are in place.
Uninsured Loss Fund - This fund covers self-insured workers comp claims, property and liability
claim deductibles that are underwritten by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
Revenues are from reimbursement on claims or from transfers from the General Fund.
Benefits Administration Fund - This fund covers the cost of insurance, unemployment, flex leave
payouts, and tuition reimbursement. Revenue sources are from property tax dollars or transfers
from the General Fund. This will be a fund that we will be monitoring closely as we have increased
expenditures for retirement payments.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates
Other Items
The two items below were discussed at the August 14th budget work session and staff wishes to
know if the Council needs any additional information on these two items.
Non Profit Funding
QUESTION: What is the current level of funding contribution for Non-profits in the city?
ANSWER: The chart below show actuals with proposed budgets for 2018.
2014 Actual 2015 Actual 2016 Actual 2017 Budget 2018 Budget
Cornerstone 32,636$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 37,500$
MoveFwd -$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$
Cornerhouse 7,085$ 7,085$ 7,227$ 7,372$
Nothern Star Juvenile Diversion 9,500$ 9,500$ -$ 9,500$ 9,500$
Friends of the Arts-Grant Program 16,000$ 16,000$ 16,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$
Friends of the Arts 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$
Reach for Resources 20,000$ 22,003$ 22,562$ 19,100$ 16,000$
STEP 40,000$ 40,000$ 45,000$ 45,900$ 46,820$
STEP Emergency Housing Fund -$ -$ 15,000$ -$ -$
Senior Community Services (1)-$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$
Prism-Dial a Ride 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
(1) = New funding request for 2018
The funding noted above has been programmed into various budget for 2018. Would the Council
like to make any changes for 2018?
Multi-Family (MF) Rental Properties
QUESTION: What might a Multi-Family grant program look like regarding playground/rec
equipment?
ANSWER: A possible MF grant program for playground/rec equipment could be designed using
the following program outline:
• MF rental properties with more than 4 units would be eligible;
• 100% grant to properties where more than 50% of the units are affordable to households at
60% AMI or below;
• 50% matching grant to all other properties;
• Properties receiving 100% grant must enter into agreement to maintain affordable rents for
3 years or they will be required to repay 50% of the grant;
• Maximum grant amount $20,000; minimum $1000;
• Grant funds can be used for equipment and installation;
• All requests would have to be evaluated and approved by CD and Parks & Ops;
• Initial budget of $30,000 from Housing and Redevelopment Fund for pilot year;
• Evaluate demand/interest and adjust budget accordingly for subsequent years.
Would Council like staff to finalize a program as listed above?
Debt Model
Staff is updating the debt model previously reviewed with Council and will provide handouts at
the meeting and review how it works in conjunction with the CIP and LRFMP.
&<
GF
XY
kjkj
kj
kj
89:|
89:|
89:|
¥k£
Shelard Park
KilmerPond
Blackstone
Westdale
WestwoodHills
Eliot
PennsylvaniaPark
Crestview
Cedarhurst
Lake Forest
Eliot ViewWillow Park
Birchwood
Cedar Manor
Bronx Park Fern HillTexa Tonka
Cobblecrest
Lenox
SorensenOak Hill
Aquila
Triangle
Minnehaha
Amhurst
Elmwood
MinikahdaVista
SouthOak Hill
Brooklawns
Meadowbrook
Browndale
BrooksideCreekside
MinikhadaOaks
Wolfe Park
0 1 20.5
Miles ´
2018 Projects
Legend
Street Rehab
MSA Rehab and Bikeway Installation
MNDOT Highway 7 Rehab
Proposed Sidewalks
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Alley Rehab
&<Pedestrian Activated Crossing
"Bridge Construction
GF Intersection Work
!@ City Hall Upper Parking Lot
!@ Lake & Walker Parking Lot
3Q Water Treatment Plant #4
3Q Water Treatment Plant #16
XYOregon Pond Maintenance
kj Fiber installation will be considered
Utility Stations to be Updated to Fiber
89:|Birchwood Park - Replace Playground Equipment
89:|Roxbury Park - Replace Playground Equipment
89:|Shelard Park - Replace Playground Equipment¥k£Rec Center Building Maintenance
2010 Census Block GroupsPercent NonWhite
4% - 8%
9% - 14%
15% - 21%
22% - 37%
38% - 56%
City Limits
Date: 10/4/2017
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates Page 7
Capital Improvement ProgramCity of St. Louis Park, MNPROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE2018 2027thruTotal2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # PriorityCable TV - Time Warner Equipment 20,00020,000Van Camera Cases11151002313,00013,000Van Camera Cables11151003310,00010,000Tripods for On Location11151007111,00011,000Server Upgrade for 15/9611151010140,00040,000Council Chambers HD pan/tilt cameras1117200712,0002,000300-foot audio snake & reel11181001140040050-foot audio snake1118100311,5001,500Behringer Audio Equipment1118100417,5007,500Camcorders1118100511,5001,500DVD recorders111810061900900Unit pro light kit11181007128,00028,000Webstreaming Computer Replacement11181008n/a500500DVD Recorders11191001130,00030,000Slow-motion replay11191002170070012-channel audio mixer111910031500500Shotgun mics111910041300300Hand-held mics1119100519,0009,000NLE stations for Community TV users111910061900900Microphones1119100711,5001,500Tripods11191008135,00035,000Replacement edit systems111910091280,000140,000 140,000Van Cameras11201001320,00020,000Van Camera Cases11201002313,00013,000Van Camera Cables11201003315,00015,000LCD monitors11201004315,00015,000Studio cameras112010051Monday, October 02, 2017Page 12018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 8
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority900900Microphones1120100612,5002,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder1120100816,0006,000Converter for Recorder11201009112,00012,000Tripods for On Location1120101014,2004,200SD/HD converter11201011116,50016,500Video Switcher1120101211,5001,500DVD recorder11201013128,20028,200Playback systems1120101417,0007,000Production switcher1120101511,2001,200Teleprompter1120101619,0009,000Digital camcordersTV-2014041TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant Total646,200244,800 41,900 74,500 1,500 70,500 213,000Capital Replacement Fund50,00025,000 25,000IR: PCI Re-Assessment / Training / Security131250011750,00075,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,00075,000IR: Hosted / Managed Services / DR / BC13135001340,00020,000 20,000OR: AVL / GPS1313500436,0006,000Assessing: Wireless Equipment for Field Work131450023425,00065,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,00040,000Admin Serv:Document Mgmt System Maintenance131550063185,00018,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,50018,500IR: MyStLouisPark CRM13155007115,00015,000Eng: Survey GPS131550163100,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,00010,000IR: Website Maintenance13165004144,00016,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,0004,000Admin Serv: HR Time Management System131650073276,00078,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,00022,000Insp / Comm Dev: Electronic Plans Review Software131650093125,000125,000Fire: Station Alerting Upgrade13175003360,00030,000 30,000IR: Wireless Controller Expansion131750061150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,00015,000Admin Serv: Agenda Management System131750073200,000200,000Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll App Replacement131850011100,000100,000Fire: Zuercher Mobile Solution13185002335,00010,00015,000 10,000Fire: Station Cameras / EOC in 2025131850033100,000100,000IR: Office 365 Project Implementation & Training1318500437,5007,500Insp: PIMS Upgrade131850051Monday, October 02, 2017Page 22018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 9
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority25,00025,000IR: Drone13185007318,00018,000IR: Network Equipment Battery Backup13185009150,00050,000Fire: 800 MHz Paging Upgrade1320500132,500,000250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000250,000IR: On-going Software Licenses, Mtce, Development1399500111,250,000125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000125,000IR: On-going Network Adds & Replacement139950021925,00075,000 50,000 50,000 210,000 80,000 50,000 60,000 220,000 70,00060,000IR: On-going Hardware Adds & Replacement13995003125,00025,000Eng: Engineering Total Station139950101100,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,00010,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software13995011345,00015,000 15,000 15,000Police: EOC Computer / Phone Equipment Replacement1399501332,360,513210,125 215,378 220,763 226,282 231,939 237,737 243,681 249,773 256,017268,818IR: Tablet / Smartphone Hardware and Services13995015138,00019,00019,000Facilities: City Hall Cameras139950163250,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,00025,000Admin Serv - Hubble Budgeting Annual Maintenance13995017350,00025,00025,000OR: Nature Center Surveillance Cameras139950193160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,00016,000IR: Surveillance Camera and S2 Locks Maintenance13995026368,0006,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,8006,800IR: Central City Hall Plotter139950293125,000125,000IR: Telephone Handset / Handless Upgrades13995035360,00025,000 10,000 25,000IR: Remote Building Large Scanner / Plotter13995036360,00060,000Fire: Stations A/V and EOC Presentation Equipment13995037350,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,00010,000IR: Wireless Hotspot Additions / Replacements13995041350,00025,000 25,000IR: UHL Camera Servers Replacement139950573150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,00015,000IR: Adobe Software Products Licensing139950581160,00080,00080,000IR: On-Going Monitor Replacements139950591470,00035,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,00050,000IR: Fiber Locates139950651240,00040,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,00020,000IR: Fiber Asset Management139950663825,000150,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,00075,000Police: Body and Squad Dash Cameras13995067330,00030,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors31150001160,00060,000City Hall Floor 3 Roof Top AC Unit311700031Monday, October 02, 2017Page 32018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 10
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority15,00015,000City Hall B3 Data Inputs31180004315,00015,000City Hall Electric Vehicle Charger31190001160,00060,000City Hall Timber Retaining Walls31200001111,00011,000City Hall Office Light LED Replacement31200004315,00015,000City Hall/Police Campus Landscaping31210001125,00025,000City Hall ITE & Gould Elect Panel Replacement312300013200,000200,000CH Windows, Ext. Coatings and Caulking Replacement31250001n/a15,00015,000City Hall Window Blinds31250002535,00035,000City Hall First Floor Carpet Replacement312600013100,000100,000CH Access Control System Replacement, City Wide31260002315,00015,000CH Update HVAC Controls312700023180,000180,000PD Cubicle Area Remodel3218000236,5006,500Police Replacement Doors in Main Hallways32180003520,00020,000Police Parking and Training Feasability Study32180004310,00010,000Police Station Roll Call/Training Room Chairs32180006145,00045,000Police StationShooting Range Exhaust32190002140,00010,000 30,000Police- Replace Ceiling Tiles32210002380,00080,000Police Station Replace Light Fixtures322100031140,000140,000PD Indivdual Office & Conf Room Remodel322100041100,000100,000Police Dispatch and Kitchen Remodel32220001125,00025,000Police Report Writing Room Remodel32220002375,00075,000Police Station Remodel Restrooms32220003125,00025,000Police Station Blind Replacement32240002365,00065,000Police Station Exterior Masonry Maintenance32270001318,00018,000Police Station Water Heaters32270002112,00012,000PD Replace HVAC Controls32270003375,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000MSC & Fire Stations CO Nox Sensor Replacement33140002125,00025,000MSC Library Cabinets331800035Monday, October 02, 2017Page 42018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 11
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority15,00015,000MSC Counter Gate and 2nd floor wall3318000439,0009,000MSC Election Room Door and Wall3318000538,0008,000MSC HVAC Computer Upgrade33180006315,00015,000MSC Air Compressor Replacement33190001150,00050,000MSC 3rd Bay Sealant and Stripping331900021180,000180,000MSC Car Wash Unit Replace with Automatic3319000315,0005,000MSC Office LED Bulb Replacement33190004320,00020,000MSC Convert Exterior HID to LED33200001350,00050,000MSC 2nd Bay-Sealant33200003185,00085,000MSC Fuel Station Replacement33200004n/a25,00025,000MSC Paint Booth Maintenance33210002312,00012,000MSC Replace HVAC Controls332100033400,000400,000MSC Bays 1, 2 & 3 Roofing33220001320,00010,00010,000MSC Campus Landscaping33220002175,00075,000MSC Access Control/Fobs332200045110,000110,000MSC Hoist Replacement332300033100,000100,000MSC Boiler Replacement33240002385,00085,000MSC Apply West Bay Floor Sealent33240003318,00018,000MSC Carpet Replacement332500013100,000100,000MSC Interior Light Fixtures Replacment332500021100,000100,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Apparatus bay floor coating34160002110,00010,000Fire Station 1 & 2 audio/visual replacements3418000115,0005,000Fire Stations 1&2 Lighting Controls Audit34180002585,00085,000Fire Station 1 Decontamination Laundry3418000337,0007,000Fire Station #1 Adjustable Desks for Offices34180004310,00010,000Fire Station 1&2 HVAC Computer Update34180005350,00050,000Fire Station #1 Training Tower modifications34190001135,00035,000Fire Stations Replace Exercise Equipment34200001512,00012,000Fire Stations Replace HVAC Controls342000033Monday, October 02, 2017Page 52018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 12
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority15,00015,000Fire Station 1&2 Mattress replacement34230001115,00015,000Fire Station #1 and #2 Landscaping34240001135,00035,000FS #1 and #2 Carpet Replacement3424001160,00060,000Fire Station #1 light fixture replacements34260001145,00045,000Fire Station #2 Replace light fixtures352500011700,000700,000Westwood Nature Center Building Design Fees36180001110,00010,000UAV65180001532,0008,000 8,000 8,000 8,000Thermal Imagers65990001160,00020,000 20,000 20,000Outside Warning Sirens659900021373,283373,283SCBA65990003130,00030,000Hydraulic Rescue Tool65990004532,00032,000Auto-CPR Device659900051150,000150,000Turnouts65990006135,00035,000Helmets/Boots65990007318,0005,500 6,000 6,500Air Monitors65990008318,147,9362,271,818 1,562,806 2,156,623 1,475,776 2,219,480 1,430,186 1,165,631 959,275 2,150,9092,755,432Annual Equipment Replacement ProgramE - XX01169,00026,200 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700Laser/Radar and Message BoardPD - 13Capital Replacement Fund Total35,783,7324,849,443 3,135,684 4,291,386 3,370,058 3,965,419 3,131,506 2,561,612 2,843,848 3,599,226 4,035,550E-911 Funds100,000100,000Fire / Police: PSAP Technology Backup131850063165,00080,00085,000Fire / Police: Dispatch Voice Recorders139950071150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,00015,000IR / Communications: Reverse 911 - ParkAlert139950093310,50524,687 25,921 27,217 28,578 30,007 31,507 33,082 34,736 36,47338,297Police: Zuercher CAD Module Annual Fees139950421145,00070,000 75,000911 Server ReplacementPD - 21E-911 Funds Total870,505139,687 110,921 42,217 43,578 125,007 46,507 123,082 49,736 51,473 138,297EDA Development Fund250,000250,000IR: Fiber - Sidewalks / Streets / Citywide131550023400,000200,000 200,000SWLRT: Stations Technology13995051374,75074,750Street - Park Commons @ Monterey401810513Monday, October 02, 2017Page 62018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 13
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority2,000,000666,667 666,667 666,666SWLRT- Base Design401990001593,683148,422 445,261SWLRT- LRCI 32 - CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd.401990031EDA Development Fund Total3,318,4331,339,839 1,311,928 666,666G.O. Bonds2,500,000500,000 300,000 200,000 400,000 500,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 100,000100,000IR: Fiber - Sidewalks / Streets / Citywide13155002311,000,00011,000,000Westwood Naturce Center new building361900021537,625537,625Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)4018100014,145,0004,145,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway401820001652,625652,625Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)4019100012,756,6002,756,600CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway4019200012,062,9281,062,928 1,000,000SWLRT- Base Design401990001623,23864,556 558,682SWLRT- Regional Trail Bridge Upgrades401990041100,000100,000SWLRT- Whistle Quiet @ Wooddale and Beltline401990051641,125641,125Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)4020100011,152,0001,152,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway402020001721,625721,625Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)402110001733,000733,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway402120001727,375727,375Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)4022100015,742,0005,742,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway402220001457,125457,125Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)4023100015,605,0005,605,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway402320001649,750649,750Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)402410001773,375773,375Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)402510001649,750649,750Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)402610001649,750649,750Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)402710001G.O. Bonds Total42,879,8916,245,553 15,773,781 2,651,807 1,854,625 6,969,375 6,162,125 849,750 873,375 749,750 749,750G.O. Tax Increment Bonds2,338,2672,338,267SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at Beltline Station401990061G.O. Tax Increment Bonds Total2,338,2672,338,267Monday, October 02, 2017Page 72018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 14
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # PriorityHockey Association937,502104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,174Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Rink241450195Hockey Association Total937,502104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,174Met Council Grant2,700,0002,700,000SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at Beltline Station401990061Met Council Grant Total2,700,0002,700,000Municipal State Aid1,615,5001,615,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Ave)401711001438,500438,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Aquila)401811001345,000345,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas S of Hwy 7)4018110113,790,000620,000 3,170,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek4018170013,316,5003,316,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E of Lou)401911001253,000253,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Ottawa)401911011875,500875,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Beltline Blvd)4019110214,752,5004,752,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas N of Mtka)402011003100,000100,000Railroad - Whistle Quiet Zones4020130051,105,5001,105,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR Texas to Lou)4021110011,416,0001,416,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard Pkwy)4022110011,105,5001,105,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR TH169 to Texas)4022110111,830,0001,830,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)402311001680,000680,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th St)4024110011,380,0001,380,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)4025110011,380,0001,380,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)4026110011,380,0001,380,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)402711001Municipal State Aid Total25,763,5001,403,500 7,615,000 4,852,500 2,721,000 2,521,500 1,830,000 680,000 1,380,000 1,380,000 1,380,000Monday, October 02, 2017Page 82018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 15
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates Page 16
Source # Priority 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
Park Improvement Fund
OR: Nature Center Fiber Relocation
OR: Activities Registration/Facilities
Mgmt System
OR: Asset Mgmt Software
OR: Rec Center / ROC / Lot Camera
Replacements
OR: Oak Hill Camera/Security/Wi-Fi
Replacements
OR: Park Shelter (Smaller) Camera
Replacements
OR: Wolfe Park / Amphitheatre /
Pool Wi-Fi Replace
OR: Birchwood Cameras / S2
Security
OR: Wolfe Park Pavilion S2 /
Amphitheatre Cameras
OR: Rec Center West Arena Area
Sound System / PA
OR: Rec Center East Arena Area
Sound System / PA
OR: Rec Banquet Room & Gallery
AN System Replace.
Court Resurface (BB) Aquila Park
Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park
Repaint Park Building - Birchwood
Park
Repaint Park Building - Browndale
Park
Repaint Park Building - Carpenter
Park
Parking Lot Resurface - Cedar Knoll
Park
Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll
Park
Parking Lot Resurface - Creekside
Park
Dakota Bridge
Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park
Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park
Park Sun Shelter Roof - Jackley Park
40th & France Fencing & Parking Lot
13175008 1 25,000 25,000
13185008 3 11,100 16,200 27,300
13995011 3 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 100,000
13995025 1 43,000 62,000 43,000 62,000 210,000
13995052 3 5,000 25,000 5,000 25,000 60,000
13995053 3 11,000 7,000 18,000
13995054 3 5,000 5,000
13995060
13995061
13995062
13995063
3 30,000
3 15,000
1 45,000
1 40,000
13995064 1
30,000 60,000
15,000 30,000
45,000
40,000
65,000 65,000
21180301 3 7,500 7,500
21180321 1 7,000 7,000
21180622 1 7,000 7,000
21181023 1 7,000 7,000
21181124 1 6,000 6,000
21181306 1 6,000 6,000
21181325 1 2,000 2,000
21181707 1 8,000 8,000
21181805 1 86,250 86,250
21181826 1 4,000 4,000
21182127 1 5,000 5,000
21182634 3 7,000 7,000
21183202 n/a 50,000 50,000
2018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement Plan Page 9 Monday, October 02, 2017
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority35,00035,000Trail Poles and Lights - Louisiana Oaks Park21183605n/a7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Louisiana Oaks Park2118362818,0008,000Parking Lot Resurface - Nelson Park2118420817,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park2118422916,0006,000Repaint Park Building - Northside Park2118433019,0009,000Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park2118443112,0002,000Court Resurface (BB) Roxbury Park2118510232,0002,000Court Resurface (BB) Shelard Park2118520333,0003,000Court Resurface (BB) Wolfe Park2118640417,0007,000Playground Improvements21189934320,00020,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Aquila Park21190304310,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Birchwood Park21190613195,00095,000Light Replacement Hockey Rink-Browndale Park21191002520,00020,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Dakota Park21191805375,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Dakota Park21191815145,00045,000Trail Reconstruction - Fern Hill Park21192116110,00010,000Wolfe Park Building Floor Upgrade21196403n/a20,00020,000ADA Connections to Picnic Shelter/Playgrounds21199901180,00080,000Trail Restoration21199905330,00030,000Trail Sealcoat - Various Trails21199917115,00015,000Trail Reconstruction - Bronx Park21200912160,00060,000ADA Trail Compliance - Cedar Manor Park Trail21202401120,00020,000Trail Reconstruction - Keystone Park21203013120,00020,000Trail Reconstruction - Northside Park21204314160,00060,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Rec Center21205009115,00015,000ADA Compliant - Picnic Tables212099011113,500113,500Trail Reconstruction - Bass Lake Park212104113125,000125,000Carpenter Park Tennis Court Renovation21211119365,00065,000Trail Reconstruction - Louisiana Oaks Park21213614375,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Oak Hill Park21214415385,00085,000Trail Reconstruction - Wolfe Park212164163Monday, October 02, 2017Page 102018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 17
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority45,00045,000Trail Reconstruction - Franklin21219912345,00045,000Trail Reconstruction - Jordan21219913350,00050,000Trail Reconstruction - Minnehaha Creek21224109330,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Otten Pond21234611310,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Roxbury Park21235112310,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Twin Lakes Park2123581332,0002,000Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll Park2124013017,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park21240306175,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Aquila Park2124031737,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Birchwood Park2124060717,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Browndale Park2124100816,0006,000Repaint Park Building - Carpenter Park21241109150,00050,000Trail Reconstruction - Carpenter Park2124111834,0004,000Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park2124181115,0005,000Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park21242112130,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Jersey Park2124271917,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Louisiana Oaks Park2124361317,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park2124421416,0006,000Repaint Park Building - Northside Park2124431519,0009,000Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park21244416140,00040,000Trail Reconstruction - Lamplighter Park21253401380,00080,000Light Replacement Hockey Rink-Oak Hill Park21254401550,00050,000Lighting Control System System-Oak Hill Park21254402530,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Westwood Hills NC212562023100,000100,000Wolfe Park Amphitheater Pavers212564033100,000100,000Trail Reconstruction212599033150,000150,000Park Shelter Replacement212599053100,000100,000Trail Lighting21259906365,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Ainsworth Park219901011Monday, October 02, 2017Page 112018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 18
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority85,00085,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Aquila Park21990301162,50062,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Birchwood Park21990611165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Bronx Park21990902165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Browndale Park21991002165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Carpenter Park21991102165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedar Manor Park21991403165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedarhurst Park21991503165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Center Park21991604165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Parkview Park21991712165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Edgebrook Park21991918185,00085,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Fern Hill Park21992110167,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Hampshire Park21992401165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jackley Park21992611165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jorvig Park21992801165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Knollwood Green21993217165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Meadowbrook Manor Park21993801165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Minikahda Vista Park21994002167,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oak Hill Park (Tot)219944021100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oak Hill Park (Big)21994403165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oregon Park21994502165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Pennsylvania Park21994803162,50062,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Roxbury Park21995113162,50062,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Shelard Park21995214165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunset Park21995403165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunshine Park21995406165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Texa-Tonka Park219956071Monday, October 02, 2017Page 122018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 19
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority62,50062,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Webster Park219961121100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Westwood Hills NC21996204165,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Willow Park21996308195,50095,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park EVOS21996402167,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park (tot)219964031160,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Playground Woodchips219999021160,000100,000 60,000Trail Repayment - Minnehaha Creek219999031200,000200,000Playground Equipment Replacement21999904115,00015,000ADA Trails & Connections Accessibility Impr.21999905115,00015,000Community Garden - Browndale22181035110,00010,000Louisiana Canoe Landing Trail Access Rebuild22193603110,00010,000Landscaping at MSC22199901n/a15,0005,000 5,000 5,000Great River Greening22199902n/a15,00015,000Minnehaha Creek Restoration22204110n/a15,00015,000Park Community Garden - Webster Park22206115120,00020,000Landscape - Police and Fire Depts, and City Hall22219905n/a600,00075,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000Tree Replacement22999901315,00015,000Westwood Hills NC T-Dock Redecking23186204n/a8,0008,000Westwood Hills NC Lower Building Maintenance23186232150,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Phase 223196218180,00080,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House ADA Compliance23196219140,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Rotary Deck Rebuild23206201n/a40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Staircase Rebuild23216216175,00075,000Westwood Hills NC Water Garden, Phase 223226210525,00025,000Westwood Hills NC Trail Bench Replacement23236214150,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Phase 3232462201Monday, October 02, 2017Page 132018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 20
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority100,000100,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Phase 123256203350,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Waterfall23256204530,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Trail Sign Replacement23266202n/a42,50022,500 20,000Westwood Hillls NC Master Revegetation Plan2399622738,0008,000ROC Movie Screen24185001n/a50,00050,000Rec Center Banquet & Gallery Remodel241850151120,000120,000Rec Center Door Replacement (Front & Arena)24185016370,00015,000 20,000 15,000 20,000Rec Center Landscaping241850173500,000500,000Rec Center Roof Rplc-East Arena/Front Office241850181100,000100,000Rec Center Upstairs Bthrm&Ctrng Kitchn Remodel24185019140,00040,000Rec Center West Arena Window Replacement241850201175,000175,000Rec Center Exterior Building Repair24185024315,00015,000Rec Center Banquet Room & Gallery Chair Repl.24195010350,00050,000Rec Center East Arena Locker Room Remodel24195011175,00075,000Rec Center Front Office AC Replacement24195012130,00030,000Rec Center East Arena Score Boards241950131300,000300,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Amenity Replacement242050053200,000200,000Rec Center Marquee24205008375,00075,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Sun Shelter Repl24205010110,00010,000Rec Center Rental Skate Replacement (Ph 1)24205011132,50032,500Rec Center Scoreboard Replacement24205012315,00015,000Rec Center Arena Compressor Rebuild242150061250,000250,000Rec Center Arena Rubber Floor24215007125,00025,000Rec Center Dasher Board Repair24215008310,00010,000Rec Center Rental Skate Replacement (Ph 2)242150110150,00050,000Rec Center Lighting Upgrade242150181Monday, October 02, 2017Page 142018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 21
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority60,00060,000Rec Center East Arena Painting242250061250,000250,000Rec Center Arenas Rubber Floor Replacement24225007125,00025,000Rec Center Skate Sharpener24225010115,00015,000Rec Center Arena Compressor Rebuild24235007175,00075,000Rec Center Arena Water Treatment Repl24235008175,00075,000Rec Center West Arena Painting242350091500,000500,000Rec Center West Arena Roof Replacement242350101400,000400,000Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification242450031500,000500,000Rec Center Generator Replacement24245004195,00095,000Recreation Outdoor Complex - Turf Replacement2426500111,000,0001,000,000Rec Center Boiler Replacement242650041300,000150,000150,000Rec Center Dasher Boards24995003125,00025,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Main Drain Replacement2520021715,0005,000Rec Center Concession Eqpt. Replacement252050071100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Locker Room Remodel2522020535,0005,000Rec Center Concession Eqpt. Replacement25230204320,0005,000 5,000 10,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck Furniture259902121Park Improvement Fund Total12,802,0501,908,850 1,303,700 1,352,500 1,354,500 1,337,500 1,065,000 1,492,000 1,150,000 1,424,000 414,000Pavement Management Fund129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4018000312,150,5002,150,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)401810001690,000690,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab401810501333,995333,995Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)401812001677,440677,440Alley Construction401815003110,000110,000Parking Lot - City Hall East40181600177,5007,500 70,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek401817001129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB401900031Monday, October 02, 2017Page 152018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 22
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority2,610,5002,610,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)401910001333,053333,053Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)401912001493,480493,480Alley Construction40191500370,62070,620Parking Lot - MSC401916011129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4020000312,564,5002,564,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)4020100011,058,0001,058,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab402010501332,092332,092Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)402012001593,490593,490Alley Construction40201500338,58838,588Parking Lot - City Hall Lower40201600117,85017,850Parking Lot - Fire Stn #140201601112,60012,600Parking Lot - Fire Stn #2402016021129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4021000312,886,5002,886,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)402110001331,111331,111Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)402112001505,890505,890Alley Construction402115003129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4022000312,909,5002,909,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)4022100011,391,5001,391,500Street - Commercial Street Rehab402210501331,100331,100Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)402212001616,850616,850Alley Construction402215003461,500461,500Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha Creek402217001129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4023000311,828,5001,828,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)402310001331,100331,100Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)402312001451,870451,870Alley Construction402315003105,919105,919Parking Lot - Louisiana Park & Ride (N&S)402316001129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4024000312,599,0002,599,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)4024100011,092,5001,092,500Street - Commercial Street Rehab402410501Monday, October 02, 2017Page 162018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 23
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority331,100331,100Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)402412001307,330307,330Alley Construction402415003129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4025000313,093,5003,093,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)402510001331,100331,100Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)402512001310,250310,250Alley Construction402515003129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4026000312,599,0002,599,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)402610001598,000598,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab402610501331,100331,100Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)402612001220,460220,460Alley Construction402615003482,750482,750Bridge - Meadowbrook @ Minnehaha Creek402617001129,250129,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB4027000312,599,0002,599,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)402710001331,100331,100Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)402712001Pavement Management Fund Total40,834,2384,098,685 3,706,903 4,746,370 3,852,751 5,839,700 2,846,639 4,459,180 3,864,100 4,360,560 3,059,350Police & Fire Pension400,000400,000Police: New CAD/RMS/Mobile Suite131450103160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,00016,000Police: ZuercherTech Crime Analysis Add-On Module13155020350,00050,000Fire: Patient Contact System131750093200,000100,000 100,000Police: 800 MHz Mobile Police Radios139950041550,00025,000 125,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 25,00025,000Police: Squad Computers / High Speed Service13995006146,00023,000 23,000Police: Jail Cameras13995021124,00012,000 12,000Police: Exterior Cameras13995022113,0006,500 6,500Police: Booking and Intox Room Cameras (2)139950231110,00055,000 55,000Police: Dispatch Camera Viewing Workstations13995024113,0006,500 6,500Police: Interview Room Cameras139950401Monday, October 02, 2017Page 172018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 24
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority220,000100,000 120,000Police: Comm Van Upgrades / EOC Presentation Equip13995043378,00078,000Fire: 800 MHz Mobile Fire Radios13995050160,00020,000 20,000 20,000Police: High Speed Cell Squad Modem Replacements13995055350,0005,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,0005,000Police: Specialized Dictation System13995056322,00022,000Police-LPR replacement619900013Police & Fire Pension Total1,996,000312,500 330,500 168,000 46,000 166,000 142,500 452,500 266,000 66,000 46,000Police Budget10,00010,000SWAT Rifle replacement20180001115,00015,000SWAT Robot2018000237,0007,000SWAT Ballistic Shields201800031Police Budget Total32,0007,000 15,000 10,000PW Operations Budget46,50046,500Traffic Signal - Repl Control Cabinets40161300195,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40180003147,10547,105Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)40181200195,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40190003148,04748,047Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)40191200195,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40200003149,00849,008Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)40201200195,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40210003149,98949,989Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)40211200195,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40220003150,00050,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)40221200195,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40230003150,00050,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)402312001Monday, October 02, 2017Page 182018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 25
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40240003150,00050,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)40241200195,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40250003150,00050,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)40251200195,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40260003150,00050,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)40261200195,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB40270003150,00050,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)402712001165,000165,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2018)50184101115,50015,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2018)501843013170,000170,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2019)50194101116,00016,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2019)501943013175,000175,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2020)50204101116,50016,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2020)502043013180,000180,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2021)50214101117,00017,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2021)502143013185,000185,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2022)50224101117,50017,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2022)502243013190,000190,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2023)50234101118,00018,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2023)502343013195,000195,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2024)50244101118,50018,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2024)502443013200,000200,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2025)50254101119,00019,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2025)502543013205,000205,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2026)50264101319,50019,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2026)502643013Monday, October 02, 2017Page 192018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 26
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority210,000210,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2027)50274101320,00020,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2027)502743013PW Operations Budget Total3,543,149322,605 375,547 335,508 341,989 347,500 353,000 358,500 364,000 369,500 375,000Sanitary Sewer Utility6,670667 667 667 667 667 667 667 667 667667Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI Service13155014351,00051,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App Replacement131950011180,00018,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,00018,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software13995011315,00010,000 5,000OR: MSC Cameras13995031349,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Ave)401711001165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40181000127,50027,500Street - Commercial Street Rehab40181050149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Aquila)40181100149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas S of Hwy 7)401811011460,000460,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 7)401830001165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E of Lou)40191100149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Ottawa)40191101149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Beltline Blvd)401911021480,000480,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 8)401930001165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000155,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab40201050149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas N of Mtka)402011003510,000510,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 1)402030001165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR Texas to Lou)402111001520,000520,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 2)402130001165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000155,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab402210501Monday, October 02, 2017Page 202018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 27
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard Pkwy)40221100149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR TH169 to Texas)402211011540,000540,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 3)402230001165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)402311001570,000570,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 4)402330001165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000155,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab40241050149,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th St)402411001580,000580,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 5)402430001165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)402510001165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000127,50027,500Street - Commercial Street Rehab402610501165,000165,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)402710001800,000800,000Upgrade SCADA Control System, All Sites53185006368,00068,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #9)53185101338,00038,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #7)53195101358,00058,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #19)53205101341,00041,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #5)53215101320,00020,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #15)53225101377,50077,500Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #23)53225102365,00065,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #21)53235101365,00065,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #22)53235102367,50067,500Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #13)53245101380,00080,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #14)53265101350,00050,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #15)532751013Sanitary Sewer Utility Total7,806,6701,638,167 911,167 856,167 843,667 975,167 933,167 940,667 183,667 291,167 233,667Solid Waste Utility50,00050,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App Replacement13195001110,0005,000 5,000OR: MSC Cameras139950313Monday, October 02, 2017Page 212018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 28
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # PrioritySolid Waste Utility Total60,00055,000 5,000Special Assessments108,749108,749Parking Lot - Lake St & Walker401816011397,058397,058Parking Lot - Lake and Wooddale (NW corner)401916001129,953129,953Parking Lot - Alabama & Excelsior Blvd40211600171,02671,026Parking Lot - 27th St & Louisiana402216001Special Assessments Total706,786108,749 397,058 129,953 71,026State of Minnesota1,770,0001,770,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek401817001180,000180,000Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha Creek4022170011,652,7501,652,750Bridge - Meadowbrook @ Minnehaha Creek402617001State of Minnesota Total3,602,7501,770,000 180,000 1,652,750Stormwater Utility6,670667 667 667 667 667 667 667 667 667667Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI Service13155014351,00051,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App Replacement13195001115,0005,000 10,000OR: MSC Cameras13995031386,25086,250Dakota Bridge211818051693,000693,000Storm Water- Walker Pond Expansion40174000155,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB401800031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40181000155,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab401810501250,560250,560Alley Construction401815003187,500187,500Storm Water- Oregon Pond Basin Rehab401840001150,000150,000Storm Water- Local SW Mgmt Plan40184100135,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards40184500355,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB401900031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)401910001Monday, October 02, 2017Page 222018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 29
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority182,520182,520Alley Construction401915003312,500312,500Storm Water- Sumter Pond Rehab401940001190,000190,000Storm Water- Wetland Inventory Update40194100335,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards40194500355,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB402000031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)402010001110,000110,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab402010501219,510219,510Alley Construction402015003437,500437,500Storm Water- Browndale Pond Rehab40204000135,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards40204500355,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB402100031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)402110001187,110187,110Alley Construction40211500393,75093,750Storm Water- Minnehaha Creek Equalizer Pipe402140003187,500187,500Storm Water- Klodt Pond Rehab40214001135,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards40214500355,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB402200031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)402210001110,000110,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab402210501228,150228,150Alley Construction402215003250,000250,000Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha Creek402217001312,500312,500Storm Water- Westdale Sed Basin Rehab40224000135,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards40224500355,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB402300031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)402310001167,130167,130Alley Construction402315003472,500472,500Storm Water- Cedar Manor Lake Rehab40234000135,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards40234500355,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB402400031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)402410001110,000110,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab402410501Monday, October 02, 2017Page 232018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 30
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority113,670113,670Alley Construction402415003437,500437,500Storm Water- Louisiana Oaks & South Oak Pond Rehab402440001250,000250,000Storm Water- Lamplighter Pond Rehab40244001135,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards40244500355,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB402500031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)402510001114,750114,750Alley Construction402515003312,500312,500Storm Water- Otten Pond Rehab40254000135,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards40254500355,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB402600031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000155,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab40261050181,54081,540Alley Construction40261500393,75093,750Storm Water- Shelard Sediment Basin Rehab40264000135,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards40264500355,00055,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB402700031330,000330,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)402710001187,500187,500Storm Water- Hampshire Pond Rehab40274000135,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards402745003800,000800,000Upgrade SCADA Control System, All Sites53185006346,00046,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2018)53185302341,00041,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #5)53195301348,00048,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2019)53195302350,00050,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2020)53205301343,00043,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #1)53205302352,00052,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2021)53215301354,00054,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2022)53225301356,00056,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2023)53235301358,00058,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2024)53245301329,00029,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #4)53245302360,00060,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2025)53255301362,00062,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2026)53265301364,00064,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2027)532753013Monday, October 02, 2017Page 242018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 31
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # PriorityStormwater Utility Total12,374,8602,688,977 1,250,687 1,280,677 941,027 1,375,317 1,116,297 1,428,837 907,917 712,957 672,167Tax Increment - Elmwood2,200,0002,200,000SWLRT- Wooddale Ave Bridge Widening4019900712,039,0512,039,051Street- W 36th Street Reconstruction4020600032,000,0002,000,000Street- Wooddale Ave Reconstruction402060013Tax Increment - Elmwood Total6,239,0512,200,000 4,039,051U.S. Government2,918,4002,918,400CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway4019200016,453,0546,453,054SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at Beltline Station401990061560,000560,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway402020001U.S. Government Total9,931,4549,371,454 560,000Unfunded185,000185,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1A (2018)501841021200,000200,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1B (2019)501941021190,000190,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1C (2020)502041021170,000170,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1D (2021)502141021235,000235,000Street Light Replacement, SSD2A (2022)502241021235,000235,000Street Light Replacement, SSD2B (2023)502341021185,000185,000Street Light Replacement, SSD3A (2024)502441021215,000215,000Street Light Replacement, SSD3B (2025)50254102140,00040,000Reilly Site - Install Monitor Well (W413)5318500018,000,0008,000,000Water Project - WTP #6 Treatment Upgrade532050035Unfunded Total9,655,000225,000 200,000 190,000 170,000 235,000 235,000 8,185,000 215,000Monday, October 02, 2017Page 252018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 32
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # PriorityWater Utility6,660666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI Service13155014351,00051,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App Replacement131950011180,00018,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,00018,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software13995011310,0005,000 5,000OR: MSC Cameras139950313106,478106,478Street - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Ave)4017110011,923,7851,923,785Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40181000180,96380,963Street - Commercial Street Rehab40181050135,26835,268Street - MSA Street Rehab (Aquila)40181100122,68322,683Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas S of Hwy 7)40181101162,50012,500 50,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek401817001275,000275,000Water- Rehab WTP 16 Reservior4018500011,640,5841,640,584Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)401910001137,015137,015Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E of Lou)40191100120,77620,776Street - MSA Street Rehab (Ottawa)401911011101,971101,971Street - MSA Street Rehab (Beltline Blvd)401911021935,000935,000Water - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP #64019500012,126,5932,126,593Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)402010001160,939160,939Street - Commercial Street Rehab402010501155,304155,304Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas N of Mtka)4020110031,852,0701,852,070Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000174,83774,837Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR Texas to Lou)4021110011,540,0001,540,000Water- Recoat Elevated Water Tower #24021500012,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)402210001181,674181,674Street - Commercial Street Rehab402210501105,091105,091Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard Pkwy)40221100174,83774,837Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR TH169 to Texas)4022110112,354,0002,354,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)402310001Monday, October 02, 2017Page 262018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 33
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority143,504143,504Street - MSA Street Rehab (Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)4023110012,409,0002,409,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)402410001144,154144,154Street - Commercial Street Rehab402410501122,053122,053Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th St)4024110012,420,0002,420,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)4025100012,420,0002,420,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000175,03975,039Street - Commercial Street Rehab4026105012,420,0002,420,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000135,00035,000Water Well Rehab (SLP6)53185002136,00036,000Water Well Rehab (SLP14)531850051800,000800,000Upgrade SCADA Control System, All Sites53185006372,00072,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1)53195001171,00071,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4)53195002374,00074,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4)53215001376,00076,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1)53215002154,00054,000Water Well Rehab (SLP11)53215003340,00040,000Water Well Rehab (SLP15)53225001377,00077,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4)53235001341,00041,000Water Well Rehab (SLP8)53235002380,00080,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1)53235003142,00042,000Water Well Rehab (SLP16)53245001358,00058,000Water Well Rehab (SLP12)53255001380,00080,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4)53255002384,00084,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1)53255003144,00044,000Water Well Rehab (SLP10)53265001344,00044,000Water Well Rehab (SLP4)53265002360,00060,000Water Well Rehab (SLP13)53275001388,00088,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1)532750021Water Utility Total28,634,7783,239,865 3,103,012 2,461,502 3,796,051 2,730,268 2,714,170 2,740,873 2,660,666 2,601,705 2,586,666Monday, October 02, 2017Page 272018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 34
Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Source2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 # Priority31,077,386 53,221,675 31,383,017 19,570,865 27,013,445253,456,816GRAND TOTAL20,893,077 24,381,167 14,862,475 17,363,262 13,690,447Report criteria:Active ProjectsAll Address data All CategoriesAll DepartmentsAll ContactsAll From Street data All Priority LevelsAll ProjectsAll Source TypesAll Street Name data Monday, October 02, 2017Page 282018-2027 Draft Capital Improvement PlanStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 35
10/2/2017201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027Page #ActualRevised Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedFranchise Agreement Ends in 20217 Cable TV Fund - Produces and broadcasts all cable tv programming for cable channels 14, 15, 16, 17 & 96Total Revenues840,078$ 670,950$ 682,950$ 689,975$ 690,805$ 21,390$ 12,733$ 2,587$ (10,186)$ (20,304)$ (30,936)$ (42,123)$ Total Expenditures810,236 709,816 860,562 636,595 653,819 600,603 691,310 856,309 666,628 690,797 717,289 738,808 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance29,842$ (38,866)$ (177,612)$ 53,380$ 36,987$ (579,213)$ (678,577)$ (853,722)$ (676,814)$ (711,101)$ (748,225)$ (780,931)$ Fund Balance - Ending1,647,680$ 1,608,814$ 1,431,202$ 1,484,582$ 1,521,569$ 942,356$ 263,779$ (589,943)$ (1,266,757)$ (1,977,858)$ (2,726,083)$ (3,507,014)$ Fund Balance Percentage232.13%186.95%224.82%227.06%253.34%136.31%30.80%-88.50%-183.38%-275.74%-368.98%-460.86%8 Police & Fire Pension Fund - The overfunded portion of these pension accounts used for capital needs and certain personnel costs related to police or fire Total Revenues18,291$ 28,441$ 25,992$ 21,651$ 16,975$ 14,665$ 14,148$ 11,823$ 9,813$ 3,122$ (873)$ (1,930)$ Total Expenditures1,023,703 191,749 315,331 333,416 171,004 49,094 169,186 145,782 455,881 269,482 69,586 49,694 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(1,005,412)$ (163,307)$ (289,340)$ (311,765)$ (154,029)$ (34,429)$ (155,038)$ (133,959)$ (446,067)$ (266,360)$ (70,460)$ (51,624)$ Fund Balance - Ending1,832,248$ 1,668,941$ 1,379,601$ 1,067,837$ 913,808$ 879,379$ 724,341$ 590,381$ 144,314$ (122,046)$ (192,505)$ (244,130)$ Fund Balance Percentage955.55%529.27%413.78%624.45%1861.36%519.77%496.87%129.50%53.55%-175.39%-387.38%-6416.38%9 Housing Rehabilitation Fund - Primarily covers costs for programs related to maintaining quality and diverse housing stock within the City.Total Revenues1,600,543$ 1,494,500$ 1,507,091$ 1,503,860$ 1,481,546$ 1,463,891$ 1,446,128$ 1,336,297$ 1,079,960$ 1,053,673$ 1,025,977$ 983,277$ Total Expenditures2,195,829 1,472,605 1,539,605 1,534,941 1,314,098 1,264,318 1,274,210 1,283,819 1,303,648 1,312,791 1,327,800 1,342,877 Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance(595,286)$ 21,895$ (32,514)$ (31,081)$ 167,448$ 199,573$ 171,918$ 52,478$ (223,688)$ (259,117)$ (301,823)$ (359,600)$ Cash Available at Year End960,346$ 1,233,958$ 1,201,444$ 1,170,363$ 1,337,811$ 1,537,385$ 1,709,303$ 1,761,781$ 1,538,092$ 1,278,975$ 977,152$ 617,551$ Cash Available Percentage65.21%80.15%78.27%89.06%105.81%120.65%133.14%135.14%117.16%96.32%72.77%45.68%11 Development Fund - This fund is to be used for general City or EDA projects.Total Revenues2,728,804$ 8,185,285$ 9,468,985$ 1,405,819$ 1,399,949$ 1,387,138$ 1,381,160$ 1,374,633$ 1,361,326$ 1,344,703$ 1,326,976$ 1,311,067$ Total Expenditures3,033,930 5,339,720 3,888,700 3,917,513 3,330,785 2,724,518 2,788,541 2,854,674 2,922,990 2,993,560 3,068,425 3,137,678 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(305,125)$ 2,845,565$ 5,580,285$ (2,511,694)$ (1,930,836)$ (1,337,381)$ (1,407,380)$ (1,480,041)$ (1,561,664)$ (1,648,856)$ (1,741,448)$ (1,826,610)$ Cash Available at Year End12,554,513$ 17,218,042$ 24,676,781$ 23,888,088$ 22,624,772$ 21,804,742$ 20,935,406$ 19,601,048$ 18,032,277$ 16,376,030$ 14,826,750$ 13,000,140$ Cash Available Percentage235.12%442.77%629.91%717.19%830.41%781.94%733.37%670.58%602.37%533.69%472.54%405.11%Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 36
10/2/2017201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027Page #Budgeted Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected12 HRA Levy - This fund is to be used for infrastructure construction in redevelopment areas and qualifying housing programs.Total Revenues1,011,663$ 1,086,461$ 1,172,786$ 1,219,697$ 1,268,485$ 1,319,225$ 1,371,994$ 1,426,873$ 1,483,948$ 1,543,306$ 1,605,039$ 1,669,240$ Total Expenditures1,942,669 1,092,960 1,172,786 1,219,697 15,914 16,391 16,883 17,389 17,911 18,448 19,002 19,572 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(931,006)$ (6,499)$ -$ 0$ 1,252,572$ 1,302,834$ 1,355,111$ 1,409,484$ 1,466,038$ 1,524,858$ 1,586,037$ 1,649,669$ Fund Balance - Ending(3,057,388)$ (2,078,190)$ (980,701)$ 196,174$ 1,448,746$ 2,751,580$ 4,106,691$ 5,516,175$ 6,982,213$ 8,507,071$ 10,093,108$ 11,742,777$ Fund Balance Percentage-279.73%-177.20%-80.41%1232.75%8838.72%16298.29%23616.45%30798.06%37847.85%44770.40%51570.18%58251.52%13 Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund - Provides cash flow for project construction and is repaid through reimbursements from Municipal State Aid (MSA), or special assessments. Total Revenues265,472$ 130,577$ 124,167$ 111,999$ 103,247$ 86,590$ 89,454$ 87,693$ 85,549$ 89,486$ 85,753$ 89,573$ Total Expenditures25,687 25,704 1,025,920 26,143 1,026,372 26,608 26,851 27,102 27,360 27,626 27,899 28,181 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance239,785$ 104,873$ (901,753)$ 85,856$ (923,125)$ 59,982$ 62,603$ 60,591$ 58,189$ 61,860$ 57,853$ 61,392$ Fund Balance - Ending2,577,727$ 2,682,601$ 1,780,848$ 1,866,704$ 943,579$ 1,003,561$ 1,066,163$ 1,126,755$ 1,184,944$ 1,246,805$ 1,304,658$ 1,366,050$ Fund Balance Percentage10028.58%261.48%6812.07%181.87%3546.23%3737.49%3933.93%4118.29%4289.30%4468.94%4629.51%13699.17%14 Park Improvement Fund - This fund is responsible for financing capital expenditures within City parks and improvement of park facilitiesTotal Revenues13,197,897$ 1,372,655$ 1,151,715$ 1,180,358$ 1,228,508$ 1,276,648$ 1,325,480$ 1,375,300$ 1,429,955$ 1,479,024$ 1,533,959$ 1,485,609$ Total Expenditures11,859,230 5,102,000 1,908,850 1,303,700 1,352,500 1,354,500 1,337,500 1,065,000 1,492,000 1,150,000 1,424,000 414,000 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance1,338,667$ (3,729,345)$ (757,135)$ (123,342)$ (123,992)$ (77,852)$ (12,020)$ 310,300$ (62,045)$ 329,024$ 109,959$ 1,071,609$ Cash Available at Year End 6,261,031$ 2,531,686$ 1,774,552$ 1,651,210$ 1,527,218$ 1,449,366$ 1,437,347$ 1,747,647$ 1,685,602$ 2,014,626$ 2,124,585$ 3,196,194$ Cash Available Percentage122.72%132.63%136.12%122.09%112.75%108.36%134.96%117.13%146.57%141.48%513.18%1379.16%15 Pavement Management Fund - Funds expenditures are used for pavement rehabilitation within the City.Total Revenues2,863,788$ 3,176,140$ 4,769,382$ 4,666,306$ 5,739,720$ 5,607,702$ 5,711,523$ 5,513,163$ 5,825,858$ 6,049,426$ 6,038,488$ 5,498,042$ Total Expenditures2,731,581 4,722,963 4,682,914 4,525,996 5,555,403 4,869,768 6,863,995 3,602,257 5,409,044 4,939,258 5,313,813 3,364,624 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance132,207$ (1,546,823)$ 86,468$ 140,310$ 184,317$ 737,934$ (1,152,472)$ 1,910,906$ 416,814$ 1,110,168$ 724,675$ 2,133,418$ Fund Balance - Ending2,171,385$ 624,562$ 711,030$ 851,340$ 1,035,657$ 1,773,591$ 621,120$ 2,532,025$ 2,948,839$ 4,059,007$ 4,783,681$ 6,917,100$ Fund Balance Percentage45.98%13.34%15.71%15.32%21.27%25.84%17.24%46.81%59.70%76.39%142.18%2252.41%16 Sidewalks and Trails- This fund accounts for revenues and expenditures related to the the enhancement of the City's sidewalks and trails system.Total Revenues643,754$ 2,671,619$ 4,507,227$ 6,955,099$ 3,329,280$ 2,695,572$ 7,984,400$ 8,418,471$ 3,651,631$ 3,940,707$ 3,986,027$ 3,983,265$ Total Expenditures2,212,802 3,194,806 4,737,165 6,916,395 3,376,471 2,707,015 7,913,033 8,341,136 3,713,202 3,919,359 3,903,536 4,001,722 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(1,569,048)$ (523,187)$ (229,938)$ 38,704$ (47,191)$ (11,444)$ 71,367$ 77,335$ (61,571)$ 21,348$ 82,491$ (18,458)$ Fund Balance - Ending1,011,967$ 488,780$ 258,842$ 297,546$ 250,355$ 238,912$ 310,279$ 387,614$ 326,043$ 347,391$ 429,882$ 411,424$ Fund Balance Percentage31.68%10.32%3.74%8.81%9.25%3.02%3.72%10.44%8.32%8.90%10.74%12.27%Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 37
10/2/2017201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027Page #Budgeted Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected17 Capital Replacement Fund - Funds technology, buildings, and equipment capital expenditures. Total Revenues4,810,609$ 4,529,377$ 4,072,906$ 15,228,606$ 3,853,895$ 4,031,411$ 4,234,398$ 4,440,930$ 4,672,964$ 4,927,412$ 5,068,107$ 5,204,661$ Total Expenditures4,083,132 4,729,710 4,849,443 14,135,684 4,291,386 3,370,058 3,965,419 3,131,506 2,561,612 2,834,848 3,599,226 4,035,550 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance727,477$ (200,333)$ (776,537)$ 1,092,922$ (437,491)$ 661,353$ 268,979$ 1,309,424$ 2,111,352$ 2,092,564$ 1,468,881$ 1,169,111$ Cash Available at Year End1,011,102$ 810,769$ 34,231$ 1,127,153$ 689,662$ 1,351,015$ 1,619,994$ 2,929,418$ 5,040,770$ 7,133,334$ 8,602,215$ 9,771,326$ Cash Available Percentage21.38%16.72%0.24%26.27%20.46%34.07%51.73%114.36%177.81%198.19%213.16% #DIV/0!22 Benefits Administration Fund - This fund covers the cost of insurance, unemployment, flex leave payouts, and tuition reimbursement.Total Revenues864,933$ 877,411$ 610,037$ 712,938$ 767,314$ 822,439$ 878,323$ 934,977$ 992,413$ 850,643$ 906,677$ 963,482$ Total Cash Outflows756,793 795,510 805,727 821,880 838,398 855,291 872,571 890,250 908,339 926,851 945,797 965,193 Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance108,139$ 81,901$ (195,689)$ (108,942)$ (71,084)$ (32,852)$ 5,752$ 44,727$ 84,075$ (76,208)$ (39,121)$ (1,711)$ Cash Available at Year End952,469$ 1,034,370$ 838,681$ 729,738$ 658,655$ 625,803$ 631,554$ 676,282$ 760,356$ 684,148$ 645,028$ 643,317$ Cash Available Percentage119.73%128.38%102.04%87.04%77.01%71.72%70.94%74.45%82.04%72.34%66.83%65.31%23 Uninsured Loss Fund - This fund covers self-insured workers comp claims, property and liability claim deductibles that are underwritten by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.Total Revenues248,379$ 204,000$ 229,000$ 241,836$ 248,820$ 256,008$ 263,404$ 271,014$ 278,843$ 286,899$ 295,187$ 303,713$ Total Expenditures244,241 205,531 232,562 239,702 247,061 254,647 262,558 270,715 279,128 287,804 296,857 305,763 Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance4,137$ (1,531)$ (3,562)$ 2,134$ 1,759$ 1,360$ 846$ 298$ (285)$ (906)$ (1,670)$ (2,050)$ Fund Balance - Ending742,811$ 741,280$ 737,718$ 739,852$ 741,611$ 742,971$ 743,817$ 744,116$ 743,831$ 742,925$ 741,255$ 739,205$ Fund Balance Percentage361.41%318.75%307.77%299.46%291.23%282.97%274.76%266.59%258.45%250.26%242.43%234.72%Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 38
Financial Management PlanCable TV Fund - Produces and broadcasts all cable tv programming for cable channels 14, 15, 16, 17 & 962016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesCharges for Services686,289 670,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 - -- - - - - Interest Income11,799 -12,000 18,997 19,797 20,352 11,664 1,485(11,320) (21,473) (32,139) (43,363) Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue141,990 950 950 979 1,0081,0381,069 1,1011,1341,1681,203 1,240 Transfers InTotal Revenues840,078$ 670,950$ 682,950$ 689,975$ 690,805$ 21,390$ 12,733$ 2,587$ (10,186)$ (20,304)$ (30,936)$ (42,123)$ ExpendituresPersonal Services410,511 445,068 449,059 464,776 481,043 497,880 516,550 535,921 556,018 576,869 599,943 617,942 Supplies16,589 2,500 2,500 2,575 2,6522,7322,814 2,8982,9853,0753,167 3,262 Non-Capital Equipment-100 100 103 106109113 116119123127 130 Services & Other Charges50,621 84,142 104,597 92,735 95,517 98,382 101,334 104,374 107,505 110,730 114,052 117,474 Capital Outlay223,009 93,500 244,800 41,900 74,500 1,50070,500 213,000 - - - - Transfers Out109,506 84,506 59,506 34,506 - - -- - - - Total Expenditures810,236$ 709,816$ 860,562$ 636,595$ 653,819$ 600,603$ 691,310$ 856,309$ 666,628$ 690,797$ 717,289$ 738,808$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance29,842$ (38,866)$ (177,612)$ 53,380$ 36,987$ (579,213)$ (678,577)$ (853,722)$ (676,814)$ (711,101)$ (748,225)$ (780,931)$ Fund Balance - Beginning1,617,838$ 1,647,680$ 1,608,814$ 1,431,202$ 1,484,582$ 1,521,569$ 942,356$ 263,779$ (589,943)$ (1,266,757)$ (1,977,858)$ (2,726,083)$ Fund Balance - Ending1,647,680$ 1,608,814$ 1,431,202$ 1,484,582$ 1,521,569$ 942,356$ 263,779$ (589,943)$ (1,266,757)$ (1,977,858)$ (2,726,083)$ (3,507,014)$ Fund Balance Percentage232.13% 186.95% 224.82% 227.06% 253.34% 136.31% 30.80% -88.50% -183.38% -275.74% -368.98% -460.86%Cash Available at Year End1,482,925$ 1,444,059$ 1,266,447$ 1,319,827$ 1,356,814$ 777,601$ 99,024$ (754,699)$ (1,431,512)$ (2,142,613)$ (2,890,838)$ (3,671,769)$ Cash Available Percentage208.92% 167.80% 198.94% 201.86% 225.91% 112.48% 11.56% -113.21% -207.23% -298.71% -391.28% -482.51%Target Cash Balance - Page 7Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 39
Financial Management PlanPolice & Fire Pension Fund - The overfunded portion of these pension accounts used for capital needs and certain personnel costs related to police or fire 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesIntergovernmental- ----- --- ---Interest Income18,291 28,441 25,992 21,651 16,975 14,665 14,148 11,823 9,813 3,122(873)(1,930)Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue- ----- --- ---Transfers InTotal Revenues18,291$ 28,441$ 25,992$ 21,651$ 16,975$ 14,665$ 14,148$ 11,823$ 9,813$ 3,122$ (873)$ (1,930)$ ExpendituresNon-Capital Equipment679 699720742764787 811835860886913940Services & Other Charges1,9902,0492,1112,1742,2392,306 2,3762,4472,520 2,5962,6742,754Capital Outlay521,034 189,000 312,500 330,500 168,000 46,000 166,000 142,500 452,500 266,000 66,000 46,000 Transfers Out500,000 ----- --- ---Total Expenditures1,023,703$ 191,749$ 315,331$ 333,416$ 171,004$ 49,094$ 169,186$ 145,782$ 455,881$ 269,482$ 69,586$ 49,694$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(1,005,412)$ (163,307)$ (289,340)$ (311,765)$ (154,029)$ (34,429)$ (155,038)$ (133,959)$ (446,067)$ (266,360)$ (70,460)$ (51,624)$ Fund Balance - Beginning2,837,660$ 1,832,248$ 1,668,941$ 1,379,601$ 1,067,837$ 913,808$ 879,379$ 724,341$ 590,381$ 144,314$ (122,046)$ (192,505)$ Fund Balance - Ending1,832,248$ 1,668,941$ 1,379,601$ 1,067,837$ 913,808$ 879,379$ 724,341$ 590,381$ 144,314$ (122,046)$ (192,505)$ (244,130)$ Fund Balance Percentage955.55% 529.27% 413.78% 624.45% 1861.36% 519.77% 496.87% 129.50% 53.55% -175.39% -387.38% -6416.38%Cash Available at Year End1,896,079$ 1,732,772$ 1,443,432$ 1,131,667$ 977,639$ 943,210$ 788,172$ 654,212$ 208,145$ (58,215)$ (128,675)$ (180,299)$ Cash Available Percentage988.84% 549.51% 432.92% 661.78% 1991.38% 557.50% 540.65% 143.51% 77.24% -83.66% -258.93% -4738.73%Target Cash Balance - Page 8Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 40
Financial Management PlanHousing Rehabilitation Fund - Primarily covers costs for programs related to maintaining quality and diverse housing stock within the City.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 202520262027Actual Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedProgram RevenuesGeneral Property Taxes/HRA Levy100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Charges for Services7,607 3,000 3,200 3,296 3,395 3,497 3,602 3,7103,8213,9364,0544,175Interest Income14,011 2,000 2,000 18,022 17,555 20,067 23,061 25,64026,42723,07119,18514,657Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue3,935 4,500 4,500 4,635 4,774 4,917 5,065 5,2175,3735,5345,7005,8711/8% Bond Fee559,041 570,000 547,093 527,609 505,524 485,112 464,103 442,433 420,041 396,834 372,740 334,275 Transfers In- - - - - - - ---- - TIF Reimbursement144,000 125,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 --- - Total Revenues828,593$ 804,500$ 816,793$ 813,562$ 791,248$ 773,593$ 755,830$ 736,999$ 555,662$ 529,375$ 501,679$ 458,979$ Program ExpendituresHousing RehabPersonal Services263,507 276,830 278,412 288,156 298,242 308,680 320,256 332,265 344,725 357,653 371,959 383,117 Supplies37 - - - - - ---- - Services & Other Charges89,269 3,762 18,214 3,760 3,873 3,989 4,109 4,2324,3594,4904,6254,764Transfers Out8,185 8,185 8,431 8,683 8,944 9,212 9,489 9,773 10,067 10,369 10,680 10,999.96 HIA Admin1,039 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,0002,0002,0002,0002,000Excess Public Land- 2,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,0005,0005,0005,0005,000Move-up Program31,425 42,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,00039,00039,00039,00039,000Live Where You Work Prgm2,900 18,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,00055,00055,00055,00055,000Green Remodeling Program37,404 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,00035,00035,00035,00035,000Targeted Neigh/Pilot Alley Prog.Neighborhood Association Grant35,236 54,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,00052,00052,00052,00052,000Neighborhood Public Art- - - - - - - ---- - Step Contributions- 45,900 46,820 47,756 48,712 49,686 50,679 51,69352,72753,78154,85754,857Senior Community Services - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,00010,00010,00010,00010,000CES Reside Energy Conservation8,510 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,0008,0008,0008,0008,000Transformation Loan2,200 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 Discount Loan Program28,376 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,00030,00030,00030,00030,000Land Trust (WHALT)50,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,00060,00060,00060,00060,000Foreclosure Initiative- 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,00010,00010,00010,00010,000PPL LA CRT/ Shallow Rent Subsid- 60,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,00065,00065,00065,00065,000Total Expenditures558,088$ 835,677$ 902,877$ 899,357$ 910,771$ 922,568$ 935,533$ 948,964$ 962,878$ 977,293$ 993,120$ 1,004,738$ Programs Beginning Cash Balance 1,039,593 1,310,098 1,278,921 1,192,837 1,107,042 987,519 838,544 658,841 446,877 39,660 (408,257) (899,698) Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance270,505$ (31,177)$ (86,084)$ (85,795)$ (119,523)$ (148,975)$ (179,703)$ (211,965)$ (407,216)$ (447,917)$ (491,441)$ (545,759)$ Programs Ending Cash Balance 1,310,098 1,278,921 1,192,837 1,107,042 987,519 838,544 658,841 446,877 39,660 (408,257) (899,698) (1,445,458) HIA RevenuesSpecial Assessments771,950 690,000 690,298 690,298 690,298 690,298 690,298 599,298 524,298 524,298 524,298 524,298 Interfund Loans (Development Fund)Total Revenues771,950$ 690,000$ 690,298$ 690,298$ 690,298$ 690,298$ 690,298$ 599,298$ 524,298$ 524,298$ 524,298$ 524,298$ HIA ExpendituresGreensboro HIA0Debt Service337,846 336,928 336,728 335,584 333,911 341,750 338,677 334,855 340,770 335,498 334,680 338,139 Interfund Loans Payments1,299,894 300,000 300,000 300,000 69,416 - - ---- - Total Expenditures1,637,740$ 636,928$ 636,728$ 635,584$ 403,327$ 341,750$ 338,677$ 334,855$ 340,770$ 335,498$ 334,680$ 338,139$ Programs Beginning Cash Balance 767,756 (98,035) (44,963) 8,607 63,321 350,292 698,840 1,050,461 1,314,904 1,498,432 1,687,232 1,876,850 Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance(865,790)$ 53,072$ 53,570$ 54,714$ 286,971$ 348,548$ 351,621$ 264,443$ 183,528$ 188,800$ 189,618$ 186,159$ Programs Ending Cash Balance (98,035) (44,963) 8,607 63,321 350,292 698,840 1,050,461 1,314,904 1,498,432 1,687,232 1,876,850 2,063,009 Fund Balance - Beginning2,743,860$ 3,448,469$ 3,770,364$ 4,037,850$ 4,306,769$ 4,543,633$ 4,743,206$ 4,915,124$ 4,967,603$ 4,743,914$ 4,484,797$ 4,182,974$ Fund Balance - Ending3,448,469$ 3,770,364$ 4,037,850$ 4,306,769$ 4,543,633$ 4,743,206$ 4,915,124$ 4,967,603$ 4,743,914$ 4,484,797$ 4,182,974$ 3,823,373$ Fund Balance Percentage412.66% 417.59% 448.97% 472.87% 492.50% 507.01% 517.95% 515.91% 485.41% 451.59% 416.32% 376.06%Cash Available at Year End960,346$ 1,233,958$ 1,201,444$ 1,170,363$ 1,337,811$ 1,537,385$ 1,709,303$ 1,761,781$ 1,538,092$ 1,278,975$ 977,152$ 617,551$ Cash Available Percentage65.21% 80.15% 78.27% 89.06% 105.81% 120.65% 133.14% 135.14% 117.16% 96.32% 72.77% 45.68%Target Cash Balance - Page 1Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 41
Financial Management PlanDevelopment Fund - This fund is to be used for general City or EDA projects.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesIntergovernmental396,584 - - - - - - - - - - - Charges for Services6,000 6,000 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 7,379 7,601 7,829 Application fees- 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 PILOT - Payment In Lieu of Taxes25,772 26,104 26,104 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 Rent Revenue185,587 186,881 186,881 192,487 198,262 204,210 210,336 216,646 223,146 229,840 236,735 243,837 Interest Income452,993 400,000 400,000 370,152 358,321 339,372 327,071 314,031 294,016 270,484 245,640 222,401 Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue900,429 741,300 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 Lodging Tax- City Portion43,022 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Proceeds from Sale of Land3,000 6,785,000 7,510,000 - - - - - - - - - Transfers In715,417 - 525,000 - - - - - - - - 0Total Revenues2,728,804$ 8,185,285$ 9,468,985$ 1,405,819$ 1,399,949$ 1,387,138$ 1,381,160$ 1,374,633$ 1,361,326$ 1,344,703$ 1,326,976$ 1,311,067$ ExpendituresPersonal Services522,220 586,350 611,709 633,119 655,278 678,213 703,646 730,032 757,409 785,811 817,244 841,761 Supplies407 100 - - - - - - - - - - Non-Capital Equipment- - - - - - - - - - - Services & Other Charges1,025,596 748,570 1,173,752 1,208,965 1,245,233 1,282,591 1,321,068 1,360,700 1,401,521 1,443,567 1,486,874 1,531,480 Disposal Charges3,400 3,400 3,502 3,607 3,715 3,827 3,942 4,060 4,182 4,307 4,436 Capital Outlay627,578 250,000 1,339,839 1,311,928 666,666 - - - - - - - McGarvey Site/ hennepin cty3,010,000 - Debt Service83,124 Payments to CVB775,006 741,300 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 Transfers Out- - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures3,033,930$ 5,339,720$ 3,888,700$ 3,917,513$ 3,330,785$ 2,724,518$ 2,788,541$ 2,854,674$ 2,922,990$ 2,993,560$ 3,068,425$ 3,137,678$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(305,125)$ 2,845,565$ 5,580,285$ (2,511,694)$ (1,930,836)$ (1,337,381)$ (1,407,380)$ (1,480,041)$ (1,561,664)$ (1,648,856)$ (1,741,448)$ (1,826,610)$ Fund Balance - Beginning26,416,278$ 26,111,150$ 28,956,712$ 34,536,994$ 32,025,296$ 30,094,458$ 28,757,074$ 27,349,691$ 25,869,647$ 24,307,980$ 22,659,120$ 20,917,669$ Fund Balance - Ending26,111,150$ 28,956,712$ 34,536,994$ 32,025,296$ 30,094,458$ 28,757,074$ 27,349,691$ 25,869,647$ 24,307,980$ 22,659,120$ 20,917,669$ 19,091,055$ Fund Balance Percentage489.00% 744.64% 881.60% 961.49% 1104.58% 1031.26% 958.07% 885.04% 812.01% 738.46% 666.66% 594.92%Cash Available at Year End12,554,513$ 17,218,042$ 24,676,781$ 23,888,088$ 22,624,772$ 21,804,742$ 20,935,406$ 19,601,048$ 18,032,277$ 16,376,030$ 14,826,750$ 13,000,140$ Cash Available Percentage235.12% 442.77% 629.91% 717.19% 830.41% 781.94% 733.37% 670.58% 602.37% 533.69% 472.54% 405.11%Target Cash Balance - Page 11Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 42
Financial Management PlanHRA Levy - This fund is to be used for infrastructure construction in redevelopment areas and qualifying housing programs.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Adopted Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesGeneral Property Taxes / HRA Levy 1,006,866 1,086,461 1,172,786 1,219,697 1,268,485 1,319,225 1,371,994 1,426,873 1,483,948 1,543,306 1,605,039 1,669,240 Interest Income 4,797 - - - - - - - - - - - Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue- - - - - - - - - - - Transfers In- Total Revenues1,011,663$ 1,086,461$ 1,172,786$ 1,219,697$ 1,268,485$ 1,319,225$ 1,371,994$ 1,426,873$ 1,483,948$ 1,543,306$ 1,605,039$ 1,669,240$ ExpendituresServices & Other Charges15,473 15,000 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 17,389 17,911 18,448 19,002 19,572 Transfers Out1,927,196 1,077,960 1,157,786 1,204,247 - - - Total Expenditures1,942,669$ 1,092,960$ 1,172,786$ 1,219,697$ 15,914$ 16,391$ 16,883$ 17,389$ 17,911$ 18,448$ 19,002$ 19,572$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(931,006)$ (6,499)$ -$ 0$ 1,252,572$ 1,302,834$ 1,355,111$ 1,409,484$ 1,466,038$ 1,524,858$ 1,586,037$ 1,649,669$ Fund Balance - Beginning(3,657,675)$ (3,057,388)$ (2,078,190)$ (980,701)$ 196,174$ 1,448,746$ 2,751,580$ 4,106,691$ 5,516,175$ 6,982,213$ 8,507,071$ 10,093,108$ Fund Balance - Ending(3,057,388)$ (2,078,190)$ (980,701)$ 196,174$ 1,448,746$ 2,751,580$ 4,106,691$ 5,516,175$ 6,982,213$ 8,507,071$ 10,093,108$ 11,742,777$ Fund Balance Percentage-279.73% -177.20% -80.41% 1232.75% 8838.72% 16298.29% 23616.45% 30798.06% 37847.85% 44770.40% 51570.18% 58251.52%Cash Available at Year End6,499$ -$ -$ 0$ 1,252,572$ 2,555,406$ 3,910,517$ 5,320,002$ 6,786,039$ 8,310,898$ 9,896,935$ 11,546,603$ Cash Available Percentage0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7641.87% 15136.30% 22488.31% 29702.78% 36784.47% 43737.99% 50567.84% 57278.38%Target Cash Balance - Page 12Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 43
Financial Management PlanPermanent Improvement Revolving Fund - Provides cash flow for project construction and is repaid through reimbursements from Municipal State Aid (MSA), or special assessments. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesSpecial Assessments246,075 90,282 82,247 65,551 53,956 23,589 22,495 16,735 10,620 10,620 2,893 2,778 Park Dedication Fee595 613 631 650 670 690 710 732 754 776 800 824 Interest Income17,714 38,562 40,135 44,609 47,396 61,050 64,949 68,888 72,797 76,670 80,598 84,466 Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue1,088 1,121 1,154 1,189 1,225 1,261 1,299 1,338 1,378 1,420 1,462 1,506 Total Revenues265,472$ 130,577$ 124,167$ 111,999$ 103,247$ 86,590$ 89,454$ 87,693$ 85,549$ 89,486$ 85,753$ 89,573$ ExpendituresSupplies- - - - - - - - - - - - Services & Other Charges6,994 7,204 7,420 7,643 7,872 8,108 8,351 8,602 8,860 9,126 9,399 9,681 Interfund loan- - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - - - - - Transfers Out18,693 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 Total Expenditures25,687$ 25,704$ 1,025,920$ 26,143$ 1,026,372$ 26,608$ 26,851$ 27,102$ 27,360$ 27,626$ 27,899$ 28,181$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance239,785$ 104,873$ (901,753)$ 85,856$ (923,125)$ 59,982$ 62,603$ 60,591$ 58,189$ 61,860$ 57,853$ 61,392$ Fund Balance - Beginning2,337,942$ 2,577,727$ 2,682,601$ 1,780,848$ 1,866,704$ 943,579$ 1,003,561$ 1,066,163$ 1,126,755$ 1,184,944$ 1,246,805$ 1,304,658$ Fund Balance - Ending2,577,727$ 2,682,601$ 1,780,848$ 1,866,704$ 943,579$ 1,003,561$ 1,066,163$ 1,126,755$ 1,184,944$ 1,246,805$ 1,304,658$ 1,366,050$ Fund Balance Percentage10028.58% 261.48% 6812.07% 181.87% 3546.23% 3737.49% 3933.93% 4118.29% 4289.30% 4468.94% 4629.51% 13699.17%Cash Available at Year End2,570,786$ 2,675,659$ 1,773,907$ 1,959,763$ 1,136,638$ 1,396,620$ 1,659,222$ 1,919,814$ 2,178,003$ 2,439,864$ 2,697,717$ 2,959,109$ Cash Available Percentage10001.57% 260.81% 6785.52% 190.94% 4271.80% 5201.33% 6122.20% 7016.92% 7884.01% 8745.23% 9572.71% 29674.86%Page 13Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 44
Financial Management PlanPark Improvement Fund - This fund is responsible for financing capital expenditures within City parks and improvement of park facilities2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesGeneral Property Taxes / HRA Levy810,000810,000 810,000850,000 900,000 950,000 1,000,000 1,050,000 1,100,000 1,150,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 Intergovernmental400,000- - -- - - - - - --Hennepin County/ Operating Grant- 115,000- -- - - - - - --Hockey Association500,000100,000 100,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000100,000 School District Contributions44,70244,70244,70244,702 44,70244,70244,70244,70244,70244,70244,702 44,702 Park Dedication Fee508,489200,000 150,000150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000150,000 150,000 Rent Revenue9,7509,0389,0389,038 9,0389,0389,0389,0389,0389,0389,0389,038Interest Income30,19493,91537,97526,618 24,76822,90821,74021,56026,21525,28430,219 31,869 Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue103,745- - -- - - - - - --Bond Proceeds10,283,017 - - -- - - - - - --Transfers In508,000- - -- - - - - - --Total Revenues13,197,897$ 1,372,655$ 1,151,715$ 1,180,358$ 1,228,508$ 1,276,648$ 1,325,480$ 1,375,300$ 1,429,955$ 1,479,024$ 1,533,959$ 1,485,609$ ExpendituresServices & Other Charges265,387273,349 281,549289,996 298,695 307,656 316,886 326,393 336,184 346,270356,658 150,000 Tree Replacement & Reforestation (Exc88,50270,00075,00075,000 75,00075,00075,00075,00075,00075,00075,000 75,000 Debt Service111,922- - -- - - - - - --Capital Outlay11,141,694 4,758,651 1,552,301 938,704 978,805 971,844 945,614 663,607 1,080,816 728,730992,342 189,000 Transfers Out251,726- - -- - - - - - --Total Expenditures11,859,230$ 5,102,000$ 1,908,850$ 1,303,700$ 1,352,500$ 1,354,500$ 1,337,500$ 1,065,000$ 1,492,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,424,000$ 414,000$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance1,338,667$ (3,729,345)$ (757,135)$ (123,342)$ (123,992)$ (77,852)$ (12,020)$ 310,300$ (62,045)$ 329,024$ 109,959$ 1,071,609$ Fund Balance - Beginning3,691,530$ 5,030,197$ 1,300,852$ 543,718$ 420,376$ 296,384$ 218,532$ 206,513$ 516,813$ 454,768$ 783,792$ 893,751$ Fund Balance - Ending5,030,197$ 1,300,852$ 543,718$ 420,376$ 296,384$ 218,532$ 206,513$ 516,813$ 454,768$ 783,792$ 893,751$ 1,965,360$ Fund Balance Percentage98.59% 68.15% 41.71% 31.08% 21.88% 16.34% 19.39% 34.64% 39.55% 55.04% 215.88% 848.05%Cash Available at Year End6,261,031$ 2,531,686$ 1,774,552$ 1,651,210$ 1,527,218$ 1,449,366$ 1,437,347$ 1,747,647$ 1,685,602$ 2,014,626$ 2,124,585$ 3,196,194$ Cash Available Percentage122.72% 132.63% 136.12% 122.09% 112.75% 108.36% 134.96% 117.13% 146.57% 141.48% 513.18% 1379.16%Target Cash Balance - Page 14Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 45
Financial Management PlanPavement Management Fund - Funds expenditures are used for pavement rehabilitation within the City.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesFranchise Fees2,393,110 3,152,775 3,231,594 3,312,384 3,395,194 3,480,074 3,567,076 3,656,252 3,747,659 3,841,350 3,937,384 4,035,819 Additional Franchise Fees699,837 699,837 1,399,674 1,399,674 1,399,674 1,399,674 1,399,674 1,399,674 1,399,674 Interest Income20,678 23,365 163 1,460 3,565 6,329 17,398 111 28,775 35,027 51,680 62,550 Interfund loan (PIR Fund)- 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - - - - - Transfers In450,000 - 537,625 652,625 641,125 721,625 727,375 457,125 649,750 773,375 649,750 - Total Revenues2,863,788$ 3,176,140$ 4,769,382$ 4,666,306$ 5,739,720$ 5,607,702$ 5,711,523$ 5,513,163$ 5,825,858$ 6,049,426$ 6,038,488$ 5,498,042$ ExpendituresServices & Other Charges43,929 45,247 46,604 48,002 49,442 50,926 52,454 54,027 55,648 57,317 59,037 60,808 Debt Service- - - - - - - - - - - - Interfund loan repayments- - - 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 Interfund loan repayments- - - - - 126,000 126,000 126,000 126,000 126,000 126,000 126,000 Capital Outlay (Mod Approach)2,135,842 4,677,716 4,098,685 3,706,903 4,746,370 3,852,751 5,839,700 2,846,639 4,459,180 3,864,100 4,360,560 3,059,350 Capital Outlay - Street Rehab- - 537,625 652,625 641,125 721,625 727,375 457,125 649,750 773,375 649,750 - Transfers Out551,810 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures2,731,581$ 4,722,963$ 4,682,914$ 4,525,996$ 5,555,403$ 4,869,768$ 6,863,995$ 3,602,257$ 5,409,044$ 4,939,258$ 5,313,813$ 3,364,624$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance132,207$ (1,546,823)$ 86,468$ 140,310$ 184,317$ 737,934$ (1,152,472)$ 1,910,906$ 416,814$ 1,110,168$ 724,675$ 2,133,418$ Fund Balance - Beginning2,039,178$ 2,171,385$ 624,562$ 711,030$ 851,340$ 1,035,657$ 1,773,591$ 621,120$ 2,532,025$ 2,948,839$ 4,059,007$ 4,783,681$ Fund Balance - Ending2,171,385$ 624,562$ 711,030$ 851,340$ 1,035,657$ 1,773,591$ 621,120$ 2,532,025$ 2,948,839$ 4,059,007$ 4,783,681$ 6,917,100$ Fund Balance Percentage45.98% 13.34% 15.71% 15.32% 21.27% 25.84% 17.24% 46.81% 59.70% 76.39% 142.18% 2252.41%Cash Available at Year End1,557,682$ 10,859$ 97,327$ 237,637$ 421,954$ 1,159,888$ 7,417$ 1,918,322$ 2,335,136$ 3,445,304$ 4,169,978$ 6,303,396$ Cash Available Percentage32.98% 0.23% 2.15% 4.28% 8.66% 16.90% 0.21% 35.47% 47.28% 64.84% 123.94% 2052.57%Page 15Updated 10/2/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 46
Financial Management PlanSidewalks and Trails- This fund accounts for revenues and expenditures related to the the enhancement of the City's sidewalks and trails system.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesGeneral Property Taxes/ HRA Levy------------ Tax Levy (2018 Issue- 10yr)---532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 Tax Levy (2019 Issue- 10yr)----432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 Tax Levy (2020 Issue- 10yr)-----227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 Tax Levy (2021 Issue- 10yr)------189,000 189,000 189,000 189,000 189,000 189,000 Tax Levy (2022 Issue- 10yr)-------833,000 833,000 833,000 833,000 833,000 Tax Levy (2023 Issue- 10yr)--------782,000 782,000 782,000 782,000 Tax Levy (2024 Issue- 10yr)---------80,00080,00080,000 Tax Levy (2025 Issue- 10yr)----------105,000 105,000 Tax Levy (2026 Issue- 10yr)-----------96,000Interest Income18,16315,0757,2273,7784,3593,6513,4794,5505,7104,7865,1066,344Miscellaneous/ Grants---2,918,400 560,000 -------Bond Proceeds2,656,544 4,500,000 3,500,000 1,800,000 1,500,000 6,600,000 6,200,000 650,000 860,000 800,000 700,000 Transfers In625,591 Total Revenues643,754$ 2,671,619$ 4,507,227$ 6,955,099$ 3,329,280$ 2,695,572$ 7,984,400$ 8,418,471$ 3,651,631$ 3,940,707$ 3,986,027$ 3,983,265$ ExpendituresPersonal Services34,83185,20654,54056,44958,42560,46962,73765,09067,53170,06372,86575,051Services & Other Charges------------Debt Service------------------------Debt Service Pymts (2018 Issue- 1---532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 532,921 Debt Service Pymts (2019 Issue- 1----432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000 Debt Service Pymts (2020Issue- 10-----227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 Debt Service Pymts (2021Issue- 10------189,000 189,000 189,000 189,000 189,000 189,000 Debt Service Pymts (2022 Issue- 1-------833,000 833,000 833,000 833,000 833,000 Debt Service Pymts (2023 Issue- 1--------782,000 782,000 782,000 782,000 Debt Service Pymts (2024 Issue- 1---------80,00080,00080,000Debt Service Pymts (2025 Issue- 1----------105,000 105,000 Debt Service Pymts (2026 Issue- 1-----------96,000Capital Outlay1,326,029 3,109,600 4,145,000 5,674,400 1,712,000 733,000 5,742,000 5,605,000 ----Transfers Out (gap segments)851,942 537,625 652,625 641,125 721,625 727,375 457,125 649,750 773,375 649,750 649,750 Total Expenditures2,212,802$ 3,194,806$ 4,737,165$ 6,916,395$ 3,376,471$ 2,707,015$ 7,913,033$ 8,341,136$ 3,713,202$ 3,919,359$ 3,903,536$ 4,001,722$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(1,569,048)$ (523,187)$ (229,938)$ 38,704$ (47,191)$ (11,444)$ 71,367$ 77,335$ (61,571)$ 21,348$ 82,491$ (18,458)$ Fund Balance - Beginning2,581,015$ 1,011,967$ 488,780$ 258,842$ 297,546$ 250,355$ 238,912$ 310,279$ 387,614$ 326,043$ 347,391$ 429,882$ Fund Balance - Ending1,011,967$ 488,780$ 258,842$ 297,546$ 250,355$ 238,912$ 310,279$ 387,614$ 326,043$ 347,391$ 429,882$ 411,424$ Fund Balance Percentage31.68% 10.32% 3.74% 8.81% 9.25% 3.02% 3.72% 10.44% 8.32% 8.90% 10.74% 12.27%Cash Available at Year End1,005,002$ 481,815$ 251,877$ 290,582$ 243,391$ 231,947$ 303,314$ 380,649$ 319,078$ 340,426$ 422,917$ 404,460$ Cash Available Percentage31.46% 10.17% 3.64% 8.61% 8.99% 2.93% 3.64% 10.25% 8.14% 8.72% 10.57% 12.06%Page 16Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 47
Financial Management PlanCapital Replacement Fund - Funds technology, buildings, and equipment capital expenditures. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesGeneral Property Taxes 1,767,700 1,767,700 1,767,700 1,856,085 1,948,889 2,046,334 2,148,650 2,256,083 2,368,887 2,487,331 2,487,331 2,487,331 Equipment Replacement Charges1,187,590 1,310,272 1,375,785 1,444,574 1,516,803 1,592,643 1,672,275 1,755,889 1,843,683 1,935,868 2,032,661 2,134,294 Technology Replacement Charges123,456 127,160 130,974 134,904 138,951 143,119 147,413 151,835 156,390 161,082 165,915 170,892 Housing Authority11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 11,503 LGA (Capital Replacement Fund)539,434 545,474 566,617 566,617 - - - - - - - - Interest Income1,582 15,167 12,162 513 16,907 10,345 20,265 24,300 43,941 75,612 107,000 129,033 Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue196,215 202,101 208,165 214,409 220,842 227,467 234,291 241,320 248,559 256,016 263,697 271,607 Bond Proceeds- - - 11,000,000 - - - - - - - - Transfers In983,129 550,000 - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues4,810,609$ 4,529,377$ 4,072,906$ 15,228,606$ 3,853,895$ 4,031,411$ 4,234,398$ 4,440,930$ 4,672,964$ 4,927,412$ 5,068,107$ 5,204,661$ ExpendituresSupplies202 - - - - - - - - - - - Non-Capital Equipment1,797,185 - - - - - - - - - - - Services & Other Charges1,964,261 - - - - - - - - - - - Capital Outlay230,069 - - - - - - - - - - - Technology- 1,318,000 1,465,925 1,113,678 1,514,063 1,219,582 1,028,239 1,044,037 1,016,981 1,367,073 1,157,317 1,051,118 Annual Equip. Repl. Program- 1,416,510 2,271,818 1,562,806 2,156,623 1,475,776 2,219,480 1,430,186 1,165,631 959,275 2,150,909 2,755,432 Buildings- 1,864,500 993,500 11,365,000 346,000 318,000 646,000 166,000 291,000 394,000 226,000 136,000 Fire/Police- 130,700 118,200 94,200 274,700 356,700 71,700 491,283 88,000 114,500 65,000 93,000 Transfers Out91,415 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures4,083,132$ 4,729,710$ 4,849,443$ 14,135,684$ 4,291,386$ 3,370,058$ 3,965,419$ 3,131,506$ 2,561,612$ 2,834,848$ 3,599,226$ 4,035,550$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance727,477$ (200,333)$ (776,537)$ 1,092,922$ (437,491)$ 661,353$ 268,979$ 1,309,424$ 2,111,352$ 2,092,564$ 1,468,881$ 1,169,111$ Fund Balance - Beginning18,045,711$ 18,773,188$ 18,572,855$ 17,796,317$ 18,889,239$ 18,451,748$ 19,113,101$ 19,382,080$ 20,691,504$ 22,802,856$ 24,895,420$ 26,364,301$ Fund Balance - Ending18,773,188$ 18,572,855$ 17,796,317$ 18,889,239$ 18,451,748$ 19,113,101$ 19,382,080$ 20,691,504$ 22,802,856$ 24,895,420$ 26,364,301$ 27,533,412$ Fund Balance Percentage396.92% 382.99% 125.90% 440.17% 547.52% 481.99% 618.94% 807.75% 804.38% 691.69% 653.30% #DIV/0!Cash Available at Year End1,011,102$ 810,769$ 34,231$ 1,127,153$ 689,662$ 1,351,015$ 1,619,994$ 2,929,418$ 5,040,770$ 7,133,334$ 8,602,215$ 9,771,326$ Cash Available Percentage21.38% 16.72% 0.24% 26.27% 20.46% 34.07% 51.73% 114.36% 177.81% 198.19% 213.16% #DIV/0!Target Cash Balance - 35-50%Page 17Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 48
City of St. Louis Park Utilities Financial Planning Model Water Fund Scenario Summary
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Ending Cash by Purpose
Unassigned (1,943,713) (1,541,511) (1,313,001) (1,558,605) (3,047,393) (2,805,484) (3,562,645) (3,949,111) (3,850,070) (2,872,827)
1,178,948 1,231,496 1,284,040 1,322,010 1,345,788 1,374,255 1,401,195 1,424,094 1,450,018 1,479,002
For following year debt service 1,471,986 1,874,107 2,574,535 2,416,195 2,584,370 2,596,601 2,464,953 2,461,226 2,320,527 1,763,597
For next year planned capital 809,966 0 0 1,898,026 2,730,268 1,357,085 2,740,873 2,660,666 2,601,705 2,586,666
For cash held with fiscal agent 0000000000
Ending Cash by Purpose 1,517,188 1,564,092 2,545,575 4,077,625 3,613,034 2,522,456 3,044,376 2,596,875 2,522,181 2,956,439
Unrestricted Net Position
Estimated Unrestricted Net Position 1,817,188 1,864,092 2,845,575 4,377,625 3,913,034 2,822,456 3,344,376 2,896,875 2,822,181 3,256,439
Subsequent Year's Expenditures 5,695,515 5,983,282 6,254,996 6,501,775 6,665,145 6,846,866 7,023,151 7,181,263 7,350,001 7,530,604
Ending Unrestricted Net Position as
% of Projected Expenditures**32% 31%45%67% 59%41% 48% 40% 38% 43%
Total
Total Capital Outlay 3,950,000 6,955,165 3,103,012 2,461,502 3,796,051 2,730,268 2,714,170 2,740,873 2,660,666 2,601,705 33,713,412
Costs of Bond Issuance 97,045 154,801 76,988 80,047 46,975 0 32,915000488,771
Total Use of Funds 4,047,045 7,109,966 3,180,000 2,541,549 3,843,026 2,730,268 2,747,085 2,740,873 2,660,666 2,601,705
G.O. Bonds 4,020,000 6,300,000 3,180,000 3,280,000 1,945,000 0 1,390,00000020,115,000
State Grant 00000000000
Other Revenue 00000000000
Use of Cash (Unspent Funds) 27,045 809,966 0 (738,451) 1,898,026 2,730,268 1,357,085 2,740,873 2,660,666 2,601,705 14,087,183
Total Source of Funds 4,047,045 7,109,966 3,180,000 2,541,549 3,843,026 2,730,268 2,747,085 2,740,873 2,660,666 2,601,705
Residential
Annual Increase (%) 0.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
Tier 1 40404040404040404040
Tier 2 80808080808080808080
Tier 3 NANANANANANANANANANA
Rate 1 $1.78 $1.89 $2.00 $2.12 $2.25 $2.38 $2.50 $2.63 $2.76 $2.90
Rate 2 $2.21 $2.34 $2.48 $2.63 $2.79 $2.96 $3.11 $3.26 $3.42 $3.59
Rate 3 $3.31 $3.51 $3.72 $3.94 $4.18 $4.43 $4.65 $4.88 $5.13 $5.38
Rate 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Commercial
Annual Increase (%) 0.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
Tier 1 NANANANANANANANANANA
Tier 2 NANANANANANANANANANA
Tier 3 NANANANANANANANANANA
Rate 1 $1.78 $1.89 $2.00 $2.12 $2.25 $2.38 $2.50 $2.63 $2.76 $2.90
Rate 2 $2.00 $2.12 $2.25 $2.38 $2.52 $2.68 $2.81 $2.95 $3.10 $3.25
Rate 3 $3.00 $3.18 $3.37 $3.57 $3.79 $4.01 $4.22 $4.43 $4.65 $4.88
Rate 4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Irrigation $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Meter Charge Annual Increase (%0.00% 9.80% 9.00% 8.20% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
Estimated Decrease in Demand 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Residential
Tier 1 1,379,234 1,403,048 1,463,122 1,508,104 1,551,224 1,568,864 1,568,864 1,568,864 1,568,864 1,568,864
Tier 2 37,280 37,280 37,280 37,280 37,280 37,280 37,280 37,280 37,280 37,280
Tier 3 20,761 20,761 20,761 20,761 20,761 20,761 20,761 20,761 20,761 20,761
Tier 4 0000000000
Total 1,437,275 1,461,089 1,521,163 1,566,145 1,609,265 1,626,905 1,626,905 1,626,905 1,626,905 1,626,905
Commercial
Quarterly Consumption 30,000 30,300 32,250 32,800 34,900 34,900 34,900 34,900 34,900 34,900
Tier 1 728,487 728,787 730,737 731,287 733,387 733,387 733,387 733,387 733,387 733,387
Tier 2 0000000000
Tier 3 0000000000
Tier 4 0000000000
Total 728,487 728,787 730,737 731,287 733,387 733,387 733,387 733,387 733,387 733,387
Irrigation 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
Projected Consumption
Water Fund Scenario Summary
Description Insert brief description of this scenario
Financial Overview
Capital Improvements
Rate Changes
10/2/2017 Page 1 of 1
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility Rates Page 49
City of St. Louis ParkUtilities Financial Planning ModelSewer Fund Scenario SummaryDescription2017201820192020202120222023202420252026Ending Cash by PurposeUnassigned (3,019,512) (2,134,396) (755,693) 113,591 1,280,366 2,836,581 4,678,752 7,583,216 10,744,524 14,331,681For 3-months of operating cash 1,570,026 1,623,247 1,677,390 1,724,435 1,774,082 1,825,222 1,877,900 1,932,128 1,988,058 2,045,848For following year debt service 50,431 196,953 276,019 275,378 274,704 274,379 273,357 282,020 253,781 252,541For next year planned capital 1,638,167 911,167 856,167 843,667 975,167 933,167 940,667 183,667 291,167 233,667For cash held with fiscal agent 0000000000Ending Cash by Purpose 239,112 596,971 2,053,883 2,957,072 4,304,319 5,869,349 7,770,676 9,981,031 13,277,530 16,863,737Unrestricted Net PositionEstimated Unrestricted Net Position1,642,112 1,999,971 3,456,883 4,360,072 5,707,319 7,272,349 9,173,676 11,384,031 14,680,530 18,266,737Subsequent Year's Expenditures 6,459,102 6,694,765 6,932,742 7,142,015 7,364,982 7,592,870 7,827,099 8,048,605 8,279,601 8,516,605Ending Net Position as % of Projected Expenditures**25% 30%50%61% 77% 96% 117% 141% 177% 214%Total Capital Outlay 950,000 1,638,167 911,167 856,167 843,667 975,167 933,167 940,667 183,667 291,167 8,523,003Costs of Bond Issuance 23,29620,91723,833000000068,045Total Use of Funds 973,296 1,659,084 935,000 856,167 843,667 975,167 933,167 940,667 183,667 291,167G.O. Bonds 965,000 840,000 935,00000000002,740,000State Grant00000000000Other Revenue00000000000Use of Cash (Unspent Funds)8,296 819,0840 856,167 843,667 975,167 933,167 940,667 183,667 291,167 5,851,048Total Source of Funds973,296 1,659,084 935,000 856,167 843,667 975,167 933,167 940,667 183,667 291,167Annual Increase (%)Base0.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%Consumption0.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%Base RateResidential$16.78 $17.62 $18.50 $19.42 $20.40 $21.42 $22.49 $23.61 $24.79 $26.03Apartment$16.78 $17.62 $18.50 $19.42 $20.40 $21.42 $22.49 $23.61 $24.79 $26.03Commercial$16.78 $17.62 $18.50 $19.42 $20.40 $21.42 $22.49 $23.61 $24.79 $26.03Consumption$3.28 $3.44 $3.62 $3.80 $3.99 $4.19 $4.40 $4.62 $4.85 $5.09Rate Based on Water VolumeNo No No No No No No No NoWater Volume For Sewer RateNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAProjected ConsumptionSewer Fund Scenario SummaryInsert brief description of this scenarioFinancial OverviewCapital ImprovementsRate Changes10/2/2017Page 1 of 1Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 50
Financial Management PlanStorm Water Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of storm water including administration, billing and collection, maintenance, operations and capital.Percentage Rate Increase6.0%6.0%5%4%4%4%4%4%3%3%Rate- residential qtrly21.83$ 23.14$ 24.53$ 25.75$ 26.78$ 27.86$ 28.97$ 30.13$ 31.33$ 32.12$ 32.92$ 201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027Actual Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesIntergovernmental- - - - - - - - - - - - Charges for Services2,642,382 2,853,520 3,024,731 3,206,215 3,366,526 3,501,187 3,641,234 3,786,884 3,938,359 4,095,893 4,198,291 4,303,248 Interest Income25,119 2,875 14,800 5,768 5,034 5,347 13,185 15,741 23,386 28,434 42,665 61,139 Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue477 - - - - - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds- 1,000,000 Transfers In334,690 Total Revenues3,002,668$ 2,856,395$ 4,039,531$ 3,211,983$ 3,371,560$ 3,506,534$ 3,654,420$ 3,802,625$ 3,961,745$ 4,124,328$ 4,240,956$ 4,364,387$ ExpendituresPersonal Services542,193 705,221 796,527 824,405 853,260 883,124 916,241 950,600 986,247 1,023,232 1,064,161 1,096,086 Supplies3,782 27,800 28,600 29,458 30,342 31,252 32,190 33,155 34,150 35,174 36,230 37,317 Non-Capital Equipment- 3,000 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,478 3,582 3,690 3,800 3,914 Services & Other Charges829,779 597,828 595,187 613,043 631,434 650,377 669,888 689,985 710,684 732,005 753,965 776,584 Debt Service21,191 182,804 183,397 183,897 184,777 96,878 97,620 98,384 48,617 48,128 - - Other Expenses- 11,000 23,500 24,205 24,931 25,679 26,449 27,243 28,060 28,902 29,769 30,662 Capital Outlay47,235 3,274,280 2,688,977 1,250,687 1,280,677 941,027 1,375,317 1,116,297 1,428,837 907,917 712,957 672,167 Transfers Out314,269 313,067 322,459 332,133 342,097 352,360 362,930 373,818 385,033 396,584 408,481 420,736 Total Expenditures1,758,449$ 5,115,000$ 4,641,647$ 3,260,917$ 3,350,699$ 2,983,975$ 3,484,012$ 3,292,960$ 3,625,211$ 3,175,632$ 3,009,363$ 3,037,466$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance1,244,219$ (2,258,605)$ (602,116)$ (48,934)$ 20,860$ 522,559$ 170,408$ 509,665$ 336,534$ 948,696$ 1,231,592$ 1,326,921$ Fund Balance - Beginning15,067,791$ 16,312,010$ 14,053,405$ 13,451,288$ 13,402,354$ 13,423,214$ 13,945,773$ 14,116,181$ 14,625,846$ 14,962,381$ 15,911,077$ 17,142,669$ Fund Balance - Ending16,312,010$ 14,053,405$ 13,451,288$ 13,402,354$ 13,423,214$ 13,945,773$ 14,116,181$ 14,625,846$ 14,962,381$ 15,911,077$ 17,142,669$ 18,469,590$ Fund Balance Percentage318.91% 302.77% 412.50% 399.99% 449.84% 400.28% 428.68% 403.45% 471.16% 528.72% 564.37% 768.07%Cash Available at Year End3,245,258$ 986,653$ 384,537$ 335,602$ 356,463$ 879,022$ 1,049,429$ 1,559,094$ 1,895,629$ 2,844,325$ 4,075,917$ 5,402,838$ Cash Available Percentage63.45% 21.26% 11.79% 10.02% 11.95% 25.23% 31.87% 43.01% 59.69% 94.52% 134.19% 224.68%Target Cash Balance - 25-40%Page 21Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 51
Financial Management PlanSolid Waste Utility Fund - Accounts for all provisions of revenues and expenses related to the collection, disposal and recycling of residential solid waste.Percentage Rate Increase5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027Actual Adopted Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesIntergovernmental- - - - - - - - - - - - 174,160 148,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 Charges for Services3,229,703 3,319,001 3,596,775 3,776,614 3,965,444 4,163,717 4,371,902 4,590,498 4,820,022 5,061,024 5,314,075 5,579,779 Interest Income14,478 30,849 15,000 25,468 21,156 18,509 16,809 16,133 16,585 18,205 21,263 25,784 Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue10,886 2,500 - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues3,429,226$ 3,500,350$ 3,751,775$ 3,942,082$ 4,126,600$ 4,322,226$ 4,528,712$ 4,746,630$ 4,976,607$ 5,219,228$ 5,475,337$ 5,745,562$ ExpendituresPersonal Services483,172 590,172 629,871 651,916 674,734 698,349 724,537 751,707 779,897 809,143 841,508 866,754 Supplies110,947 95,350 89,750 92,443 95,216 98,072 101,014 104,045 107,166 110,381 113,693 117,103 Non-Capital Equipment75,415 58,000 95,000 58,000 59,740 61,532 63,378 65,280 67,238 69,255 71,333 73,473 Services & Other Charges91,242 119,499 119,442 123,025 126,716 130,517 134,433 138,466 142,620 146,899 151,306 155,845 Disposal Charges2,450,485 2,573,000 2,895,000 2,981,850 3,071,306 3,163,445 3,258,348 3,356,098 3,456,781 3,560,485 3,667,299 3,777,318 Capital Outlay30,884 - - 55,000 - - - - 5,000 - - - Other Expenses- 11,000 25,500 26,265 27,053 27,865 28,700 29,561 30,448 31,362 32,303 1 Transfers Out220,611 227,229 234,046 241,068 248,300 255,749 263,421 271,324 279,463 287,847 296,483 305,377 Total Expenditures3,462,756$ 3,674,250$ 4,088,609$ 4,229,567$ 4,303,063$ 4,435,529$ 4,573,832$ 4,716,481$ 4,868,614$ 5,015,371$ 5,173,924$ 5,295,871$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance(33,530)$ (173,900)$ (336,834)$ (287,485)$ (176,463)$ (113,303)$ (45,121)$ 30,149$ 107,994$ 203,857$ 301,413$ 449,691$ Fund Balance - Beginning2,597,847$ 2,564,317$ 2,390,417$ 2,053,583$ 1,766,098$ 1,589,635$ 1,476,331$ 1,431,211$ 1,461,360$ 1,569,353$ 1,773,210$ 2,074,624$ Fund Balance - Ending2,564,317$ 2,390,417$ 2,053,583$ 1,766,098$ 1,589,635$ 1,476,331$ 1,431,211$ 1,461,360$ 1,569,353$ 1,773,210$ 2,074,624$ 2,524,315$ Fund Balance Percentage69.79% 58.47% 48.55% 41.04% 35.84% 32.28% 30.34% 30.02% 31.29% 34.27% 39.17% 46.28%Target Cash Balance - 25-40%Cash Available at Year End1,708,616$ 2,034,716$ 1,697,881$ 1,410,397$ 1,233,934$ 1,120,630$ 1,075,510$ 1,105,658$ 1,213,652$ 1,417,509$ 1,718,923$ 2,168,614$ Cash Available Percentage46.50% 49.77% 40.14% 32.78% 27.82% 24.50% 22.80% 22.71% 24.20% 27.40% 32.46% 39.76%Target Cash Balance - 25-40%Hennepin County/ Op. Grants /Score GrantPage 20Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 52
Financial Management PlanUninsured Loss Fund - This fund covers self-insured workers comp claims, property and liability claim deductibles that are underwritten by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesInterest Income4,689 4,000 4,000 10,086 10,118 10,144 10,164 10,177 10,182 10,177 10,164 10,139 Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue243,690 200,000 225,000 231,750 238,703 245,864 253,239 260,837 268,662 276,722 285,023 293,574 Transfers In- - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues248,379$ 204,000$ 229,000$ 241,836$ 248,820$ 256,008$ 263,404$ 271,014$ 278,843$ 286,899$ 295,187$ 303,713$ ExpendituresPersonal Services29,784 30,531 32,562 33,702 34,881 36,102 37,456 38,860 40,318 41,830 43,503 44,808 Supplies- - - - - - - - - - - Services & Other Charges214,457 175,000 200,000 206,000 212,180 218,545 225,102 231,855 238,810 245,975 253,354 260,955 Transfers Out- - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures244,241$ 205,531$ 232,562$ 239,702$ 247,061$ 254,647$ 262,558$ 270,715$ 279,128$ 287,804$ 296,857$ 305,763$ Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance4,137$ (1,531)$ (3,562)$ 2,134$ 1,759$ 1,360$ 846$ 298$ (285)$ (906)$ (1,670)$ (2,050)$ Fund Balance - Beginning738,674$ 742,811$ 741,280$ 737,718$ 739,852$ 741,611$ 742,971$ 743,817$ 744,116$ 743,831$ 742,925$ 741,255$ Fund Balance - Ending742,811$ 741,280$ 737,718$ 739,852$ 741,611$ 742,971$ 743,817$ 744,116$ 743,831$ 742,925$ 741,255$ 739,205$ Fund Balance Percentage361.41% 318.75% 307.77% 299.46% 291.23% 282.97% 274.76% 266.59% 258.45% 250.26% 242.43% 234.72%Cash Available at Year End677,468$ 675,937$ 672,375$ 674,509$ 676,268$ 677,628$ 678,474$ 678,773$ 678,488$ 677,582$ 675,912$ 673,862$ Cash Available Percentage329.62% 290.65% 280.50% 273.01% 265.57% 258.09% 250.62% 243.18% 235.75% 228.25% 221.06% 213.97%Target Cash Balance - Page 23Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 53
Financial Management Plan Benefits Administration Fund - This fund covers the cost of insurance, unemployment, flex leave payouts, and tuition reimbursement.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Actual Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedRevenuesGeneral Property Taxes / HRA Levy200,000 200,000 200,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000 600,000 650,000 700,000 Intergovernmental280,809 289,233 15,414 15,876 16,353 16,843 17,349 17,869 18,405 18,957 19,526 20,112 Interest Income14,803 14,287 15,516 12,580 10,946 9,880 9,387 9,473 10,144 11,405 10,262 9,675 Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue169,321 173,891 179,108 184,481 190,016 195,716 201,587 207,635 213,864 220,280 226,888 233,695 Transfers In200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Total Revenues864,933$ 877,411$ 610,037$ 712,938$ 767,314$ 822,439$ 878,323$ 934,977$ 992,413$ 850,643$ 906,677$ 963,482$ Cash OutflowsPublic Safety Disabilitant Ins- - - - - - - - - - - Self Insurance costs - Sedg12,645 24,000 24,000 24,720 25,462 26,225 27,012 27,823 28,657 29,517 30,402 31,315 HOM claims35,944 36,000 36,000 37,080 38,192 39,338 40,518 41,734 42,986 44,275 45,604 46,972 Unemployment31,212 40,000 40,000 41,200 42,436 43,709 45,020 46,371 47,762 49,195 50,671 52,191 General Professional Services68,589 65,000 66,000 67,980 70,019 72,120 74,284 76,512 78,807 81,172 83,607 86,115 Tuition42,243 60,000 60,000 61,800 63,654 65,564 67,531 69,556 71,643 73,792 76,006 78,286 Estimated Cash OutflowsFlex Payout to VEBA/Employee392,619 396,619 400,619 404,619 408,619 412,619 416,619 420,619 424,619 428,619 432,619 436,619 Retiree Payouts Insurance Prem.173,542 173,891 179,108 184,481 190,016 195,716 201,587 207,635 213,864 220,280 226,888 233,695 Total Cash Outflows756,793$ 795,510$ 805,727$ 821,880$ 838,398$ 855,291$ 872,571$ 890,250$ 908,339$ 926,851$ 945,797$ 965,193$ Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance108,139$ 81,901$ (195,689)$ (108,942)$ (71,084)$ (32,852)$ 5,752$ 44,727$ 84,075$ (76,208)$ (39,121)$ (1,711)$ Cash Available at Year End952,469$ 1,034,370$ 838,681$ 729,738$ 658,655$ 625,803$ 631,554$ 676,282$ 760,356$ 684,148$ 645,028$ 643,317$ Cash Available Percentage119.73% 128.38% 102.04% 87.04% 77.01% 71.72% 70.94% 74.45% 82.04% 72.34% 66.83% 65.31%Target Cash Balance - Page 22Updated 10/1/2017Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 54
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKESTIMATED QUARTERLY UTILITY BILL ACTUAL 2017 AND PROPOSED 2018 Household Size 4Units per quarter 30Solid Waste Service 60-gallonMeter size 3/4 inchActual Proposed Dollar PercentService Type 2017 2018 Change Change NotesWaterPer unit rate - Tier 1 1.78$ 1.89$ 0.11$ 6.18%Service charge24.79$ 27.23$ 2.44$ 9.84%State testing fee1.59$ 1.59$ -$ 0.00%Consumption53.40$ 56.70$ 3.30$ 6.18%SewerService charge16.78$ 17.62$ 0.84$ 5.01%Per unit3.28$ 3.44$ 0.16$ 4.88%Consumption98.40$ 103.20$ 4.80$ 4.88%Storm DrainageService charge21.83$ 23.14$ 1.31$ 6.00%Bassett Creek Fee*1.93$ 1.93$ -$ 0.00% Bassett Creek feeSolid Waste (includes tax)69.00$ 72.45$ 3.45$ 5.00%Total Bill without Bassett* 285.79$ 301.93$ 16.14$ 5.65% Not including BCWMCIncrease per quarter (dollars)16.14$ Increase per month (dollars)5.38$ * Since not all property owners would be charged this fee, it is not included in the dollar or percentage change in total bill.Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP and Utility RatesPage 55
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Staff, Elizabeth Griffin of the Park and Recreation Advisory
Commission (PRAC), and representatives from the girl’s fastpitch softball association will be in
attendance to share with Council their recommendations to add a girl’s fastpitch field at Aquila
Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council supportive of converting one of the fields at Aquila
Park to a girl’s fastpitch field? Which of the three options at Aquila Park would Council like staff
to pursue option - 1A, 1B, or 1C?
SUMMARY: The findings and recommendations of the Fastpitch Softball Task Force were
presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) on May 3, 2017. On June
12 representatives of the PRAC were in attendance at the Council’s Study Session to present their
recommendation to explore Option 2A – the Middle School site. The consensus of the Council
was for staff to pursue that option with the school district staff. The school district was able to
commit to a field configuration with only one fenced and two unfenced fields on the site at this
time. At their August 14 meeting, Council decided against pursuing the Middle School location
and directed staff to look at three options at Aquila Park.
Staff has been working with Candace Amberg, Landscape Architect from WSB, on field layouts
and cost estimates for each of the three options. All three options involve converting one adult
softball field to a girl’s fastpitch softball field. The layout and cost of each option are attached. The
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed these options at their meeting on October
2, 2017. At that meeting PRAC recommended to the Council that Option 1B be pursued which
involves converting an adult softball field to a fastpitch softball field and keeping the fields in their
current configuration. The Girls Fastpitch Association would like to see Option 1C selected with
a goal of 1A in the future. More details about each option are included in the discussion section of
this report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Aquila Park is in need of new ball field lights
with or without the fastpitch softball improvements. There is currently $450,000 in the CIP for
lights at Aquila. Because lights are necessary and already in our CIP, this cost has been removed
from all three cost estimates and are instead noted at the bottom of each page. The PRAC
discussion included costs with lights. The three options at Aquila Park have the following cost
estimates (rounded figures and without lighting): 1A is $2.4 million, 1B is $750,000 and 1C is
$1.2 million. A cost breakdown of possible funding scenarios for each option are provided by Tim
Simon, Chief Financial Officer, in the attached discussion. The current CIP does not include any
of these project options.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Master Plan Documents
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update
DISCUSSION
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission met on October 2, 2017 to review the three options
for Aquila Park. The draft minutes from the PRAC meeting are attached at the end of this report.
In summary, after PRAC completed its review of the options, a motion was made and seconded to
recommend to the Council Option 1C. That motion failed on a vote of two in favor and five
opposed. A subsequent motion was made and seconded to recommend Option 1B. That motion
passed on a vote of five in favor, one opposed and one abstention.
A majority of the Commission felt that Option 1B would be the most cost effective way to
construct an additional fastpitch field and continue to provide a tournament option for the
association. Some of the advantages of this option include less disruption as compared to the other
options for this complex (Option 1A and 1C) as well as being less costly. For example, while there
may be some times of disruption, Field 4, which is the field currently used for fastpitch, would be
available during construction. In addition, parking and concession amenities are adequate and close.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The current Park Improvement Fund Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) does
not have the girl’s fastpitch project included at this time. If Council would like to include a project
in the CIP, staff would need to know the year based on the priority of the project (2018-2027).
After taking into consideration the projects already included in the CIP, and assuming no other
outside funding would be provided or available, the following funding options are suggested at
this time:
1A - $2,400,000 – G.O. Bonds ($1,600,000) / Park Improvement Fund ($800,000)
1B - $800,000 – Park Improvement Fund ($800,000)
1C - $1,200,000 - G.O. Bonds ($400,000) / Park Improvement Fund ($800,000)
TIMELINES FOR IMPOVEMENTS AND IMPACTS ON EXISTING FIELD USERS: If
City Council provides staff with direction on a specific option to pursue, the construction timelines
are similar for all options. The major difference would be how many fields are affected.
In Option 1A, all four fields would be unavailable for use for approximately 1½ - 2 years. At this
time staff is not yet sure of how we could accommodate the loss of these fields in our system
during construction. Since the entire complex would be shut down, it would not be available for
use by the high school girl’s fastpitch team, the girl’s fastpitch association teams, other City
programs including adult softball, or other youth associations who use the facility for tournaments.
This option would also have a significant impact on adult softball after construction as well. This
option also brings in to question the ability to conduct our July 4th fireworks celebration at this
location, certainly during construction, and perhaps even when the project is complete given the
new configuration. That issue would need to be explored further with the Fire Dept.
With Option 1B, field four, which is the existing girl’s fastpitch field, remains playable with the
exception of 3 - 5 days when we would install new lights and irrigation. This could potentially be
done between seasons so there is minimal if any loss of playing time. Field one would be
unavailable during construction. Since this is a loss of a field used by adult softball, we would
need to reduce this program by accepting less teams. At this time staff does not anticipate that the
July 4th fireworks event would need to be relocated, but that issue still needs to be evaluated further.
In Option 1C, both fields four and one would be unavailable throughout construction. The high
school girl’s fastpitch team, as well as the girl’s fastpitch association, would have to find
alternative sites. As with the other options, the City’s adult softball program would also be
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update
impacted. And, as with the other options, the viability of July 4th fireworks event, at least during
construction, would need to be evaluated further
The demolition of the lights and removal of fences could begin this fall on any of the three options
providing we do not have a lot of snow before the end of the year. Staff would work with WSB to
prepare plans and specifications with the hope of bidding in early 2018. Construction could begin
in spring of 2018 (weather pending) with a goal of seeding the site in August or early September
of 2018. To allow the grass adequate time to take root, experts recommend that new fields not be
played on until the following fall of 2019.
NEXT STEPS: If staff is given direction to proceed on one of the options listed above, an actual
project survey is necessary and could begin as soon as a survey company can be retained. The
cost of this survey is reflected in all three cost estimates. Plans and specifications would then be
drawn up for the project. If we want to start construction in the spring of 2018, bidding should
happen in early 2018. As noted above in the financial impacts, GO Bonds would need to be sold
for Options 1A and 1C.
__________________________________________________________________
Draft Minutes of October 2, 2017 Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
Commissioner Griffin opened the discussion. She stated the need for a formal vote on field
Options (1A, 1B or 1C) for the Girls Fastpitch Association at the meeting tonight. There may
be a desire on behalf of some to do nothing, she acknowledged, but she strongly recommended
the Commission vote on one of the options presented.
Ms. Amberg gave an overview of each option with time for questions following each
overview. Ms. Walsh noted that staff met with representatives from the Fastpitch Association
earlier that day and made a few minor changes. Therefore, revised cost estimates were
presented at the meeting.
Option 1A. Ms. Amberg advised this Option would include a complete redevelopment of the
Aquila Park ball fields. It would include two fields designed for girl’s fastpitch, and two adult
fields in a new, full pin wheel, configuration. The center of the field areas will be regraded to
reverse the drainage. Lighting will be upgraded to new LED lights on all four fields with
irrigation included on all four fields. Ms. Walsh added the survey needs to be completed. The
design requires large amounts of additional soil to be imported. It includes 30’ high backstops
and 8’ high fencing around all four fields, benches for all four ball fields and a storage shed.
In this option lighting poles would need to be in different locations and the existing wiring
torn up in the regarding process, therefore it will require rewiring. Ms. Walsh advised lighting
will be upgraded on all four fields regardless what decision is made tonight. In response to a
question from Commissioner Foulkes, Ms. Walsh indicated the rewiring would not create a
significant difference in the replacement cost (estimated to be $20,000). She also advised the
ball field redevelopment will require approximately a year for sod/seed to reestablish. The
estimated cost of Option 1A is $3.1 million, however, approximately $500,000 are the lights
which are already on the schedule to be upgraded. In response to a question from
Commissioner May, Ms. Walsh advised construction will take approximately one-and-one-
half years. If demolition began in November of 2017, new games could begin the fall of 2019.
Total cost is $3,101,280 including the lights at all four fields.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update
Option 1B. Ms. Amberg advised field four would not be changed other than a few
improvements that include new irrigation. Field one will be completely refinished at a higher
elevation to improve drainage. The lighting upgrade cost in this estimate only incudes fields
one and four. Commissioner Griffin and Ms. Walsh discussed removing the cost of the
lighting from all estimates and including it at the bottom of each. Ms. Amberg advised there
is not as much regrading in this option as there is in Option 1A. In response to a question from
Commissioner Foulkes, Mr. Beane advised it is usually a three day process to pull in new
irrigation. Estimated cost of Option 1B is $1,088,451 which includes lights at two of the fields.
Option 1C. Ms. Amberg advised this option would begin reconfiguring the field layout to
start a pin wheel. This option includes complete reconstruction of fields one and four with
drainage reversed. The fence line on field three (an adult softball field) will need to be
shortened to give space so water doesn’t collect on field three. The estimated cost of Option
1C is $1,593,023 million, including lighting at two of the fields. Commissioner Foulkes noted
fields one and four would not be available for play next summer.
Ms. Walsh requested clarification on the listing of field lighting upgrades in the cost estimates.
A suggestion was made not to include the lighting estimates. Commissioner Hagemann
suggested they be listed separately on the bottom of the grand total.
Commissioner Griffin recalculated each option estimate without the lighting cost. Option 1A
is now approximately $2,549,000, Option 1B $838,451, and Option 1C approximately
$1,317,023.
Ms. Bruns noted the contingency percentages will be lower with the cost of lighting removed
from the estimate. Ms. Walsh said a revised estimate will be provided to the City Council at
the meeting on October 9 reflecting the decision to remove the lighting, which all agreed with.
Commissioner Griffin invited the St. Louis Park Fastpitch Association to discuss their
thoughts and concerns. Mr. Gross advised he would like to see the full pinwheel. He noted
there have been no field orientation changes in 50 years. He suggested revisiting the needs of
all the different groups who use the fields. By shifting the fields, he commented there would
be more room to add other things to the park area. Mr. Beane advised there would be a very
small sliver of extra space. Fences would interfere with the sliding hill so it would be difficult
to add any additional things in the space available in the outfield.
Mr. Gross stated he spoke to the Police Department who are in favor of the pin wheel
configuration. Ms. Walsh advised she spoke with Police Chief Mike Harcey. He advised there
are no problems with the current fields and no need for corrections. She suggested his
comments may have been taken out of context.
Mr. Gross advised the association would like to hold tournaments and sell concessions to help
fund the new facility. He stated the pin wheel formation provides a central location for people
to gather and, therefore, they are more likely to stay in the area. He stated concession revenue
will be lost without a wheel formation. Commissioner Cantor questioned how much revenue
will be lost. Mr. Gross stated 30 – 40 percent.
If Option 1A is not the preferred option, the association will be willing to start with Option
1C. Commissioner Foulkes inquired what amount of funding the schools have committed to
do the field redevelopment project. Ms. Bruns advised it would be difficult to approach the
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update
School District for funding without a prior decision on the fields. She commented the high
school is very supportive of this project. Ms. Collins stated most school districts have fields
on school property; St. Louis Park does not. Ms. Bruns stated the schools are aware there will
likely be funding requests. Commissioner Griffin summarized the school district, in theory,
is supportive of the idea but has not committed to a financial percentage. Mr. Foulkes inquired
what kind amenities the association is be willing to provide. The Fastpitch Association
suggested perhaps a scoreboard, shed or concession stand. Ms. Bruns stated the infrastructure
should be completed by the City.
Ms. Walsh advised that, although associations have donated specific items in the past, most
will commit to a dollar amount or a percentage of the project. Ms. Bruns advised the
association is open to committing a dollar amount. Ms. Collins agreed it would be easier to
commit to a dollar amount.
Commissioner Griffin requested a vote. She then inquired if the Commissioners have the
information they need for a vote. The Fastpitch Association will commit to a monetary
amount. Commissioner Hagemann stated it is important for him to know that dollar amount.
He also advised the school district should have been an active participant in this discussion.
It is a concern to him they are not a part of this funding discussion. Ms. Walsh advised council
will make a decision and may request funding from the school district. Ms. Griffin advised at
this time, the Commission will have to make a decision assuming the school district will not
make a financial commitment.
Mr. Gross stated the association is not interested in Option 1B. Mr. Cantor inquired if Option
1A or 1C are acceptable and Mr. Gross agreed either Option 1A or 1C would be acceptable.
In response to a question from Commissioner Bluma, Ms. Walsh advised adult softball has
not been included in any of these discussions.
Commissioner Bushland commented she has been involved in this process since the beginning
and believes that they have enough fields just not all located at one location. This a lot of
money to spend. Mr. Hagemann agreed there is adequate capacity for fastpitch softball. If
there is an option to support, it will be Option 1B. With that option there won’t be a whole
year of softball lost. It is the least obstructive option. A pin wheel locks the fields into that
formation and there will be no room for change. Option 1B can be changed and is flexible at
some point in the future.
Commission Cantor advised Option 1A is cost prohibitive and the St. Louis Park Fastpitch
Association is not willing to accept Option 1B.
Commissioner Cantor made a motion to recommend Option 1C, Commissioner May seconded
the motion. The motion was defeated on a vote of 2 – 5.
Commissioner Bushland made a motion to recommend Option 1B, Commissioner Foulkes
seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5 – 1, 1 abstain (Commissioner Cantor).
Ms. Collins advised the St. Louis Park Fastpitch Association will not support Option 1B and
would not contribute any money towards it. Mr. Gross added that he would rather do nothing
than to spend money on Option 1B. Their first choice is Option 1A and second choice is
option 1C.
OPTION 1A
Aquila Additional Options
St. Louis Park, MN
09/21/17 | 02296-120
50
SCALE IN FEET
250 100
•All fields removed in entirety. New fields developed
with new orientation in wheel configuration with new
irrigation and LED lighting.
•NOTES: Due to existing site grades and drainage, the
site would need to include significant regrading to alter
the direction of the drainage in the opposite direction
and existing utilities would be affected. The extent of
stormwater requirements will not be fully known until
further design has been completed.
1
23
4
K:\02296-120\Cad\Exhibits\Aquila Additional Options
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update Page 6
OPTION 1B
50
SCALE IN FEET
250 100
•Field #1: Existing field removed in entirety. New field
developed at higher elevation to improve drainage
and accessibility with all new irrigation and LED lighting.
•Field #4: New irrigation and new LED lighting
1
2
3
4
Aquila Additional Options
St. Louis Park, MN
09/21/17 | 02296-120 K:\02296-120\Cad\Exhibits\Aquila Additional Options
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update Page 7
OPTION 1C
50
SCALE IN FEET
250 100
•Field #1: Existing field removed in entirety. New field
developed with new orientation and with all new
irrigation and LED lighting.
•Field #4: Existing field removed in entirety. New field
developed with new orientation and with all new
irrigation and LED lighting.
•Field #3: Existing outfield fence removed and replaced at
a shorter distanct to accommodate field #4 and related
earthwork modifications
•NOTES: Due to existing site grades and drainage, the
site would need to include significant regrading to alter
the direction of the drainage in the opposite direction
and existing utilities would be affected. The extent of
stormwater requirements will not be fully known until
further design has been completed.
2
3
4 1
Aquila Additional Options
St. Louis Park, MN
09/21/17 | 02296-120 K:\02296-120\Cad\Exhibits\Aquila Additional Options
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update Page 8
WSB Project:Fastpitch Field Feasibility Study
Project Location:City of St. Louis Park
WSB Project No.:2296‐120
Date: 10/4/2017
Item No.Description Unit Est. Base
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price
Estimated Total
Base Cost
1A - AQUILA
Development of (2) Fast Pitch Fields
and (2) Adult Fields - Full Wheel
1 MOBILIZATION (5%)LUMP SUM 1 $88,500.00 $88,500.00
2 SURVEYING LUMP SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
3 REMOVALS (ALL FIELDS)LUMP SUM 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
4 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS LUMP SUM 1 $200,000.00 $200,000.00
5 COMMON BORROW FILL CU YD 25,000 $10.00 $250,000.00
6 STORAGE SHED (SLAB ON GRADE, ELECTRIC, NO WATER)LUMP SUM 1 $65,000.00 $65,000.00
7 30' HIGH BACKSTOP FENCING (FAST PITCH)LIN FT 120 $200.00 $24,000.00
8 30' HIGH BACKSTOP FENCING (ADULT)LIN FT 200 $200.00 $40,000.00
98' HIGH FENCING W/RAIL CAP ON CONC. STRIP (FAST PITCH)LIN FT 1,800 $50.00 $90,000.00
10 8' HIGH FENCING W/RAIL CAP ON CONC. STRIP (ADULT)LIN FT 2,200 $50.00 $110,000.00
11 PLAYERS BENCH ROOF STRUCTURE (FAST PITCH ONLY)EACH 4 $20,000.00 $80,000.00
12 MANGATE EACH 12 $300.00 $3,600.00
13 MAINTENANCE GATE EACH 8 $800.00 $6,400.00
14 FOUL POLES EACH 8 $1,500.00 $12,000.00
15 PLAYERS BENCH EACH 8 $1,500.00 $12,000.00
16 CONCRETE PADS ‐ HEAVY DUTY SQ FT 24,000 $10.00 $240,000.00
17 BITUMINOUS TRAILS SQ YD 1,200 $30.00 $36,000.00
18 IRRIGATION (FAST PITCH)EACH 2 $18,000.00 $36,000.00
19 IRRIGATION (ADULT)EACH 2 $21,000.00 $42,000.00
20 * WIRING FOR NEW LIGHTING CONFIGURATION ‐ ALL FIELDS LUMP SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
21 AGG‐LIME SQ YD 4,400 $12.00 $52,800.00
22 PITCHERS PLATE EACH 4 $400.00 $1,600.00
23 BASES EACH 12 $400.00 $4,800.00
24 SANITARY SERVICE LIN FT 400 $50.00 $20,000.00
25 SANITARY MANHOLES AND CONNECTIONS EACH 3 $4,000.00 $12,000.00
26 WATER SERVICE LIN FT 400 $50.00 $20,000.00
27 DRINKING FOUNTAIN EACH 1 $6,500.00 $6,500.00
28 STORM WATER LINES LIN FT 1,200 $50.00 $60,000.00
29 DRAINTILE LIN FT 1,500 $18.00 $27,000.00
30 CATCH BASIN EACH 8 $3,500.00 $28,000.00
31 CONNECTION TO EXISTING STORM EACH 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00
32 SITE RESTORATION ‐ SEED ACRE 7.30 $3,500.00 $25,550.00
33 SCOREBOARD EACH 4 $15,000.00 $60,000.00
34 INLET PROTECTION EACH 10 $150.00 $1,500.00
35 EROSION CONTROL FENCE LIN FT 2,500 $3.50 $8,750.00
36 ROCK ENTRANCE LUMP SUM 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
37 LANDSCAPING BUDGET LUMP SUM 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
$1,858,500.00
* NOTE: All four fields are getting updates with LED lights $185,850.00
being completed separately & estimated at $500,000 $371,700.00
$2,416,050.00
Plan Estimate Date / Time:
October 3, 2017
3:00 pm CST
MASTER PLAN ESTIMATES
Estimates shown are at a master plan level only and do not account for actual site conditions or unknown factors that may affect actual construction costs.
Estimates shown only account for the work within field construction limits. Not included in estimates are additional costs for utility work and connections
beyond the field construction area, permits, and additional field amenities such as concessions, restrooms, batting cages, etc.
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY (10%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
AQUILA 1A TOTAL (rounded figure): $2.4 MILLION AQUILA 1A TOTAL:
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update Page 9
Item No.Description Unit Est. Base
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price
Estimated Total
Base Cost
1B - AQUILA
Development of (1) Fast Pitch Field
New Irrigation & Lighting on Existing FP Field
1 MOBILIZATION (5%)LUMP SUM 1 $27,370.00 $27,370.00
2 SURVEYING LUMP SUM 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
3 REMOVALS (1 BALLFIELD & SURROUNDING TRAILS/AMENITIES) LUMP SUM 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
4 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS LUMP SUM 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
5 COMMON BORROW FILL CU YD 5,000 $10.00 $50,000.00
6 STORAGE SHED (SLAB ON GRADE, ELECTRIC, NO WATER)LUMP SUM 1 $65,000.00 $65,000.00
7 30' HIGH BACKSTOP FENCING (2 FP FIELDS)LIN FT 120 $200.00 $24,000.00
88' HIGH FENCING W/RAIL CAP ON CONC. STRIP LIN FT 900 $50.00 $45,000.00
9 PLAYERS BENCH ROOF STRUCTURE (2 FP FIELDS)EACH 4 $20,000.00 $80,000.00
10 MANGATE EACH 3 $300.00 $900.00
11 MAINTENANCE GATE EACH 2 $800.00 $1,600.00
12 FOUL POLES (2 FP FIELDS)EACH 4 $1,500.00 $6,000.00
13 PLAYERS BENCH EACH 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00
14 CONCRETE PADS ‐ HEAVY DUTY SQ FT 5,000 $10.00 $50,000.00
15 BITUMINOUS TRAILS SQ YD 300 $30.00 $9,000.00
16 IRRIGATION EACH 2 $18,000.00 $36,000.00
17 AGG‐LIME SQ YD 1,300 $12.00 $15,600.00
18 PITCHERS PLATE EACH 1 $400.00 $400.00
19 BASES EACH 3 $400.00 $1,200.00
20 DRAINTILE LIN FT 400 $18.00 $7,200.00
21 DRAINTILE CLEANOUT EACH 2 $250.00 $500.00
22 CATCH BASIN EACH 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00
23 CONNECTION TO EXISTING STORM LUMP SUM 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
24 SITE RESTORATION ‐ SEED ACRE 1.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00
25 SCOREBOARD EACH 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
26 INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 $150.00 $750.00
27 CONSTRUCTION FENCE LIN FT 500 $3.50 $1,750.00
28 ROCK ENTRANCE LUMP SUM 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
29 LANDSCAPING BUDGET LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
$574,770.00
* NOTE: All four fields are getting updates with LED lights $57,477.00
being completed separately & estimated at $500,000 $114,954.00
$747,201.00AQUILA 1B TOTAL (rounded figure): $750 K
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY (10%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
AQUILA 1B TOTAL:
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update Page 10
Item No.Description Unit Est. Base
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price
Estimated Total
Base Cost
1C - AQUILA
Development of (2) Fast Pitch Fields - 1/2 Wheel
1 MOBILIZATION (5%)LUMP SUM 1 $44,552.50 $44,552.50
2 SURVEYING LUMP SUM 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
3 REMOVALS (2 BALLFIELDS & SURROUNDING TRAILS/AMENITIES) LUMP SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
4 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS LUMP SUM 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00
5 COMMON BORROW FILL CU YD 6,000 $10.00 $60,000.00
6 STORAGE SHED (SLAB ON GRADE, ELECTRIC, NO WATER)LUMP SUM 1 $65,000.00 $65,000.00
7 30' HIGH BACKSTOP FENCING LIN FT 120 $200.00 $24,000.00
88' HIGH FENCING W/RAIL CAP ON CONC. STRIP (FP FIELDS)LIN FT 1,800 $50.00 $90,000.00
98' HIGH FENCING W/RAIL CAP ON CONC. STRIP (ADULT FIELD)LIN FT 500 $50.00 $25,000.00
10 PLAYERS BENCH ROOF STRUCTURE EACH 4 $20,000.00 $80,000.00
11 MANGATE EACH 7 $300.00 $2,100.00
12 MAINTENANCE GATE EACH 3 $800.00 $2,400.00
13 FOUL POLES EACH 6 $1,500.00 $9,000.00
14 PLAYERS BENCH EACH 4 $1,500.00 $6,000.00
15 CONCRETE PADS SQ FT 12,000 $8.00 $96,000.00
16 BITUMINOUS TRAILS SQ YD 600 $30.00 $18,000.00
17 IRRIGATION EACH 2 $18,000.00 $36,000.00
18 AGG‐LIME SQ YD 2,600 $12.00 $31,200.00
19 PITCHERS PLATE EACH 2 $400.00 $800.00
20 BASES EACH 6 $400.00 $2,400.00
21 DRAINTILE LIN FT 700 $18.00 $12,600.00
22 DRAINTILE CLEANOUT EACH 2 $250.00 $500.00
23 CATCH BASIN EACH 4 $3,500.00 $14,000.00
24 STORM WATER LINES LIN FT 500 $50.00 $25,000.00
25 CONNECTION TO EXISTING STORM LUMP SUM 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00
26 SITE RESTORATION ‐ SEED ACRE 3.00 $3,500.00 $10,500.00
27 SCOREBOARD EACH 2 $15,000.00 $30,000.00
28 INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 $150.00 $750.00
29 EROSION CONTROL FENCE LIN FT 1,800 $3.50 $6,300.00
30 ROCK ENTRANCE LUMP SUM 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
31 LANDSCAPING BUDGET LUMP SUM 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
$935,602.50
* NOTE: All four fields are getting updates with LED lights $93,560.25
being completed separately & estimated at $500,000 $187,120.50
$1,216,283.25
NOTE: Costs for bringing in sanitary and water services to the center of
the new Fastpitch fields are not included in this estimate but could be
done in conjunction with this project or future phases (Estimated at
approx. $52,000)
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
AQUILA 1C TOTAL:
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY (10%):
AQUILA 1C TOTAL (rounded figure): $1.2 MILLION
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update Page 11
POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS (All Scenarios):
FALL 2017
‐ Prepare site topographical survey and geotechnical soil investigations to allow for accurate
development of construction documents (Oct‐Nov.)
‐ Start removals of ballfield areas (Oct‐Nov)
WINTER
‐ Prepare construction document plans for public bidding (Nov‐Jan)
‐ Bid Project (Feb)
SPRING/SUMMER 2018
‐ Construction starts once load restrictions lifted (May)
‐ Construction period (May‐Aug)
‐ Restoration / Seeding (Sept)
SPRING 2019
‐ Seed growth continues
FALL 2019
‐ Fields potentially ready for play by August
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facility Update Page 12
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The staff and consultant desire to discuss with the Council the
attached Vision 3.0 report. Consultant Rebecca Ryan will join the meeting via WebEx.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the Vision aspirations as outlined in the report consistent
with the Vision 3.0 community input and trends?
SUMMARY: On August 28, 2017, the city council reviewed the draft Vision 3.0 document and
requested a number of revisions be made to the document to better reflect the input received from
the community. Consultant Rebecca Ryan subsequently revised the report and recommendations
based on council feedback. The revised report is attached.
The current draft Vision 3.0 report includes five recommendations for the city. These
recommendations have changed from the previous report, and now include:
•Develop Creative Housing Solutions
•Develop Future-focused Transit and Mobility
•Update the Park Plan for St. Louis Park’s Future
•Prepare our Next Generation
•Commit to Being a Leader in Racial Equity and Inclusion
The Consultant will be present at the meeting via WebEx to discuss the changes.
NEXT STEPS: Following discussion by the council, any necessary revisions will be made and
the document will be presented in a final format to the City Council for formal approval. The
recommendations in the Vision 3.0 report will subsequently be used to inform the city’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update, reflecting specific goals, strategies and implementation of the Vision
3.0 aspirations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Expenses for the activities being undertaken
are accounted for in the Development Fund budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Vision 3.0 Report
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
DISCUSSION
Changes to the Vision 3.0 Report
The primary revisions made by the consultant following the August 28, 2017 Council meeting and
discussion include:
•Changing the “Aspirations” to “ Recommendations”
•Removing Climate Change from the Aspirations/Recommendations and incorporating it
into the graphic for “Develop Future-Focused Transit and Mobility Solutions”
•Adding “Develop Creative Housing Solutions” as a Recommendation
•Eliminating any language in the recommendations related to stormwater management and
keeping it to a higher level around “Climate Change"
•Adding tables to the Appendix summarizing all the major themes from different methods
of input
•Adding an “Open Letter to City Council” at the start of the document to summarize “what
worked” about the outreach component
•Changing the titles of the remaining Aspirations/Recommendations as follows (numbered
in order they appear in the draft document):
Current Recommendations: Previous Aspirations/Recommendations:
1.Climate Change
1.Develop Creative Housing Solutions
2.Develop Future-focused Transit and
Mobility
4.Options for people to make their way
around the city
3.Update the Park Plan for St. Louis
Park’s Future
2.Best in class Parks and Recreation
4.Prepare our Next Generation 3.Supporting Children and Schools
5.Commit to Being a Leader in Racial
Equity and Inclusion
5.Commit to Being a Leader in Racial
Equity and Inclusion
Vision 3.0 and Comprehensive Plan Update
As we move forward with the Comprehensive Plan Update, the input, trends and
recommendations in the final Vision 3.0 report, as approved by City Council, will be utilized to
inform the goals, strategies, and implementation of the 2040 comprehensive plan. Vision 3.0 will
be actualized in the comprehensive plan through land-use planning, housing goals and strategies,
environmental stewardship, transportation/mobility planning, parks and trail planning and
implementation, equity, economic development, and resilience.
For example: Transit and Mobility was an important value to residents, one of the 5
recommendations provided by the Consultant, and addresses the top 4 trends facing the city.
The current Transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan will become a “Mobility” plan,
which emphasizes getting around – no matter what mode of movement one uses. Vision will be
highlighted at the beginning of the chapter and noted throughout sections as appropriate, as shown
in the example for Mobility below. In addition to the sections in the Mobility chapter on Bicycles
and Pedestrians, Transit, Streets, and Highways, mobility affects other areas of our plan, including
neighborhoods and redevelopment in the community, among others.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Vision 3.0 and Comprehensive Plan EXAMPLE:
Vision Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Chapters and Sections
St. Louis Park is committed to
providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the
city comfortably, safely and reliably –
on foot, bike or transit.
Will be integrated into:
Mobility – Getting Around Town
•Bicycles and Pedestrians
•Transit
•Streets
•Highways
Plan by Neighborhood
Livable Community
•Land Use
•Economic Development and Redevelopment
Next Steps
Following discussion by the Council, the Vision 3.0 document will be revised for presentation in
a final format to the Council for formal approval. This information will subsequently be
incorporated into the city’s Comprehensive Plan Update, reflecting specific goals, strategies and
implementation of the Vision 3.0 recommendations.
A Place for All People
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 4
VISION 3.0
CONTENTS
An Open Letter to City Council 2
A Vision for All 4
Part 1: What Do Residents Value?
1.Equity and Inclusion
2.Social Connections
3.Housing – Affordability and Character
4.Transit & Mobility
5.Care & Enjoyment of the Natural Environment
10
12
15
18
19
19
Part 2: Top Four Trends Facing St. Louis Park
1.Declining Federal Government Effectiveness
2.Elder Expense
3.Climate Change
4.The Changing Middle Class
20
21
22
23
24
Part 3: Five Recommendations for St. Louis Park’s Future
1.Develop Creative Housing Solutions
2.Develop Future-Focused Transit and Mobility Solutions
3.Update the Park Plan for St. Louis Park’s Future
4.Prepare our Next Generation
5.Commit to Being a Leader in Racial Equity and Inclusion
25
26
27
28
29
31
Thank Yous 33
Appendix
Tables of Themes by Participation
A Best Day in the Park
The History of Visioning in St. Louis Park
37
39
42
43
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 6
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 5
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL,
October 2017
DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS,
When we started Vision 3.0 earlier this spring, your challenge to us was clear: to engage residents who may
not typically participate in a project like this, to make sure every voice was heard.
We are pleased to present you with the Vision 3.0 results – insights generated from 4,999 comments from over
800 residents about how people feel about St. Louis Park and what their hopes are for the future. As you’ll
read in the coming pages, they represent a broad cross-section of ages, life stages, ethnicities, and opinions.
In August, you asked what we learned from Vision 3.0 that can be used to improve inclusivity in future
community engagements. The Vision 3.0 Steering Committee and my team agree that the following
initiatives made a difference in reaching a broad cross section of St. Louis Park residents:
Neighbors asking neighbors – The most diverse, in-depth, and informative conversations came from
the over 30 neighborhood meetings that took place during Vision 3.0. Candor emerges from trust. And trust
exists between neighbors.
Go where people gather – The city staff and steering committee took chalkboards and sandwich
boards to places where people gathered – libraries, festivals, grocery stores, etc. The boards displayed a
simple question, “What is your one wish for St. Louis Park?” and passersby were encouraged to write their
ideas. Although this was a low impact form of engagement, i.e. it didn’t require a lot of time or extensive
conversations, it showed the city’s willingness to go to places where residents gather, widening the input for
a process like Vision 3.0.
Direct, specific outreach – To reach very specific populations, i.e. renters, people working multiple
jobs, etc., we had to find people who could and would help us, and then make it easy for them to say “Yes”.
This was dogged work, but increased input from populations that may have otherwise been left out.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 6
And now a few closing thoughts as Vision 3.0 is passed on to you:
Hardware and software – Cities are sustainable when their “hardware” (physical assets like
the buildings, parks, and paths) and its “software” (residents’ emotional and social connections) work
together. Looking back on the previous two visioning initiatives in St. Louis Park, Vision 1.0 reflected
the community’s desire for “hardware” – a city center or “downtown” type of mixed-use development
where people could gather, and then Vision 2.0 reflected residents’ desire for infrastructure to connect
those physical places. Now in Vision 3.0, residents emphasize the community’s “software”, brainstorming
ways that they can be more engaged with and connected to each other. This is a healthy progression and
also part of St. Louis Park’s history, of being open and inclusive to all.
Increasing costs and complexity – The Steering Comittee and my team foresee futures where
federal government investment in basic services (education, elder care, health and social issues) will
continue to decrease, leaving states and cities with the difficult of job of addressing more complex
and diverse issues with less funding. One example: Americans are living longer, which is expected to
increase demands on cities with aging populations, like St. Louis Park. Forward-looking cities will
have to anticipate how they will address these trends. We expect that resilient cities will create more
partnerships, feature more cross-sector collaboration, and work less in silos.
Overall, we feel that St. Louis Park has clearly demonstrated – through Vision 1.0, 2.0, and now 3.0 – that
it is open to residents’ input, and their input is put to good use.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist with this important project.
Rebecca Ryan Lisa Loniello Stephanie Ricketts
NEXT Generation Consulting, Inc.
Madison, WI
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 7
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS1,938
FB LIVETOWN HALLMEETINGS232
FB WEEKLYQUESTIONS54
CHALKBOARDS/POST-ITS377 NEXTDOOR.COM304
TWITTER18
ONLINE SURVEY1,201
TOWN HALL MEETINGSAT CITY HALL299
A VISION FOR ALL
Every ten years or so, the city of St. Louis Park launches an ambitious grassroots effort to ask residents
about their hopes and dreams for the future of St. Louis Park. The city’s intention is to create a place so
special that people want to make it their lifelong home.
You can read more about Visions 1.0 and 2.0 and their successes
in “The History of Visioning in St. Louis Park” on pages 43-45.
In 2017, the City Council launched its third effort, Vision 3.0, with a special challenge – to hear from those
who may not normally engage with the city – specifically people of color. Vision 3.0 staff, volunteers and
consultants gathered 4,999 responses through a variety of methods as shown in the figure below.
FIGURE 1: VISION 3.0 ENGAGEMENT MEASURED BY RESPONSES PER METHOD
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 8
PARTICIPANTS’ DIVERSITY
Residents contributed ideas through a variety of channels, but Neighborhood Meetings –facilitated by
community volunteers – generated the largest number of responses (1,938) and the highest levels of
diversity among participants (32.26%) as Table 1 below shows.
Table 1: Residents’ Reported Race at Neighborhood Meetings
Compared to St. Louis Park’s Overall Population
Race Vision 3.0 Participants St. Louis Park Census
1
White or Caucasian 67.74%83.3%
Black or African American 15.05%7.5%
Hispanic or Latino 7.80%4.3%
Two or more races 3.76%3.1%
Asian 3.23%3.8%
Other Race 1.34%N/A
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.81%0.5%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.27%0.1%
Table 1 also demonstrates an under-sampling of White or Caucasians compared to census data and an
oversampling of Black or African Americans and Hispanic or Latinos. There was a modest oversampling of
those of two or more races, American Indian or Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiin or Other Pacific Islander.
1 July 2016 census data retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/stlouisparkcityminnesota,US/PST045216
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 9
FIGURE 2: PARTICIPATION IN NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS BY AGE
13.9%
12-17 years
3.9%
18-24 years
12.0%
25-34 years
14.1%
35-44 years
14.1%
45-54 years
19.9%
55-64 years
12.3%
65-74 years
9.2%
75 years and over
No Age Given
2 Demographic cards were optional and were completed by nearly half of all Vision 3.0 participants.
Vision 3.0 reached across the age spectrum and achieved relatively balanced participation among all age
cohorts as Figure 2 shows2.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 10
Although there was balanced participation among most age brackets, compared to 2010 census data there
was over-representation among those aged 45-64 and those over age 65, as Table 2 below shows.
Table 2: Residents’ Reported Age at Neighborhood Meetings
Compared to St. Louis Park’s Overall Population
Age Vision 3.0 Participants St. Louis Park Census
3
Under 18 years 13.9%18.8%
18-24 years 3.9%8.7%
25-44 26.1%37.7%
45-64 34.0%20.2%
65 years +21.5%14.7%
Table 3 shows a slight oversampling of women and undersampling of men compared to 2010 census results.
Table 3: Residents’ Reported Gender at Neighborhood Meetings
Compared to St. Louis Park’s Overall Population
Gender Vision 3.0 Participants St. Louis Park Census
3
Female 56.56%52.2%
Male 36.61%47.8%
Other 1.09%N/A
None indicated 5.74%N/A
3 2010 Census data is the most up to date information that can be collected on the age of St. Louis Park Residents.
Available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/stlouisparkcityminnesota,US/PST045216
and also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis_Park,_Minnesota, retrieved Sept. 20, 2017.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 11
In addition, those who completed demographic cards – whether at neighborhood meetings or town hall
meetings – represented nearly every neighborhood in the city as Figure 3 demonstrates.
FIGURE 3: RESIDENTS’ REPORTED NEIGHBORHOODS. THE DARKER THE BLUE IS, THE GREATER THE CONCENTRATION
OF RESPONDENTS.
Number of Participants
PARTICIPANTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD
PROVIDING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Total: 371 Participants
0-4
5-12
13-19
20-29
Over 30
KilmerPond1
Westdale0
Minikahda Vista15
Browndale15
Brookside 4 Creekside4
Brooklawns9Meadowbrook7
South Oak Hill1
Elmwood16
Wolfe Park12
MinikahdaOaks8
Triangle6 Sorensen12 Lenox22 Oak Hill19 Aquila34
Amhurst0
Minne- haha 1
Cobblecrest14
Birchwood22 Bronx Park4 Texa Tonka19
Eliot View1
Willow Park29
Cedar Manor7 Fern Hill49
Lake Forest11
Cedarhurst5
Blackstone4
Eliot9
PennsylvaniaPark3 Westwood Hills6 Crest-view1
Shelard Park1
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 12
HOW TO READ THIS DOCUMENT
Neighborhood meetings generated the largest number of comments (1,931) from the most diverse
groups (32.26% of participants were people of color) and therefore drive most of the insights in this
document unless noted. A summary of insight from all sources of engagement is in the Appendix.
This document has three major sections:
˃Part 1 is a summary of the five values residents expressed during Vision 3.0.
˃Part 2 is a summary of four trends likely to impact St. Louis Park in the future, as determined by
the Steering Committee, City Council and city department leaders.
˃Part 3 includes a series of recommendations that can guide St. Louis Park in the future, built from
a combination of residents’ values and future trends, as the graphic below indicates.
RESIDENTS’INPUT CRITICALTRENDSRECOMMENDATIONS
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 13
PART 1: WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE?
Overall, residents enjoy living in St. Louis Park and want to remain in the city. This reflects well on St. Louis
Park’s first visioning process in 1995, which was launched to create a “community of choice for a lifetime.”4
Residents who participated in Vision 3.0 in 2017 understand that St. Louis Park is changing – and for the
most part, they welcome those changes, e.g. light rail, ongoing development, and progressive investments
in sustainability, parks, and trails. What’s more, they trust the City and feel proud of how it is managed. They
want to see St. Louis Park continue to be a leader among its peers.
”WHEN I THINK ABOUT MY COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD,
I FEEL…”
When asked, “When I think
about my community/
neighborhood, I feel….”
85% of respondents offered
positive or affirming words
like “grateful” and “safe.”
In the online survey, when
asked the same question,
the most popular words
were: safe, happy, proud,
and good as Figure 4 shows.
4 Vision St. Louis Park Book of Dreams 2006, accessed on August 20, 2017: http://www.mobiusmodel.com/downloads/1SLPBookDreams.pdf
FIGURE 4: WORD CLOUD OF RESPONSES
GENERATED BY ONLINE SURVEY.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 14
FIVE VALUES
Neighborhood meetings generated the most responses from the most diverse participants. The top
themes from neighborhood meetings (shown in Table 4 below) were also reflected across the continuum
of other inputs, e.g. online survey, town hall meetings, etc. A summary of input from each method of
engagement is included in the Appendix.
Table 4: Major Themes from Neighborhood Meetings5
Major Themes – What Do Residents Value?Percent of Meeting Mentions
Equity and inclusion for all, e.g. race, age, etc.68.42%
Social connections to each other and to the community 39.47%
Housing – affordability and character 34.22%
Transit and mobility 28.95%
Care for the natural environment 28.95%
5 “Major themes” were determined at the conclusion of each Neighborhood Meeting, after residents talked with each other about what
they valued in their community and what they’d like the community to stop doing, start doing, or keep doing in the future. A total of
38 neighborhood meetings were conducted during Vision 3.0. Looking at Table 4, “Equity and Inclusion” was a theme at over 68% of
neighborhood meetings; “Social Connections” was a theme at over 39% of meetings, and so forth.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 15
VALUE #1: Equity and Inclusion
Over two-thirds of all Neighborhood Meetings valued ongoing efforts towards equity and inclusion
for all – this includes race, age, economic class, life stage, and more. Responses and ideas ranged
from the general to the specific as the following quotes demonstrate:
“[We want more] intentional conversations
about racial equity and diversity.”
“Racial equity – a forum for learning in the community…
city and school should do this together (and) bring in
our faith groups to help their groups with racial equity.”
“Add a teen center.”
“Senior Center.”
“More programs for kids (all kids including immigrant/people
of color) – summer sports and afterschool/homework help.”
Many participants noted St. Louis Park’s historical strength in welcoming all people.
One Neighborhood Meeting group noted:
“The history or SLP, the inclusivity – our city welcomed
Jewish residents when many other areas did not.”
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 16
RESIDENTS HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES OF
ST. LOUIS PARK, DEPENDING ON THEIR RACE AND AGE
Overall, people are happy living in St. Louis Park. But there are two groups – people of color and senior
citizens – who have concerns about their place and their future in St. Louis Park.
People of color feel differently than whites do about their community. For example, when asked, “When
I think about my neighborhood/community, I feel…” 42% of people of color attending Neighborhood
Meetings were more likely to use words including disconnected, sad, lonely or isolated, cold, frustrated,
secluded, nervous, depressed, neglected or unsupported as Figure 5 shows.
By comparison, 79% of white survey respondents used positive words when responding to the same
question (see Figure 4 on page 10).
FIGURE 5: WORD CLOUD OF RESPONSES GENERATED BY PEOPLE OF
COLOR AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WHEN ASKED, “WHEN I THINK
ABOUT MY NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY I FEEL…”
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 17
Many older residents are also concerned about the future. At Town Hall meetings and in online surveys,
they indicate that they would like to stay in St. Louis Park, but affordability is a concern. Increasing property
taxes on fixed incomes may be difficult. They also report a preference for intergenerational activities.
The growth in St. Louis Park – among people of color (Figure 6) and among older citizens – are two trends
that the entire Minneapolis-St. Paul metro is facing:
“The region’s population is projected to grow by 824,000 in
coming decades. By 2040, people of color will comprise 40%
of the region; senior citizens, 21 percent.”6
Added fewer than 2,000 residents of color between 2000 and 2013
2,000 to 3,999
4,000 to 7,999
8,000 or more
No data available
FIGURE 6: NET INCREASE IN
RESIDENTS OF COLOR FROM
2000 TO 2013 BY CITY.
Source: Metropolitan Council staff
calculations based on Council’s 2013
Annual Population Estimates and U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000 Census, and
2011-2013 American Community
Survey. Accessed July 11, 2017:
https://metrocouncil.org/
getattachment/bfc72287-2b88-49e0-
96ea-2fa2ee2eb0d2/.aspx
6 A Growing and Changing Twin Cities Region: Regional Forecast to 2040, Metropolitan Council, February 2014. Accessed
August 20, 2017: https://metrocouncil.org/METC/files/6a/6a8c417a-4a85-4216-99e1-43016bef725c.pdf
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 18
VALUE #2: Social Connections
Looking back, the first visioning project in the mid-1990s was focused on creating gathering places. As
a result of that first visioning process, places including the Rec Center/Aquatic Center, Wolfe Park, the
Amphitheatre, and Excelsior & Grand were built.
Now over 20 years later, residents in 2017 are asking for activities and events that will bring them together
and help them connect to each other. At almost 40% of Neighborhood Meetings, residents said things like:
“Farmers market. Do more. We love it!”
“(We are) proud that (the city) is willing to spend
money on community. Could there be volunteer
opportunities to leverage talents of community members?”
“Continue neighborhood groups.”
“More activities – movie nights, exercise classes,
community gardens, programs that help to include
different cultural groups in the area. Adopt an adult.”
“[I wish] that we had more ‘accidental’ gathering spaces.”
“(Our major theme is) Connectedness – both socially and
physically – to the city, to our neighbors and to amenities.”
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 19
Specifically, residents want more places where they can connect, e.g. farmers markets and indoor walking
areas, and they want more events where they can meet and engage with each other.
WHAT ONE WISH DO YOU HAVE FOR ST. LOUIS PARK?
Throughout the Vision 3.0 project, “One Wish” chalkboards and sandwich boards were distributed
throughout the community so that residents could write their “one wish” for the future of St. Louis Park.
Of all 377 ideas contributed, one out of four related to “public amenities” – places and ways that residents
could connect to the city and to each other, as Table 5 on the following page shows.
FIGURE 7: A “ONE WISH” CHALKBOARD AT A CHILDREN FIRST EVENT. PHOTO COURTESY OF VISION 3.0 STEERING
COMMITTEE MEMBER RACHEL HARRIS.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 20
Table 5: Residents’ responses (n=375) to “What One Wish
Do You Have for the Future of St. Louis Park?” as recorded on
chalkboards and sandwich boards
“What One Wish Do You Have for the Future of St. Louis Park?”Percent of Responses
Public amenities that can be enjoyed by all residents, e.g. parks, open spaces,
events, markets, pools, public recreation facilities 25.94%
Transit and mobility, e.g. pedestrian safety, traffic, light rail 15.51%
Retail, e.g. restaurants, unique shops, farmers markets 12.57%
Housing, e.g. affordability, apartments, development 12.57%
City services and policies, e.g. energy, leadership, parks 11.49%
Other ideas 5.88%
Race, ethnicity and inclusion 5.35%
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 21
VALUE #3: Housing – Affordability and Character
Almost two-thirds of all neighborhood meetings developed major themes about housing and transportation,
addressed by the next two values.
“AFFORDABLE HOUSING” MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS
TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE
Although the term “affordable housing” was mentioned often, its meaning is different depending on one’s
perspective:
˃Seniors – or those nearing retirement – worry that they won’t be able to pay the city’s property taxes
on a fixed income and therefore may not be able to afford to stay in St. Louis Park. They could sell
their homes, but perceive a lack of affordable housing suited for seniors in St. Louis Park.
˃Residents who moved into small bungalows in St. Louis Park are ready to “move up” into larger
homes, but don’t feel they can afford a larger house in St. Louis Park.
˃The working poor – especially those who have their children in St. Louis Park schools and don’t want
to disrupt their education – are getting priced out of once-affordable housing.
˃Longtime residents express concern that their children – who’ve grown up and moved away to other
cities and now want to come back to St. Louis Park – can’t afford starter homes in St. Louis Park.
Although there is consensus that more affordable housing is needed, there is also vocal opposition by
some residents to multi-story “high density” development. Many residents also expressed concern
about teardowns and “McMansions”. Overall, residents want to preserve the character of St. Louis Park’s
traditional single-family homes and ensure that housing continues to be affordable for many people.
The issue of affordable housing is not unique to St. Louis Park. City Councils in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and
other first and second-ring suburbs are studying the issue and the working together to devise strategies. For
its part, St. Louis Park is currently developing several affordable housing projects and working with other
communities on a regional approach.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 22
VALUE #4: Transit & Mobility
Residents value getting around town easily and safely. This was the fourth most popular value stated by
residents during Vision 3.0. Residents focused on the following:
1.Bike safety, especially the ability to ride safely in traffic.
2.Pedestrian safety and walkability on sidewalks, in crosswalks, and in parks at dusk or nighttime.
3.Bus routes and frequency. This issue was more prevalent among people of color, who noted that
public transportation feels inadequate to those who don’t work typical 9-5 jobs (and may have
several jobs), or those who shop outside of St. Louis Park.
VALUE #5: Care & Enjoyment of the Natural Environment
Beginning in 2007 with Vision 2.0, St. Louis Park set an ambitious target: “To be a leader in
environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all
areas of city business.”7 Today, ten years later the city has dedicated staff focused solely on this effort.
Nearly thiry percent (29.85%) of all
neighborhood meetings generated a major
theme about protecting and preserving the
city’s natural habitat. Town Hall meetings,
online surveys, and One Wish chalkboards
reinforced this value, citing parks, green
spaces, and environmental stewardship in
their Top 5. From taking care of the water
in their lakes to supporting community
gardens, residents of St. Louis Park are
committed to green space.
7 Vision St. Louis Park Book of Dreams
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 23
PART 2: TOP FOUR TRENDS FACING
ST. LOUIS PARK
This section is based on a trends sorting exercise completed by two groups independently: the Vision 3.0
Steering Committee (in March 2017) and the City Council and city department leaders (in May 2017).
HOW WERE THESE TRENDS IDENTIFIED?
Both groups completed the following activity, independently of each other.
1.Groups broke into four teams, each team addressing one of the following four trend categories: (1)
resource trends; (2) technology trends; (3) demographic trends; and (4) governance trends.
2.Each trend team was asked to review the trends associated with their team, as published in the
Alliance for Innovation’s report, “The Next Big Things: the Future of Local Government.”8
3.Teams then played a tabletop game where they sorted each trend in their category based on two
questions:
˃How much impact (low, medium, high) will this trend have on St. Louis Park in the future?
˃How certain are we (uncertain, moderately certain, completely certain) that this trend will impact
St. Louis Park in the future?
4.After identifying which trends were both “high certainty” and “high impact”, teams then ranked
them on a scale from zero (not ready) to ten (totally ready), based on their understanding St. Louis
Park’s readiness.
5.After both groups completed the trend sorting exercise independently, the consultant reviewed both
groups’ responses. The four trends outlined in this section were identified by both groups to be high
impact, high certainty, and low (zero to four) readiness.
8 Learn more and download a copy of the full report at: http://transformgov.org/en/Page/101074/The_Next_Big_Things
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 24
TREND #1: Declining Federal Government Effectiveness
“The main political challenge of the next decade will be
fixing government.”
– John Micklewait and Adrian Wooldridge, The Fourth Revolution
The “layer cake” of government that most city leaders and residents grew up in
– where the federal government has money, states have power, and cities have
problems – has been cut into pieces.
Our federal government is facing critical long-term budget shortfalls, many states have become
ideological battlegrounds, and cities…well, cities still have challenges. As one member of the
Vision 3.0 Steering Committee summarized:
“As the federal government ends funding for programs,
it doesn’t eliminate the federal requirements, so the city
has to absorb more costs to meet legal requirements.”
In the future, St. Louis Park should not look to the federal government for policy leadership or
funding for critical local issues.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 25
TREND #2: Elder Expense
Many countries and states are facing a “Baby Boomer bulge,” when the share of citizens over age 65 begins
to increase. St. Louis Park is also facing this trend, as shown on page 14. This creates three spinoff effects:
1.It puts immediate and direct pressure on local governments, which are expected to
pay pension benefits to retiring public employees.
2.It creates additional federal and local budget pressure. In the U.S. for example, if there are no
significant changes to entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), those
entitlements will consume the entire federal budget by 2030.
3.Generational conflict – When social security was invented in the U.S., there were 14 employees
supporting every retiree. Back then, people lived fewer years post-retirement, so the total amount
of benefits paid was manageable. Fast forward to today when there are only two workers in the
U.S. supporting every retiree…and retirees live longer. It adds up. The expense of supporting a large,
retired population could spell generational conflict, more dramatic changes to retirement ages, and/or
restructuring of entitlements.
Between 2005 and 2035, the population of Minnesotans over age 65 will more than double due
to greater longevity. By contrast, the population under age 65 will grow by only 10%. As a result,
the age composition of all parts of the state, including St. Louis Park, will be much older in 2035.
Between 2005 and 2009, the median age in St. Louis Park was estimated at 35.5 years, compared
to 36.5 years for the United States as a whole, with 13.6% of St. Louis Park residents over age 65
and 7.1% under age 5.9
9 Source: STRATIS HEALTH – WWW.CULTURECARECONNECTION.ORG 2 CITY REPORT: ST. LOUIS PARK
Sources: Metropolitan Council Community Profiles, http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/Default.aspx; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009
American Community Survey, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 26
TREND #3: Climate Change
Climate change is expected to be a pernicious and unpredictable threat to all cities, including St. Louis Park.
In St. Louis Park and the Midwest overall, increasing volumes of rain and higher
temperatures are predicted. More stormwater is will create demands on St. Louis
Park’s infrastructure and higher overall temperatures may impact our people, parks,
and our city in unexpected ways.
Climate change is a trend that St. Louis Park has historically taken very seriously, including its commitment
to sustainability and zero waste. But it’s also a trend that is unpredictable in its impact, requiring the city to
remain vigilant and proactive.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 27
TREND #4: The Changing Middle Class
America’s middle class has been getting squeezed since the 1970s.10 The U.S. Commerce Department
defines “middle-class families” as:
“…defined by their aspirations more than their income […] middle-class families aspire to
home ownership, a car, college education for their children, health and retirement security
and occasional family vacations.11
Because the costs of these middle class aspirations have outpaced wage growth12, many Americans are
getting squeezed out of the middle class and falling into poverty. Although St. Louis Park does not have
the same levels of poverty as some of its peers in the Twin Cities metro, some neighboring communities
are experiencing higher concentrations of poverty. This trend on the middle class should be carefully
monitored for two reasons:
1.In their book, The Spirit Level, public health researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett
documented a series of correlations between a strong middle class and public health. Greater
income equality (in other words, a strong middle class) is correlated to better health and social
outcomes, e.g. lower rates of drug abuse, higher rates of education, lower rates of imprisonment,
and greater social mobility. On the other hand, when there is less equality, e.g. more poverty or
greater wealth disparities, social and health outcomes are negatively impacted.
2.The Met Council reports “Research on concentrated poverty suggests it may have an overarching
impact on residents – even those who are not themselves low-income – such as reducing potential
economic mobility.”13
Maintaining St. Louis Park’s strong middle class will correlate to better economic and public health
outcomes for the city.
10 Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, 2010, accessed on August 23, 2017: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.
gov/sites/default/files/microsites/100226-annual-report-middle-class.pdf and “Most Americans are no longer middle class”, Minnesota Public
Radio, December 10, 2015, accessed on August 23, 2017: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/12/09/npr-middle-class
11 Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, p. 10
12 Ibid, p. 11
13 POVERTY ENDURES: POVERTY RATE FELL SLIGHTLY, BUT AREAS OF CONCENTRATED POVERTY EXPANDS , March 1, 2017, accessed on August
23, 2017: https://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Communities/News-Articles/Poverty-endures-poverty-rate-fell-slightly,-but-a.aspx
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 28
PART 3: FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR ST. LOUIS PARK’S FUTURE
In parts one and two, we summarized resident input during Vision 3.0 and identified four trends that
community leaders feel will be important to the city’s future. In this section, we blend residents’ input
and the trends to form a series of recommendations.
RESIDENTS’INPUT CRITICALTRENDSRECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations meet these criteria:
˃They respond to residents’ wishes for the future of St. Louis Park.
˃They are proactive about addressing critical trends facing the city.
˃They build on St. Louis Park’s strengths and current initiatives.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 29
DEVELOP CREATIVE HOUSING SOLUTIONS
ELDER EXPENSE
TRADITION OF BEING OPEN AND INCLUSIVE TO ALL
CHANGING MIDDLE CLASS
EQUITY AND INCLUSION FOR ALL, E.G. RACE, AGE, ETC.
HOUSING – AFFORDABILITY AND CHARACTER
MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE?
ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS
AND CURRENT INITIATIVES
RECOMMENDATION
TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK
RECOMMENDATION #1: Develop Creative Housing Solutions
Now and in the near future, St. Louis Park
and the entire Twin Cities area will have more
demand for housing – especially “affordable
housing” – because of how the region’s
demographics are growing and changing.
In simple economic terms, the demand for housing is greater than the supply – because the region is growing,
because St. Louis Park has a reputation as a good community to live in and therefore attracts new residents,
and because residents are living longer.
As the city moves forward, it should note that the Vision 3.0 process showed that “affordable housing” means
different things – and will require different solutions – for the following groups:
˃Seniors who want to stay in their current single family homes past retirement but worry about being
able to afford taxes on fixed incomes. This group also expressed concern during Town Hall meetings
that even if they sell their current home at a profit, there are few affordable, age-appropriate options
for them to buy or rent. National and Minnesota trends show that America’s elderly are living longer
which will extend their years of retirement and create different housing demands.
˃Those who can’t afford market rate housing.
˃First-time homebuyers – usually young people or young couples – experience a limited supply of single
family homes that are “affordable” compared to similar (or newer) homes in other areas.
˃Current residents of traditional 1940s and 1950s-era homes who want to “move up” into larger
homes, but feel that there are limited (and therefore expensive) options.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 30
DEVELOP
FUTURE-FOCUSED
TRANSIT AND
MOBILITY SOLUTIONS
CLIMATE
CHANGE
ELDER
EXPENSE
OPENING
OF THE LIGHT
RAIL TRANSIT
STATIONS IN 2021
CHANGING
MIDDLE CLASS
EQUITY AND
INCLUSION FOR
ALL, E.G. RACE,
AGE, ETC.
TRANSIT AND
MOBILITY
CARE FOR
THE NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE?
ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS
AND CURRENT INITIATIVES
RECOMMENDATION
TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK
RECOMMENDATION #2: Develop Future-Focused Transit
and Mobility Solutions
St. Louis Park’s older population is
living longer, its younger population
is becoming more diverse, its residents
care about the natural environment, and
technology like car sharing services and soon,
autonomous cars, are on the rise. The traditional transportation system – and mindset – that relies
primarily on single owner-occupied vehicles will change in the coming years.
The city is already in the process of planning for light rail stations, and connections from those stations
to other parts of town. The following resident-driven ideas can help the city expand that planning and
address its changing demographics:
1.Increasing safety in crosswalks, especially in areas with a lot of traffic.
2.Increased park lighting to make parks feel safer after dark.
3.More north-south and east-west mass transit options, e.g. circulator buses that run between the
west part of town (where kids live) and the Rec Center.
4.Consider bike sharing, e.g. extending Nice Ride to St. Louis Park.
Residents made dozens of recommendations related to specific intersections or streets that city staff
could sort by those in process or in queue.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 31
UPDATE THE PARK PLAN FOR ST. LOUIS PARK’S FUTURE
INCREASING DENSITY14
SOCIAL CONNECTIONS TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE COMMUNITY
CARE FOR THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
PARKS
MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE?
ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS
AND CURRENT INITIATIVES
RECOMMENDATION
TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK
RECOMMENDATION #3: Update the Park Plan
for St. Louis Park’s Future
14 Although this was not listed as a trend that the city staff or steering committee are concerned about, it is nonetheless a trend which has
implications for the city’s future residents.
15 The “first place” is home. The “second place” is work. “Third places” like parks, coffee shops, restaurants, farmers markets and other gathering
places are considered important because they enable residents to meet and connect, to deepen their social networks, and thereby their
resilience. St. Louis Park’s most popular “third places” are its parks. See “A Day in the Park” in the appendix for more.
The city’s parks are one of the places where
residents can fulfill their #2 stated value:
to connect with each other. Parks are all-natural,
good-for-you, “third places”15 for people to gather
and connect.
As St. Louis Park grows, the Vision 3.0 Steering Committee recommends that the St. Louis Park Plan
be reviewed to account for the increased density currently under development, to ensure that future
residents have the same access to parks that current residents do.
The Vision 3.0 Steering Committee also brainstormed ideas about how to use the parks for more
community gatherings (to respond to residents #2 value, more connections to each other) and/or how to
showcase the parks to expose all residents to their proximity to public parks. As one steering committee
member noted, “Most people have no idea how close they are to a park!”
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 32
PREPARE OUR NEXT GENERATION
REPUTATION FOR STRONG SCHOOLS
CHANGING STRUCTURE OF THE ECONOMY
(SEE BELOW)
CHANGING MIDDLE CLASS
EQUITY AND INCLUSION FOR ALL, E.G. RACE, AGE, ETC.
SOCIAL CONNECTIONS TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE COMMUNITY
MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE?
ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS
AND CURRENT INITIATIVES
RECOMMENDATION
TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK
RECOMMENDATION #4: Prepare our Next Generation
The economy is undergoing a profound
economic shift: future generations will
require more than a high school
education to reach the middle class.
Consider that:
˃By 2020 two thirds of all jobs will require some sort of postsecondary education – that is not a
four-year liberal arts education, but some amount of postsecondary education.
˃Seventy percent of all jobs in Minnesota will require postsecondary education. That’s 7
percentage points higher than the national average.
St. Louis Park prides itself on the percentage of students who complete high school, and while this is a
noble outcome, students competing for future jobs and opportunities must also attain a post secondary
degree or credential.
Skeptics may wonder, “Why are we talking about schools when Vision 3.0 is a city initiative?
Aren’t schools and cities separate?” The answer is Yes, and No.
Yes, cities have no jurisdiction over schools. Public and private schools are independent of
the city council, the city budget, or any city oversight. On the other hand, cities are strongly
impacted by the reputation of their schools.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 33
Although the St. Louis Park schools are currently helping the city’s reputation as a desirable place to live,
residents who participated in Vision 3.0 expressed concern that the community’s youth feel included and
valued (Value 1: Equity and Inclusion for all) and trends show that the city’s changing demographics (a
growing older population without children in schools) must be addressed.
The following ideas address residents’ values and also recognize that St. Louis Park’s “brand” as a city is
based in part on the strength of its schools and educational attainment:
˃Support St. Louis Park’s public schools in committing to and preparing all students to obtain
a post secondary degree or credential, and communicate the importance of this goal to city
residents and businesses.
˃Address bus service to and from Normandale and other two-year colleges.
˃Work with Twin West, Rotary, St. Louis Park High School internship advisory committee, and/or
other partners to provide internships and work experience to high school students throughout
the year, to expose them to careers and local government.
˃Support the civic mission of schools to prepare informed and involved citizens.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 34
COMMIT TO BEING A LEADER IN RACIAL EQUITY AND INCLUSION
CHANGING MIDDLE CLASS
EQUITY AND INCLUSION FOR ALL, E.G. RACE, AGE, ETC.
SOCIAL CONNECTIONS TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE COMMUNITY
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS TO ALL
MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE?
ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS
AND CURRENT INITIATIVES
RECOMMENDATION
TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK
RECOMMENDATION #5: Commit to Being a Leader
in Racial Equity and Inclusion
“The best thing going on right now, in my view,
is the renewed, increased focus on racial justice:
Increased opportunities for both dialogue and
action through the Human Rights Commission and
the new Allies group, and – especially – articulated support
for this priority from Mayor Spano and other community leaders.”
– Vision 3.0 participant
The intention of this recommendation is to create an ecosystem in St. Louis Park where diversity is
expected and inclusion and equity are a way of life.
St. Louis Park has proven that it can take on large, systemic issues. In 2007, when “sustainability”
was still a buzzword among a small niche of eco-warriors, St. Louis Park accepted residents’
challenge and became a leader in sustainability practices and outcomes. In 2017, residents
make a similar challenge: to graduate the city’s discussion about racial equity and inclusion to
measureable, systemic outcomes.
The City Council and city staff are already working to address the city’s equity and inclusion, e.g. the
City Council and staff are completing a one-year curriculum designed to help city officials understand
race, equity and privilege. Additionally, the City is in the process of hiring a Racial Equity Coordinator to
further the City’s commitment to equity and inclusion.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 35
The following recommendations extend that momentum outward to the community, inward to staffing
and committee structures, and throughout the city’s day-to-day business:
˃Offer equity and inclusion training to city committees and boards; neighborhood leaders, i.e.
block captains or others; nonprofit organizations, i.e. Friends of the Arts; business leaders;
and other key stakeholders. The goal is for a broad cross-section of community leaders and
influencers to experience similar training and awareness, so they can support and encourage
each other and work together to make St. Louis Park more inclusive.
˃Support the work of the Multicultural Advisory Commission and the city’s Human Resources
team’s efforts at citywide equity and inclusion.
˃Work with community partners, including the Multicultural Advisory Commission, to make
diversity and inclusion a priority in all components of city business. Vision 3.0 was an excellent
example of the City Council intentionally appointing diverse representatives from a broad cross-
section of the community, which greatly increased participation and input.
˃Hire a Racial Equity Coordinator, to assist the city in making this a community-wide value.
˃Create community festivals that celebrate the community’s diversity, from food to dance to
music. This will help make the city’s implicit diversity visible and it also responds to residents’
desires for more opportunities to connect with each other.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 36
THANK YOUS
So much energy and so many hours went into this project. We are most grateful to residents of
St. Louis Park who participated in Vision 3.0. In addition, the following folks made this project possible.
Our thanks to:
THE VISION 3.0 STEERING COMMITTEE was selected by the City
Council to make sure the project was responsive to community needs and resulted in future-focused and
actionable recommendations. In addition to providing guidance, steering committee members hosted
and facilitated community meetings, attended town hall meetings, and/or hosted One Wish Chalkboards
in the community.
FIGURE 9: VISION 3.0 STEERING COMMITTEE (L TO R): LARRY NORTH, RACHEL HARRIS, JULIE SWEITZER,
LISA GENIS, MATT FLORES, GEORGE HAGEMANN, JUSTIN GRAYS. NOT PICTURED: LYNETTE DUMALAG, AMAYA FOKUO.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 37
THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL invested resources and pushed
the consultants and staff to reach farther and deeper into the community to ensure all residents –
especially those who may not normally participate in a process like this – were engaged. Their support
and consistent encouragement helped make this process the most inclusive and widespread visioning
process to date. Thanks to:
˃Jake Spano, Mayor
˃Steve Hallfin, At Large A
˃Thom Miller, At Large B
˃Susan Sanger, Ward 1
˃Anne Mavity, Ward 2
˃Gregg Lindberg, Ward 3
˃Tim Brausen, Ward 4
FIGURE 10: ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 38
OUR VISION 3.0 FACILITATORS attended trainings, convened meetings,
reported their results and were ambassadors for this ambitious effort. Many, many thanks to:
John Wheeler; Bruce Browning; Carol Bungert; Gabriel Rios; Sara Maaske; Nene Matey Keke; Jonathan
Shaver; Dale Tatarek; Fatuma Irshat; Dan Olson; Sue Grey; Meta Webb; Terry Ruttger; Jennifer Chenoweth;
Anna Mae; John Wheeler; Katie Walechka; Claudia Johnston-Madison; Jamie Marshall; Christina Woodlee;
Curtis Wilson; Julie Rappaport; Noelle Racette; Susan Niz; Bridget Rathsack; Marcy Joseph; Terry Gips;
Rhoda Quick; Jim Beneke; Julie Sweitzer; Lisa Greene; Lisa Genis; Tiffany Hoffmann; Catherine Johnson;
Lisa Peilen; Amy Beilke; Juli Rasmussen; Lisa Pannell; Meg McCormick; David Pacheco; Hannah Sekaran;
Jeanne Wolfe; Alex Draeger; Marty Lee; Carrie Jennissen; Steven Hansen; Bob Chatfield; Jennie Edstrom;
Shannon Farrell; Tom Green; Azzahya Williams; John Shevlin; Seka Kovacevic; Catherine Doyle-Burris;
Angelica Lee; Olaf Jorgenson; Judith Moore; Liz Feeney; Amy McTavish; Suzanne Stang; Dustin DeBoer;
Matt Flory; John McHugh; Brian Shekleton; Elizabeth Stroder.
FIGURE 11: VISION 3.0 FACILITATOR TRAINING, FEBRUARY 2017.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 39
Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner for the City of St. Louis Park, was the city’s project manager
for Vision 3.0 effort. Meg coordinated dozens of meetings, answered hundreds of citizen and committee
emails, organized all steering committee meetings, and was the main contact for the consultants, City
Council and city staff.
Jacqueline Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager for the City of St. Louis Park,
managed all of the communications and outreach for the Vision 3.0 project. She and her staff created
the title and logo and conducted the outreach for the process. This included notifications on the
city’s website; posts on Facebook, Twitter and NextDoor; a ParkAlert Citizen Notification; ParkTV
announcements; Park Perspective Newsletter articles; producing a Peachjar flyer for the school
electronic backpacks; creating a Constant Contact list for email blasts and much, much more.
COMMUNICATIONS & OUTREACH COMMITTEE
The following city staff worked with Jacqueline’s group, Meg McMonigal, and local volunteers on
communications and outreach:
˃Afton Martens, JCPP Coordinator
˃Breanna Freedman, Community Liaison
˃Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
˃Jason Bredenberg, Property Maintenance Inspector
˃Jason West, Recreation Superintendent
˃Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
˃Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator
˃Laura Smith, Wellness & Volunteer Coordinator
˃Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor
˃Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Tom Harmening is St. Louis Park’s City Manager. At the direction of the City Council, Tom provides
leadership, direction, and guidance to all city departments. Tom was appointed City Manger in 2004 and
has helped execute all of the city’s previous visioning projects.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 40
APPENDIX
Table 6: Resident Contributions by Format and Number of Responses
How Did Residents Contribute?Responses
Neighborhood Meetings 1,938
Online Survey 1,201
“One Wish” Chalkboards and Sandwich Boards 375
NextDoor.com 304
Town Hall Meetings at City Hall 299
Facebook Live Town Hall Meetings 232
Facebook and Twitter Questions 72
Business Community Meetings 68
Total 4,999
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 41
HOW DID RESIDENTS PARTICIPATE – MORE DETAIL
Residents had many options to offer their perspective to Vision 3.0:
1.Neighborhood meetings – 39716 residents attended 38 neighborhood meetings hosted by 65 trained
volunteers. These meeting generated 1,938 comments and ideas.
2.Facebook Live meetings were attended by 63 people, generated 353 comments, had 2,800 views, and
reached 8,193 people.
3.The city distributed a “Question of the Week” on Facebook, Twitter and NextDoor.com. “Questions of
the week” generated 304 responses on NextDoor, 54 Facebook responses and 18 Twitter comments.
4.Town hall meetings at city hall included 75 participants and generated 299 ideas and comments.
5.“One Wish Chalkboards” – chalkboards or sandwich boards that asked, “What one with do you for the
future of St. Louis Park?” – visited 20 community locations and events, from the Mayor’s State of the
City meeting to Parktacular, and generated 377 comments.
6.Several special meetings with the business community, the Meadowbrook Collaborative, and others
were hosted, to ensure the broadest possible reach.
7.A community survey – both electronic and hard copy – was completed by 180 residents and
generated 1,201 comments.
16 More people may have attended these meetings, but 397 people completed optional demographic cards.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 42
TABLES OF THEMES BY PARTICIPATION
Table 7: Town Hall Meetings (February and March 2017)
Community Input Themes # of comments % of total comments
Future-focused housing, e.g. affordability, housing types, character 61 20.40%
Building community through events and locations, e.g. green space,
parks, lakes, restaurants, retail, splash pad, etc.53 17.73%
Being open and inclusive, e.g. children, senior citizens, religious
differences, etc.50 16.72%
Safe transit, e.g. streets, streetlights, traffic, trails, walkability, light rail 33 11.04%
Other (uncategorized)45 10.70%
City services, e.g. water, police, fire, safety, energy, city staff 30 10.03%
Racial equity 27 9.03%
Table 8: Facebook Live Town Hall Meetings (March and April 2017)
Community Input Themes # of comments % of total comments
Building community through events and locations, e.g. green space,
parks, lakes, restaurants, retail, splash pad, etc.77 33.19%
Other (uncategorized, including responses to warm-up questions, i.e.
“How long have you lived in St. Louis Park,” “What brought you here?”
“What do people say when they hear you live in St. Louis Park?”)
74 31.90%
Safe transit, e.g. streets, streetlights, traffic, trails, walkability, light rail 31 13.36%
Housing, e.g. affordability, multi-family housing (pro and con),
single-family homes, residential character 22 9.48%
Being open and inclusive, e.g. children, senior citizens, religious
differences, etc.17 7.33%
City services, e.g. water, police, fire, safety, energy, city staff 7 3.02%
Racial equity 4 1.72%
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 43
Table 9: Weekly Question Facebook & Next Door
Community Input Themes # of
comments
% of total
comments
Building community through events and locations, e.g. green space,
parks, lakes, restaurants, retail, splash pad, etc.84 23.46%
General comments (including responses to questions like “What is your
ideal day in St. Louis Park?” See page 42 “A Best Day in the Park” for a
compilation of residents’ responses.)
72 20.11%
Other (uncategorized)58 16.20%
Housing, e.g. affordability, multi-family housing (pro and con),
single-family homes, residential character, cuub-side appeal 51 14.25%
Being open and inclusive, e.g. children, senior citizens, religious
differences, etc.37 10.34%
Safe transit, e.g. streets, streetlights, traffic, trails, walkability, light rail 35 9.78%
City services, e.g. water, police, fire, safety, energy, city staff 13 3.63%
Racial equity 8 2.23%
Table 10: Major Themes from Neighborhood Meetings17
Major Themes – What Do Residents Value?Percent of Meeting Mentions
Equity and inclusion for all, e.g. race, age, etc.68.42%
Social connections to each other and to the community 39.47%
Housing – affordability and character 34.22%
Transit and mobility 28.95%
Care for the natural environment 28.95%
17 “Major themes” were determined at the conclusion of each Neighborhood Meeting, after residents talked with each other about what
they valued in their community and what they’d like the community to stop doing, start doing, or keep doing in the future. A total of
38 neighborhood meetings were conducted during Vision 3.0. Looking at Table 4, “Equity and Inclusion” was a theme at over 68% of
neighborhood meetings; “Social Connections” was a theme at over 39% of meetings, and so forth.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 44
Table 11: Residents’ responses (n=375) to “What One Wish
Do You Have for the Future of St. Louis Park?” as recorded on
chalkboards and sandwich boards
“What One Wish Do You Have for the Future of St. Louis Park?”Percent of Responses
Public amenities that can be enjoyed by all residents, e.g. parks, open spaces,
events, markets, pools, public recreation facilities 25.94%
Transit and mobility, e.g. pedestrian safety, traffic, light rail 15.51%
Retail, e.g. restaurants, unique shops, farmers markets 12.57%
Housing, e.g. affordability, apartments, development 12.57%
City services and policies, e.g. energy, leadership, parks 11.49%
Other ideas 5.88%
Race, ethnicity and inclusion 5.35%
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 45
A BEST DAY IN THE PARK
START the day with something tasty from Honey and Rye
Bakehouse Hop on a bike or stroll over to Bass Lake
Park and enjoy it’s beautiful walking and biking trails Cool off in the
pool at the Rec Center Bike over the Wok in the
Park or Best of India for a tasty lunch Burn off that lunch by
biking over to the Westwood Hills Nature Center
for some hiking and nature programming Switch gears by heading to
Excelsior and Grand for some late afternoon shopping
Enjoy a happy hour brew over at Steel Toe Brewing
Wander over to McCoy’s Public House for dinner END
the night at Park Tavern for bowling and merriment
Residents crowdsourced response to
a question posted on social media,
“Imagine you had a guest visiting from
out of town and you could share your
favorite things? What would be your
best day in St. Louis Park?”
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 46
THE HISTORY OF VISIONING IN ST. LOUIS PARK
Since 1995, residents’ input has been the inspiration for many projects implemented by the city, school
district and chamber of commerce.
VISION 1.0 – 1994/1995
In the mid-1990s, St. Louis Park undertook its first visioning process.18 The original vision – “A Community
of Choice for a Lifetime” – was based on the premise that the city of St. Louis Park had two choices: wait
for things to happen, or make things happen.
At the time, citizens were concerned about a lack of a “downtown” and wanted more sidewalks and bike
paths, among other things. Over the next ten years, the city went to work building the Rec Center/Aquatic
Center, Wolfe Park, the Amphitheatre, Excelsior & Grand, St. Louis Park parks and trails plan, housing
opportunities, stronger neighborhoods and made a decisive move toward determining its own destiny.
VISION 2.0 – 2006/2007
A decade later St. Louis Park launched its second community visioning initiative and used the Appreciative
Inquiry process to interview over 1,000 residents. Vision 2.0’s goal was to position St. Louis Park for the
opportunities of the 21st century. After the community interviews were completed, eight themes emerged
and action teams were formed to address them: the environment; transportation; sidewalks and trails;
gathering places; community events; housing; arts and culture; and diversity.
18 Vision St. Louis Park Book of Dreams 2006 and Report to the Community on Vision St. Louis Park accessed on July 10, 2017:
https://www.stlouispark.org/home/showdocument?id=1102 and http://www.mobiusmodel.com/downloads/1SLPBookDreams.pdf
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 47
The Vision 2.0 action teams included participants from throughout the community who worked for six
months to put together goals, action steps, timelines and suggestions for additional partnerships. The
city council adopted these four strategic directions at the action teams’ suggestion:
1.St. Louis Park is committed to
being a connected and engaged
community.
2.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.
3.St. Louis Park is committed to
providing well-maintained and
diverse housing options.
4.St. Louis Park is committed
to promoting and integrating
arts, culture, and community
aesthetics in all city initiatives,
including implementation
where appropriate.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 48
VISION 3.0 – 2017
Building on the legacy of the city’s first two visioning projects, Vision 3.0 was launched in early 2017
to focus on St. Louis Park’s next 20 years. The City Council was clear: Vision 3.0 must engage as many
citizens as possible, especially those who may feel marginalized or might not normally attend city
meetings. As a result, hundreds of St. Louis Park residents – from school-aged children to seniors, from
renters to business owners to immigrants – shared their ideas for St. Louis Park’s future. A sustained
publicity effort – through social media, cable TV and even yard signs! – encouraged involvement.
FIGURE 8: VISION 3.0 YARD SIGNS: “WE BELIEVE: CITIES ARE FOR PEOPLE, CONVERSATIONS MATTER, THE FUTURE
IS OURS TO CREATE.”
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 49
What is YOUR vision for St. Louis Park?
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 50
slpmn.us/vision
THE NEXT GENERATION CONSULTING TEAM WAS PRIVILEGED TO SERVE AS VISION 3.0 CONSULTANTS AND WORK WITH THE CITIZENS,
STEERING COMMITTEE, COUNCIL, AND STAFF OF ST. LOUIS PARK. YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD THING GOING IN THE PARK, AND YOUR CITIZENS’
WILLINGNESS TO COME TOGETHER TO CONTINUE TO BE A GREAT PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE IS INSPIRING. PLEASE REACH OUT ANYTIME:
NEXT GENERATION CONSULTING, LLC
1882 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 204
MADISON, WI 53704
888.922.9595
REBECCARYAN.COM
PHOTO, L TO R: STEPHANIE RICKETTS, LISA LONIELLO, AND REBECCA RYAN
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 51
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2018 Fee Schedule
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is provided to Council for
information on recommended changes to 2018 fees for services that the City provides. Some of
the fee changes proposed will need to come back to the Council for formal approval.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the proposed fees commensurate with the value of the
services provided?
SUMMARY: Each year City fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of
the annual budget process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with City
ordinance; other fees are allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year
based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations, and to make sure
City business costs are covered for services.
Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual
provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A of the Code. Fees
must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Administrative Services Department has
worked with individual departments to complete this review and its recommendations are
included in the attached proposed fee schedule.
A public hearing notice was published October 5, 2017 informing interested persons of the
City’s intent to consider fees on October 16, 2017. Fees, rates and charges called for by
resolution or set by a department are not required by law to be included in the Appendix A City
Code fee schedule.
Next steps
•First reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 16, 2017.
•Second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for November 6, 2017. If approved, the fee
changes will be effective January 1, 2018.
•Utility fees for 2018 water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste rates are scheduled for
approval October 16, 2017.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed fee changes have been
incorporated into the proposed 2018 budget.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
Prepared by: Mark Ebensteiner, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESACCOUNTINGBassett Creek Watershed Management District(property pass-through charge)Residential monthly $0.64 per residential equivalent unit $0.64 per residential equivalent unitResidential quarterly $1.93 per residential equivalent unit $1.93 per residential equivalent unitLand uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 1.93 * 5) = quarterly rate (Acreage * REF * 1.93 * 5) = quarterly rateMN Dept of Health state testing feeResidential and multi-family$1.59 per quarter $1.59 per quarterCommercial$0.53 per month $0.53 per monthReturned Check Fee$30 $30Sanitary Sewer Base ChargeResidential and multi-family$16.78 per quarter $17.61 per quarterCommercial $5.60 per month $5.87 per monthSewer and Service Charges Sanitary Sewer Usage Rate$3.28 per unit $3.44 per unitSolid Waste Service - Collection Cost per Quarter(Includes tax when applicable)(Includes tax when applicable)20 gallon service$28.00$29.4030 gallon service$46.50$48.8360 gallon service$69.00$72.4590 gallon service$105.75$111.04120 gallon service$168.00$176.40150 gallon service$210.00$220.50180 gallon service$252.00$264.60270 gallon service$378.00$396.90360 gallon service$504.00$529.20450 gallon service$630.00n/aEliminated size for 2018540 gallon service$756.00n/aEliminated size for 2018Solid Waste Service (Residential) Additional 30 gallon cart$60$60Additional 60 gallon cart$60$60Additional 90 gallon cart$60$60Cart Changes - over 1 per cart type per 12 month period$20$20Extra Garbage Stickers$2/sticker$2/stickerYard Waste Opt-Out$3 credit/quartern/aDiscontinued for FY18Solid Waste Service (Commercial) - Collection Cost30 gallon serviceGarbage (monthly)$16.27$17.08Garbage (quarterly)$48.80$51.2460 gallon serviceGarbage (monthly)$20.96$22.01Garbage (quarterly)$62.88$66.03Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 2
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESACCOUNTING - CONTINUED90 gallon serviceGarbage (monthly) $28.62 $30.05Garbage (quarterly) $85.86 $90.15Recycling (monthly) $11.71 $12.30Recycling (quarterly) $35.12 $36.90Organics (monthly) $15.06 $15.81Organics (quarterly) $45.18 $47.43180 gallon serviceGarbage (monthly) $59.12 $62.08Garbage (quarterly) $177.35 $186.24Recycling (monthly) $20.98 $22.03Recycling (quarterly) $62.95 $66.09Organics (monthly) $28.97 $30.42Organics (quarterly) $86.92 $91.26270 gallon serviceRecycling (monthly) $28.97 $30.42Recycling (quarterly) $86.92 $91.26Storm Sewer RateResidential quarterly $21.83 per residential equivalent unit $23.14 per residential equivalent unitCommercial monthly $36.38 per residential equivalent unit $38.56 per residential equivalent unitCommercial quarterly $109.15 per residential equivalent unit $115.68 per residential equivalent unitLand uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 21.83 * 5) = quarterly rate(Acreage * REF * 23.14 * 5) = quarterly rateWater Meter ChargesCommercial Monthly Fee 5/8" meter $8.26 $9.083/4" $8.26 $9.081" $11.57 $12.701.5" $14.87 $16.332" $23.96 $26.313" $90.90 $99.814" $115.69 $127.036" $173.53 $190.54Water Meter Charges - ContinuedResidential/Multi-family Quarterly Fee5/8" meter $24.79 $27.233/4" $24.79 $27.231" $34.71 $38.101.5" $44.62 $48.992" $71.89 $78.933" $272.69 $299.434" $347.06 $381.096" $520.59 $571.622" compound$71.89 $78.933" compound$272.69 $299.43Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 3
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESACCOUNTING - CONTINUEDWater Rates per unit (1 unit = 100 cu ft or 750 gallons)Tier 1 0-40 units* (0-30,000 gallons) $1.78 $1.89Tier 2 41-80 units* (30,001-60,000 gallons) $2.21 $2.34Tier 3 >80 units (>60,000 gallons) $3.31 $3.51Commercial All units $1.78 $1.89Irrigation All units $3.31 $3.51ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIESChapter 4 – Animal Regulations$50 $50Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building RegulationsChapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code$100 $100Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses$100 $100Chapter 12 – Environment$50 $50Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference$100 $100Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection$100 $100Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection$100 $100Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention$50 $100Updated for consistency of any violation of Chapter 14.Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit$100 $100Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation$50 $50Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management - Residential$50 $50Chapter 22 - Solid Waste Management - Multifamily & Commercialn/a $100Added for multi-family and commercial - relates to non-compliance with requirements listed in Chapt 22 of the code and the ZWP ordinance.Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse$200 $200Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places$50 $50Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public way$50 $50Chapter 24, Section 47 – Visual obstructions at intersections$25 $30Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or injuring$150 $150Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves or snow into street/alley prohibited $100 $100Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way without a permit$100 $100Chapter 24, Section 24-342 - Snow, ice and rubbish a public nuisance on sidewalks; removal by owner.Residential$25 first time, plus $10 each subsequent offense$25 first time, plus $10 each subsequent offenseCommercial$25 first time. Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners.$25 first time. Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners.Chapter 26 – Subdivision$100 $100Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval.$750 $750Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 4
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES - CONTINUEDChapter 32 – Utilities$50 $50Violation of sprinkling ban $50 first time. Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners.$50 first time. Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners.Chapter 36 – Zoning$50$50Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100$100Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit approval$750$750Repeat Violations within 24 MonthsPrevious fine doubled up to a maximum of $2,000Previous fine doubled up to a maximum of $2,000Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400). *Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspectionsFines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections.CITY CLERK'S OFFICECopiesNo Charge 0-9 pages; 10 pages $2.50; $0.25/page thereafter up to 100 pagesNo Charge 0-9 pages; 10 pages $2.50; $0.25/page thereafter up to 100 pagesDomestic PartnershipRegistration Application Fee $50 $50Amendment to Application Fee $25 $25Termination of Registration Fee $25 $25Liquor LicensesBrewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200Brewer's Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200Microdistillery Cocktail Room $600 $600Microdistillery Off-Sale $200 $200Brewer's On-sale Taproom $600 $600Club (per # members)1 - 200 $300 $300201 - 500 $500 $500501 - 1000 $650 $6501001 - 2000 $800 $8002001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,0004001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,0006000+ $3,000 $3,000Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 $200Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee, per M.S. 340A.480-3(c ) $280 $280Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 5
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESCITY CLERK'S OFFICE - CONTINUEDOn-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor$750$750On-sale Culinary Class Limited$100$100On-sale Intoxicating Liquor$8,750$8,750On-sale Sunday Liquor$200$200On-sale Wine$2,000$2,000New License Background Investigation (non-refundable)$500 in-state applicant; actual costs for out-of-state applicant may be billed up to a maximum of $10,000 $500 in-state applicant; actual costs for out-of-state applicant may be billed up to a maximum of $10,000 New Store Manager Background Investigation$500$500On-sale license renewal per 340A.412, Subd. 2$500$500Temporary On-sale License Fee$100/day$100/dayProclamationsFramed Proclamation$15$15Comprehensive Plan Amendments$2,100 $2,150 Conditional Use Permit$2,100 $2,150 Major Amendment$2,100 $2,150 Minor Amendment$1,100 $1,150 Fill or excavation only$550 $570 Fence PermitInstallation$15 $20 Grant Technical Assistance (DEED, Met Council, Hennepin County, etc.) $0 $3,000 ($2,000 non-refundable)Added to cover administrative costs of application, review, preparation of disbursement requests and correspondence.Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses)$50 $50 Official Map Amendment$550 $600 Parking Lot PermitInstallation/Reconstruction$75 $75 Driveway Permit$25 $25 Planned Unit DevelopmentPreliminary PUD$2,100 $2,150 Final PUD$2,100 $2,150 Prelim/Final PUD Combined$3,000 $3,200 PUD - Major Amendment$2,100 $2,150 PUD - Minor Amendment$1,100 $1,150 Recording Filing Fee Single Family$50 $50 Other Uses$120 $120 Registration of Land Use$50 $50 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 6
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESSign PermitErection of Temporary Sign$30 $30 Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft$75 $100 Installation of Permanent Sign without footings$75 $100 Installation of Permanent Sign with footings$100 $150 Special PermitsMajor Amendment$2,100 $2,150 Minor Amendment$1,100 $1,150 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations$850 $900 Subdivision Dedication FeePark Dedication Fee (in lieu of land)Commercial/Industrial Properties5% of current market value of unimproved land as determined by City Assessor5% of current market value of unimproved land as determined by City AssessorMulti-family Dwelling Units$1,500 per dwelling unit $1,500 per dwelling unitSingle-family Dwelling Units$1,500 per dwelling unit $1,500 per dwelling unitTrails$225 per residential dwelling unit $225 per residential dwelling unitSubdivisions/ReplatsPreliminary Plat$900 plus $100 per lot $1,000 plus $150 per lotFinal Plat$550 $600 Combined Process and Replats$1,100 plus $100 per lot $1,200 plus $150 per lotExempt & Administrative Subdivisions$350 $375 Tax Increment Financing Application Fee$3,000 $3,100 Temporary Use Carnival & Festival over 14 days$1,500 $1,500 Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical)$50 $50 Time Extension$150 $200 Traffic Management PlanAdministrative Fee$0.10 per sq ft gross floor $0.10 per sq ft gross floorTree Replacement Cash in lieu of replacement trees$135 per caliper inch $135 per caliper inchVariancesCommercial$500 $550 Residential$300 $300 Zoning Appeal$300 $300 Zoning Letter$50 $50 Zoning Map Amendments$2,100 $2,150 Zoning PermitAccessory Structures, 120 ft or less$25 $25 Zoning Text Amendments$2,100 $2,150 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - CONTINUEDStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 7
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESENGINEERING DEPARTMENTInstallation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit$12 per 10 linear feet $12 per 10 linear feetBase fee $60 $60Permit Parking- High School & Medical needNo Charge No ChargeRight-of-Way PermitsExcavation or Obstruction PermitBase Fee $60 $60Hole in Road/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $60 per hole $60 per holeTrenching in Boulevard$200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200) $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200)Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400) $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400)Delay penalty n/a 2 times total permit feeAdded to incentivize timely completion of project.Small Cell Wireless Facility PermitAdditional permit related to new small cell wireless.Permit fee n/a $1,500 per antennaRent to occupy space on a city-owned wireless support structure n/a $150 per year per antennaMaintenance associated with space on a city-owned wireless support structure n/a $25 per year per antennaElectricity to operate small wireless facility, if not purchased directly from utilityn/a (i) $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 max watts; (ii) $182 per radio node over 100 max watts; actual costs of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the amount in item (i) or (ii).Delay penalty n/a 2 times total permit feeTemporary No Parking signs (for right-of-way permit work)Deposit of $25/ sign ($100 minimum per permit)Deposit of $25/ sign ($100 minimum per permit)Temporary Private Use of Public Property$350 $350 Dewatering PermitAdministrative Fee (all permits)$250 $250 Discharge to Sanitary Sewer Charge based on duration/volume of dischargeCharge based on duration/volume of dischargeErosion Control Permit Application and Review - single family $200 $200 Application and Review - other applicants $450 $450 Deposit - single family $1,500 $1,500 Deposit - other applicants $3,000 per acre (min. $1,500) $3,000 per acre (min. $1,500)Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 8
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESFIRE DEPARTMENTCar Seat Inspections$40 for the first car seat or base inspection and a $20 fee for each additional car seat or base inspection$40 for the first car seat or base inspection and a $20 fee for each additional car seat or base inspectionFire Alarms (False) Residential/Commercial Residential/Commercial1st offense w/in year $0/$0 $0/$02nd offense w/in year $100/$100 $100/$1003rd offense w/in year $150/$200 $150/$2004th offense w/in year $200/$300 $200/$3005th offense w/in year $200/$400 $200/$400Each subsequent in same year $200/$100 increase $200/$100 increaseFire Protection Permits (sprinkler systems, etc.)See Inspections Dept - Construction Permits See Inspections Dept - Construction Permits Fireworks Display PermitActual costs incurred Actual costs incurredRecreational Fire Lifetime Permit$25 $25 Service FeesService Fee for fully-equipped and staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck$500 per hour for a ladder truck$325 per hour for a full-size fire truck$325 per hour for a full-size fire truck$255 per hour for a rescue unit $255 per hour for a rescue unit Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour $100 per hour Inspections After Hours$65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)$65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)Tent PermitTent over 200 sq. ft. $75 $75Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75 $75Fire Sprinkler System Assessment Application fee one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the petitioned amount, with a minimum fee of $150 and a maximum fee of $750one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the petitioned amount, with a minimum fee of $150 and a maximum fee of $750INFORMATION RESOURCESCable TVDuplicate DVD, 1 to 4 copies$15/each$15/eachDuplicate DVD, 5+ copies$10/each$10/eachDuplicate Video USB (16GB)n/a$15/eachAdded due to need for duplicate on USB.GIS ServicesCustom Mapping Fee - per hour minimum$50$50Custom GIS Analysis Fee - per hour minimum$50$50Printing8.5 x 11 (per copy)$0.25$0.2517 x 22$5$524 x 36$10$1036 x 36$15$15Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 9
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESINSPECTIONS DEPARTMENTBuilding Demolition Deposit1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500 $2,500All Other Buildings $5,000 $5,000Building Demolition Permit1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $170$180 All Other Buildings $280$300 Building Moving Permit$500$500 Business LicensesBillboards $160 per billboard$165 per billboardCommercial Entertainment $285 $285Courtesy Bench $57$60 Dog Kennel $160$165 Environmental Emissions $320$330 Massage Therapy Massage Therapy Establishment $360$370 Massage Therapy License $115$120 Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License $35 $35PawnbrokerLicense Fee $2,000 $2,000Per Transaction Fee $2 $2Investigation Fee $1,000 $1,000Penalty $50 per day $50 per daySexually Oriented BusinessInvestigation Fee (High Impact) $500 $500High Impact $4,500 $4,500Limited Impact $125 $125 Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales$575$590 Vehicle Parking FacilitiesEnclosed Parking $235$245 Parking Ramp $185$195 Tanning Bed Facility $290 $290Certificate of OccupancyFor each condominium unit completed after building occupancy$100 $100Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)Up to 5,000 sq ft $450 $4505,001 to 25,000 sq ft $750 $75025,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,000 $1,00075,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,400 $1,400100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,700 $1,700above 200,000 sq ft $2,200 $2,200Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $85 $85Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 10
Denotes changeDenotes NewSERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESCertificate of Property MaintenanceCertificate of Property Maintenance Extension $60 $60Change in OwnershipCondominium Unit$150$150Duplex (2 Family dwellings)$325 $325 Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings$255 per building + $15 per unit$255 per building + $15 per unitSingle Family Dwellings$235$235All Other Buildings: Up to 5,000 sq ft$450$4505,001 – 25,000 sq ft$750$75025,001 to 75,000 sq ft$1,000$1,00075,001 to 100,000 sq ft$1,400$1,400100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft$1,700$1,700above 200,000 sq. ft$2,200$2,200Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance - Residential$85$85Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance - All others$200 $200 Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities)Building and Fire Protection Permits ValuationUp to $500Base Fee $55Base Fee $65$500.01 to $2,000.00Base Fee $55 plus $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 Base Fee $65 plus $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 $2,000.01 to $25,000.00Base Fee $85 plus $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01Base Fee $95 plus $15 for each additional$25,000.01 to $50,000.00Base Fee $430 plus $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01$50,000.01 to $100,000.00Base Fee $680 plus $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01$100,000.01 to $500,000.00Base Fee $1,030 plus $6.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00Base Fee $3,430 plus $5.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01$1,000,000.01 and upBase Fee $5,930 plus $4.50 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01(or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01Base Fee $440 plus $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01Base Fee $690 plus $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01Base Fee $1,040 plus $6.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01Base Fee $3,440 plus $5.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01Base Fee $5,940 plus $4.80 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT - CONTINUEDStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 11
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESSingle Family Residential Exceptions:Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs onlyHouse or House and Garage$140 $140Garage Only$70 $70ResidingHouse or House and Garage$140 $140Garage Only$70 $70Building Mounted Photovoltaic Panels$250 $250Electrical PermitInstallation, Replacement, Repair $55 + 1.75% of job valuation$60 + 1.75% of job valuationInstallation of traffic signals per location $150 $150 Single family, one appliance $55$60 ISTS Permit Sewage treatment system install or repair $125 $125Mechanical PermitInstallation, Replacement, Repair $55 + 1.75% of job valuation$60 + 1.75% of job valuationSingle Family Exceptions:Replace furnance, boiler or furnance/AC $65$70 Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $65$70 Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $55$60 Plumbing PermitInstallation, Replacement, Repair $55 + 1.75% of job valuation$60 + 1.75% of job valuationSingle Family Exceptions:Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $55$60 Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Building permit fees applyPublic Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Building permit fees applySewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities)Installation, Replacement, Repair $55 + 1.75% of job valuation$60 + 1.75% of job valuationSingle Family Exceptions:Replace/repair sewer or water service $90$95 Water Access Charge $750 $750Competency Exams FeesMechanical per test $30 $30 Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30 $30 Contractor LicensesMechanical $100 $105 Solid Waste $200 $210 Tree Maintenance $95 $100 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT - CONTINUEDStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 12
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESDog Licenses1 year $25 $252 year $40 $403 year $50 $50Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 $100Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 $250Interim License $15 $15Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident)$55$55Penalty for no license$40$40InspectionsAfter Hours Inspections$75 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)$75 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)Installation of permenant sign w/footing inspectionBased on valuation using building permit tableBased on valuation using building permit tableRe-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued has not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections)$130 $130 Insurance RequirementsA minimum of:A minimum of:Circus$1,000,000 General Liability$1,000,000 General LiabilityCommercial Entertainment$1,000,000 General Liability$1,000,000 General LiabilityMechanical Contractors$1,000,000 General Liability$1,000,000 General LiabilitySolid Waste$1,000,000 General Liability$1,000,000 General LiabilityTree Maintenance & Removal$1,000,000 General Liability$1,000,000 General LiabilityVehicle Parking Facility$1,000,000 General Liability$1,000,000 General LiabilityISTS PermitSewage treatment system install or repair$125 $125 License Fees - OtherInvestigation Fee$300 per establishment requiring a business license$300 per establishment requiring a business licenseLate Fee25% of license fee (minimum $50) 25% of license fee (minimum $50)License Reinstatement Fee$250 $250 Transfer of License (new ownership)$75$75Plan Review - 50% of amount due at time of application. Exception: Single Family Residential additions, accessory structures and remodels.Building Permits65% of Permit Fee65% of Permit FeeRepetitive Building25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate StructureElectrical Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit FeeMechanical Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit FeePlumbing Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit FeeSewer & Water Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit FeeSingle Family Interior Remodel Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit FeeINSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT - CONTINUEDStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 13
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESRental Housing LicenseCondominium/Townhouse/ Cooperative$90 per unit$95 per unitDuplex both sides non-owner occupied$175 per duplex$180 per duplexHousing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit $15 per unitMultiple FamilyPer Building $230$240 Per Unit $15$16 Single Family Unit $125 per dwelling unit$130 per dwelling unitTemporary Noise Permit$70 $70Temporary Use PermitsAmusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260 $260Commercial Film Production Application$100 $100Petting Zoos $60 $60Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales$110 $110Vehicle DecalsSolid Waste $25 $25Tree Maintenance & Removal $10 $10OPERATIONS & RECREATIONOperations Block Party Application (MSC at 7305 Oxford St)No Charge No ChargeCone deposit (refundable)$10/cone $10/coneBulk Water Filling Station ( Pre-purchase at MSC)$4/1,000 gallons $4/1,000 gallonsFire Hydrant Use Permit (MSC - approval only by PW/Utilities)$100 connection fee per hydrant, $4/1,000 ga$100 connection fee per hydrant, $4/1,000 gallonsPermit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC)$50 each $50 eachService Fees (Stop Box Repairs, Water Shut-off Service) - MSC Shop Public Service WorkerRegular Business Hours$50 $50After Hours $150 $150Winter Parking PermitCaregiver parking $25 $25 No off-street parking available No Charge No ChargeOff-street parking available $125 $125 RecreationAmphitheater, Wolfe Park Rental (per hour, 2 hour minimum)Resident $70/hr $70/hrNon-Resident $80/hr $80/hrAmphitheater & Park Building, Wolfe Park Rental (per hour, 2 hour minimum)Resident $95/hr $100/hrNon-Resident $115/hr $120/hrCourt Rental (Tennis, Basketball, Sand Volleyball & Pickle Ball)Resident $20/hr $20/hrNon-resident $25/hr $25/hrINSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT - CONTINUEDStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 14
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESOPERATIONS & RECREATION - CONTINUEDField Lights$20/hr $20/hrField MaintenanceResident $65/hr, one maintenance person $75/hr, one maintenance personNon-resident $85/hr, one maintenance person $95/hr, one maintenance personField Rental (Baseball & Softball)Resident $65/hr $75/hrNon-resident $75/hr $85/hrField Rental (Soccer)Resident $75/hr $75/hrNon-resident $85/hr $85/hrMobile Stage Rental (per hour)Basic Unit - 4 hr. minimum (resident) $215/hr $215/hrBasic Unit - 4 hr. minimum (non-resident) $245/hr $245/hrLarge Mixing Board w/Additional Speakers (resident) $115/hr $115/hrLarge Mixing Board w/Additional Speakers (non-resident) $135/hr $135/hrOak Hill Park Splash Pad Entrance Fee, 3201 Rhode Island AveResident Free FreeNon-Resident $1 per person $1 per personGroups of 10-30 must pre-register $2 per person $2 per personPark Building Rental (per hour, 2 hour minimum)Damage Deposit $300 $300 BirchwoodResident $55/hr $60/hrNon-Resident $65/hr $70/hrBrowndaleResident $55/hr $60/hrNon-Resident $65/hr $70/hrLouisiana OaksResident $55/hr $60/hrNon-Resident $65/hr $70/hrNelson ParkResident $55/hr $60/hrNon-Resident $65/hr $70/hrOak Hill ParkResident $55/hr $60/hrNon-Resident $65/hr $70/hrWolfe ParkResident $60/hr $65/hrNon-Resident $70/hr $75/hrPark Rental - Large EventHalf Day fee $800 $800 Full Day fee $1,600 $1,600 Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 15
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESOPERATIONS & RECREATION - CONTINUEDPicnic Shelter Rental (per time block: 11 a.m. - 4 p.m. or 4:30 - 9 p.m.)Damage Deposit$100 $100 Additional Hours (before 11 a.m.)Resident$20/hr$20/hrNon-resident$25/hr$25/hrFern Hill ParkResident$75/time block$75/time blockNon-resident$95/time block$95/time blockOak Hill ParkCentral (resident)$75/time block$80/time blockCentral (non-resident)$95/time block$100/time blockMain (resident)$100/time block$105/time blockMain (non-resident)$130/time block$135/time blockRustic (resident)$40/time block$45/time blockRustic (non-resident)$50/time block$55/time blockWolfe ParkEast (resident)$75/time block$80/time blockEast (non-resident)$95/time block$100/time blockWest (resident)$75/time block$80/time blockWest (non-resident$95/time block$100/time blockRec CenterBanquet Room Rental (per hour; 2 hour minimum)Damage Deposit$725 $700 Maintenance Feen/a$75 To cover maintenance costs.Resident Sunday - Friday$65/hr$65/hrResident Saturday (8 a.m. to midnight)$625$625Non-resident Sunday - Friday$75/hr$75/hrNon-resident Saturday (8 a.m. to midnight)$725$725Police Officer (after 9 p.m. events where alcohol is served)$285$290Gallery Room Rental (per hour; 2 hour minimum)Damage Deposit$100 $100 Maintenance Fee$30 $30 Residents & Non Profit Groups$50/hr$50/hrNon-resident$60/hr$60/hrIce Rink Rental$200/hr plus tax$205/hr plus taxIce Skating Party (2 hr use of Gallery, 15 pp adm open skate)Resident$85$85Non-resident$100$100Ice Skating Party (2 hr use of Banquet Room, 15 pp adm open skate)Resident$100$100Non-resident$125$125Skate rental$3$3Skate sharpening$5$5Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 16
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESSkating Admission - adult$4 $4 Skating Admission - youth & senior$3.50 $3.50 Ten Punch Pass - adult$35$35Ten Punch Pass - youth & senior$30$30Open Hockey Admission$5$5Open Hockey Ten Punch Pass$45$45Aquatic ParkDaily Entrance Rates:Under 1 year oldFreeFree1 to 54 years old$9.50$9.5055+ years old$5.50$5.50Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$5.50$5.50Season Pass (Resident* & purchased on or before June 2)Under 1 year oldFreeFree1 to 54 years old$52$55Caretaker/Nanny$52$5555+ years old$37$40Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$37$40Season Pass (Resident* & purchased after June 2)Under 1 year oldFreeFree1 to 54 years old$57$60Caretaker/Nanny$57$6055+ years old$42$45Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$42$45Season Pass (Non-Resident & purchased on or before June 2)Under 1 year oldFreeFree1 to 54 years old$62$65Caretaker/Nanny$62$6555+ years old$47$50Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$47$50Season Pass (Non-Resident & purchased after June 2)Under 1 year oldFreeFree1 to 54 years old$67$70Caretaker/Nanny$67$7055+ years old$52$55Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$52$55Gazebo Rental (Daily entrance rate/season pass required)Resident$35/hr$35/hrNon-resident$45/hr$45/hrPrivate Aquatic Park Rental$400/hour$425/hourAqua Obstacle Course Rental$100 per use$100 per useLap Lane Rental$75/hr$75/hrOPERATIONS & RECREATION - CONTINUEDStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 17
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESRecreation Outdoor Complex (ROC)Dry Floor Rental Damage Deposit $150 $150 Food and Beverage Fee$60 $60 Two Hour Maximum (resident) $25/hr $30/hr Two Hour Maximum (non-resident) $25/hr $35/hr Half-Day Rental, 6 hr max (resident) $150 $180 Half-Day Rental, 6 hr max (non-resident) $150 $210 Full-Day Rental (resident) $300 $360 Full-Day Rental (non-resident) $300 $420 Ice Rink Rental * (residents) $130/hr plus tax $135/hr plus taxIce Rink Rental * (non-residents) $130/hr plus tax $140/hr plus tax Skate Rental$3 $3 Skate Sharpening $5 $5 Skating Admission - adult $4 $4 Skating Admission - youth & senior $3.50 $3.50 Ten Punch Pass - adult $35 $35 Ten Punch Pass - youth & senior $30 $30 Open Hockey Admission $5 $5 Open Hockey Ten Punch Pass $45 $45Turf Field Rental (full field - 200' x 85') Resident $25/hr $25/hr Non-resident $40/hr $40/hrSkate Park Rental (outdoor)Free admission Free admissionResident (private rental) $200/hr $200/hrNon-Resident (private rental) $400/hr $400/hrWarming House RentalResident (after hours)$50/hr $50/hrNon-resident (after hours)$60/hr $60/hrNon-resident & Resident (during hours)$20/hr $20/hrWestwood Hills Nature CenterBirthday Party (12 or fewer children)Resident $98 $100 Non-Resident $108 $110 Each additional child $8 $8Westwood Hills Nature Center Observation Deck RentalResident per hour (2 hr min.)$50/hr $50/hrNon-Resident per hour (2 hr min.)$70/hr $75/hrWestwood Hills Nature Center Park Building (lower) RentalDamage Deposit $300 $300Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$55/hr $60/hrNon-Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$65/hr $70/hrOPERATIONS & RECREATION - CONTINUEDStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 18
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESWestwood Hills Nature Center Waterfall Deck RentalResident per hour (2 hr. minimum)$50/hr $50/hrNon-Resident per hour (2 hr. minimum)$70/hr $70/hrWestwood Hills Nature Center Watergarden RentalResident per hour $100/hr $100/hrNon-Resident per hour $150/hr $150/hrFarmer's Market Applicationper stall (one market site) $60 $60per stall (both market sites) $90 $90Mobile Food Truck Vendor Permit $50/day per truck $50/day per truckProfessional Photo & Park Video Shoot (does not include facility rental)Resident $125/hr $125/hrNon-resident $175/hr $175/hrSpecial Equipment Rental (delivery within City limits only)Damage Deposit$100$10016 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (resident)$160$16016 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (St. Louis Park Organization)$110$1108 Folding Tables and 20 Chairs (resident)$90$908 Folding Tables and 20 Chairs (St. Louis Park Organization)$55 $55 Damage Deposit$100$100Portable PA System (resident)$45$45Portable PA System (St. Louis Park Organization)$25$25Natural Resources & Park MaintenanceCommunity Garden Plot$30/yr $35/yrTrees - DED FeesPrivate 10% 10%Public17%NAEliminated fee - do not charge property owners for any public tree removals.Vegetation MaintenanceNative Vegetation Permit valid for 5 yrs$0 $0 No longer utilize.Weed EliminationNon-compliance of Weed Nuisance Notice $145 $150 Wood Chip Delivery (within City limits only)2-2.5 cubic yards$70 $75 5 cubic yards$130 $135 OPERATIONS & RECREATION - CONTINUEDStudy Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 19
Denotes changeDenotes New SERVICE 2017 ADOPTED FEES2018 PROPOSED/NEW FEESNOTESPOLICE DEPARTMENTAnimalsAnimal ImpoundInitial impoundment$35$40 Average of other communities surveyed. 2nd offense w/in year$60$603rd offense w/in year$85$854th offense w/in year$110$110Boarding Per Day$25$30 Average of other communities surveyed. Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing$250$250Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing$100$250 Same process and other communities charge the same.Copies & ReportsAccident Photo$10/disk$10/diskArrest Synopsis Report$5$5Audio Recording$10$10Police Report$0.25 page$0.25 pageWeekly Accident Report$0.50/page$0.50/pageCrime Free Multi-Housing Training$35/class$40/classIncrease to cover cost of the training.Criminal Background Investigation Volunteers & Employees$5$5False Alarm (Police)Residential/CommercialResidential/Commercial1st offense w/in year$0/$0$0/$02nd offense w/in year$100/$100$100/$1003rd offense w/in year$100/$125$100/$1254th offense w/in year$100/$150$100/$1505th offense w/in year$100/$175$100/$175Each subsequent in same year$100/$25 increase$100/$25 increaseLate Payment Fee10%10%FingerprintingSt. Louis Park residents & business needs$25$25Solicitor/Peddler Registration$150 $150 Lost ID replacement fee$25 $25 Vehicle ForfeitureAdministrative fee in certain cases$250$250Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Proposed 2018 Fee SchedulePage 20
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Modifications of Wooddale Bridge at Highway 7
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. This is a status update related
to the proposed project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to proceed with
modifications to the Wooddale Bridge over Highway 7?
SUMMARY: Staff and our consultant team have been working on preliminary design plans to
modify the Wooddale Bridge over Highway 7. The improvements are intended to construct safe
and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the bridge and to increase sight lines for
vehicles at the ramp terminals.
The timing of the plan development and approvals has been closely coordinated with Southwest
Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) due to the projects close proximity and overlapping impacts. As a
result, past delays in the SWLRT approval process have caused delay to the Wooddale bridge plan
preparation and approvals. However, based on continued work with the SWLRT planning team,
staff feel the city no longer needs to wait for the construction of SWLRT to begin.
Therefore, staff is working with our consultant to complete final plans this winter and begin
construction in the spring of 2018. Additional information related to the project scope and
schedule can be found in the following pages.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: The estimated total project cost for the modifications to the
Wooddale Bridge is estimated at $2.45 million. The funding for this project is from tax increment
financing.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Exhibit – Bridge Layout
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Modifications of Wooddale Bridge at Highway 7
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The construction of the Southwest Light Rail (SWLRT) line and the Wooddale
LRT Station is now planned for 2018-2021. This will result in corridor modifications along
Wooddale Avenue that include the installation of traffic signals at the Highway 7 ramp terminals,
modifications to the intersection of Wooddale Avenue at the South Service Road, and the
construction of an underpass for the Regional trail crossing at Wooddale.
In 2015 staff hired the consulting firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) to help explore ways to
leverage the programmed improvements of SWLRT to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety,
traffic operations, and allow for future growth of the Wooddale corridor. In late October of 2015
the City convened a design workshop that was attended by staff from SWLRT, MnDOT, Hennepin
County, and the City. In addition, the PLACE development team and our consultant SEH were in
attendance. The desired outcome from this workshop was to find a cost effective solution that
balances the needs of all users of this multimodal corridor with a high level of safety and livability.
Since that time, the SWLRT project has completed final plans and the city and PLACE
Development have finalized that projects site layout. Construction of SWLRT is now expected to
begin in the second half of 2018. Staff will coordinate the timing and scope of the Wooddale
Bridge improvements with the construction activities of the SWLRT.
Staff has engaged SEH to complete final design plans and receive approvals from MnDOT for the
modifications to the Wooddale Bridge over Highway 7. The improvements are intended to
construct safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the bridge and to increase
sight lines for vehicles at the ramp terminals.
Project Scope:
The project initiated by the City will include widening of the bridge deck by about 7 feet on each
side. This widening will allow additional space for and enhancements to the pedestrian and bicycle
facilities across the bridge. In addition, it pulls the concrete parapet walls back to provide better
sight lines for drivers as they approach Wooddale Avenue from the Highway 7 ramps.
The new bridge cross section will include; four lanes of traffic across the bridge, a turn lane for
the Highway 7 entrance ramps, 12 foot wide sidewalks and 6 foot wide bike lanes.
The project will also add landscaping at strategic locations that will soften the feel of the corridor
and compliment the SWLRT Wooddale Station and PLACE development.
Construction Sequencing
The construction sequencing and impacts to the corridor during construction are still being
finalized. The intent of the design team is to keep half of the bridge open while the other half is
being worked on. The expectation is that one lane of traffic in each direction and one sidewalk
will be open at all times.
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Modifications of Wooddale Bridge at Highway 7
Elements not in the current Project Scope:
The bridge modifications discussed above will address many of safety concerns that currently exist
in this corridor. However, the signalization of the ramp terminals is currently part of the SWLRT
design and budget. The expectation is that the bridge modification work by the City will be
completed by late 2018. The schedule for SWLRT to install the traffic signals is still unknown.
Staff will continue to advocate to SWLRT and their contractor to install the signals as soon as
possible. Due to the delays in the SWLRT construction schedule it is possible that the signals may
not be installed until 2020 or 2021.
Schedule:
60 % Plan Submittal to City and MnDOT mid October 2017
90 % Plan Submittal to City and MnDOT early November 2017
Final Roadway and Bridge Plans mid December 2017
Open Bids early February 2018
Award Construction Contract mid February 2018
Construction April to Sept. 2018
Next Steps:
As part of the SWLRT project the City will need to enter into an agreement with MnDOT to assign
ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the signals proposed as part of their project. This
agreement will be brought to the Council at an upcoming meeting later this year. The City has a
number of similar agreements with MnDOT for signals throughout town.
MINNESOTA
INVESTORS OF
F O R
TURNING
VEHICLES
STA. 107+23 - 108+95
PROPOSED ROADWAY
2.0%
10.0'
BLVD
8'
RT TURN
12.0'
LT TURN
NB
THRU
SB
THRU
SB
THRU
NB
12.0'6.0'12.0'
B624 C&G
12'-7"
TRAIL
6'11'-7"
WIDENING
6'-7" DECK
WIDENING
6'-7" DECK
EX. WALK
11.0'
LEFT TURN
SB
LT TURN
NB
LANE
BIKE
6'
LANE
BIKE
EX. TRAIL
2' BUFFER 2' BUFFER
PROPOSED WOODDALE AVENUE BRIDGE 27B65
SPACING
BEAM
6'-7"
LC
11.0'
2.0%2.0%
GRADE
PROFILE
LC
11.0'
1.0%
0'-2"
1'-0"
11.0'
THRU WALK
LC
THRU
2.0%2.0%2.0%
GRADE
PROFILE
LC
THRU
2.0%
GRADE
PROFILE
11.0'
0'-2"THRU
NB WOODDALE AVE.
SB WOODDALE AVE.
1.0%
RAILING
METAL
0'-2"
1'-0"
0'-2"
RAILING
METAL
3'-8"
3'-4"
3'-8"
3'-4"
8.0'
12.0'
5.0'
BIKE
11.0'11.0'5.0'
BIKE
6.0'
(OR FLATTER)
VAR (1:3)VAR (1:3)
(OR FLATTER)
B624 C&G
WOODDALE AVENUE
2.0%
LC
2.0%
2.0%
GRADE
PROFILE
NB WOODDALE
SB WOODDALE
2.0%
WALK
2.0'
TRAIL
2.0%
2.0'
2.0%
GRADE
PROFILE
2.0%
CL
2.0%2.0%
2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%F O RTURNINGVEHICLES0
feetscale
10 10 20
5
11.0'
RT TURN
THRU/
5.0'
BIKE THRU
11.0'11.0'
THRU
11.0'5.0'
BIKE
VARIABLE
RT TURN
6.0'
SB LT TURN
2" MILL & OVERLAY
STA. 103+89 - 104+31
PROPOSED ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION
(OR FLATTER)VAR (1:3)VAR (1:3)
(OR FLATTER)B624 C&G
WOODDALE AVENUE
B612 C&G
2.0%
LC
2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%
CL
GRADE
PROFILE
NB WOODDALE
SB WOODDALE
12.0'
2.0%2.0%
WALK
2.0'
TRAIL
2.0%
2.0'
LC
2.0%2.0%
GRADE
PROFILE
2.0%2.0%
CL
2.0%
2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%
10.0'8.0'
BLVD.
8.0'
BLVD.THRU
8'
8'
5'
13'11'10'11'13'
5'
MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED RAISED
MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING RAISED
PROPOSED SIGNAL POLE
SIGNAL LEGEND
PUSH BUTTON
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN
SIGNAL SYSTEM
PROPOSED NEW
PUSH BUTTON PEDESTAL
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Modifications of Wooddale Bridge at Highway 7 Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Consultant Contract
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is to inform Council of staffs
proposal that the city enter into a contract with a consultant to assist in updating the city’s
Comprehensive Plan. Formal consideration of approval of this contract will be on the October 16th
Council agenda.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support hiring Hoisington Koegler Group,
Inc. (HKGi) as the planning consultant to work with staff to complete the city’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan update?
SUMMARY:
State law requires metro area cities to update their comprehensive plans every 10 years. The next
update is due no later than December 31, 2018. Staff has begun the process of updating the city’s
comprehensive plan; however, due to the extraordinary staff time required to conduct and complete
the update, staff is recommending hiring a planning consultant to assist with coordinating the
update efforts, conducting the public process, and composing the document. The plan update will
build upon the public input garnered through the Vision 3.0 process.
Staff received proposals from two consulting firms. After reviewing the proposals and
interviewing the firms, staff is recommending the city enter into a contract with HKGi. HKGi
completed our 2008 comprehensive plan and has successfully worked with community
development on several area studies for the city including: Beltline LRT Station Area Guidelines,
Louisiana Station Area Planning and Guidelines, and Eliot School Site Reuse Study. Staff believes
HKGi can effectively provide the services needed and produce the plan update in the necessary
timeline.
Schedule and Process
The 2040 comprehensive plan update will need to be drafted by June 2018 to allow for the required
6-month review by the surrounding jurisdictions. Staff has been working with city departments,
Commissions and will work with the Consultant to design a neighborhood engagement process to
be held in the fall and again in the spring.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The consultant contract will be billed on an
hourly basis, not to exceed $160,000. Funding for this has been allocated in the 2017 and 2018
community development budgets.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Principal Planner
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Consultant Contract
DISCUSSION
Background on Comprehensive Planning
Every 10 years the city is required to update its long range plan. The coming update is due at the
end of 2018. The Metropolitan Council is the agency charged with reviewing comprehensive plans
for conformance with Metropolitan Systems Plans and regional plans. Comprehensive plans must
address areas of regional importance, including Land Use, Transportation, Water Resources, Parks
and Trails, and Housing.
Consultants
City staff has begun hiring consultants for various elements of the comprehensive plan update
(Plan), including the water supply plan and the surface water management plan. Engineering staff
will also be hiring a transportation planning firm to address the mobility section of the plan.
For general planning oversight, public process, and composition and finalization of the Plan, staff
is recommending hiring the planning firm of HKGi. HKGi is experienced in working with the state
requirements and has assisted St. Louis Park, as well as a number of other cities in updating their
comprehensive plans. HKGi will assure the process timeline is adhered to, will assist with the
design and implementation of the public process, will coordinate efforts across departments and
with other consultants, will ensure the Plan meets all of the statutory requirements, and will see
the Plan through to its final approval. The contract includes distinct work scopes with deliverables
at each phase of the process.
Schedule and Process
Planning staff has begun assembling information and collecting data for the Comprehensive Plan
update, and has also begun outlining the structure for the plan. Staff has also met with city staff,
the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission to present the current plan
elements and discuss possible changes for this update. Over the coming months, planning staff and
the planning consultant will continue to work with the various city departments and commissions
to discuss and draft the plan.
Public Engagement Process
The plan update will build upon the public input garnered through the Vision 3.0 process. The
Vision process will be used to inform the comprehensive plan update through the public input
process. Neighborhood community engagement will be a significant part of the Plan update.
Amongst a variety of public input methods to be implemented, staff will be working with the
planning consultant to create a process with the community that will include outreach to the seven
neighborhood groupings that were used in the Plan by Neighborhood section of the 2008
comprehensive plan.
The first neighborhood meetings will be held this fall, and will focus on Vision 3.0 outcomes and
how they relate to the overall direction of the community. It is expected this will be an interactive,
workshop process that will be supplemented by an on-line opportunity for input as well. This
process will be led and facilitated by the planning consultant.
The follow-up neighborhood meetings will be held in the spring, and center on presentation of the
draft plan. We will gain feedback and input on the Plan elements. Additionally, staff and the
consultant will explore and create on-line opportunities for input on the plan.
Next Steps
The contract for the services from HKGi will be before the city council for approval on October
16, 2017.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Perspectives – Resolution of Support for Brownfield Gap Financing Program Grant
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform the
City Council of the request made by Perspectives for support of a grant application. This item is
schedule for council consideration at the October 16 meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to support Perspectives’ grant
application to the Brownfield Gap Financing Program?
SUMMARY: Perspectives is located at 3381 Gorham Ave S. Perspectives provides services and
assistance to women and their children suffering from addictions, mental illness and poverty. Over
the past few years they have been planning to remodel and add an addition to the building to better
serve their clients.
Last year the city council approved an off-site parking lot located across Gorham Avenue in
anticipation of the project. To begin the next phase, Perspectives is applying for a Hennepin
County Brownfield Gap Financing Program grant to conduct an environmental investigation of
the property prior to finalizing and submitting the building permit plans to the city.
The grant program guidelines require a resolution of support from the local jurisdiction. The
attached resolution is to acknowledge the city’s support of the application. It does not require or
commit to a financial contribution from the city.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Draft Resolution
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Perspectives – Resolution of Support for Brownfield Gap Financing Program Grant
RESOLUTION NO. 17-___
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A HENNEPIN COUNTY
BROWNFIELD GAP PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
PERSPECTIVES, INC AT 3381 GORHAM AVENUE
WHEREAS, Perspectives, Inc. submitted an application requesting grant funds from the
Hennepin County Brownfield Gap Financing Program; and
WHEREAS, the grant funds will be used to conduct an environmental investigation of
property they own at 3381 Gorham Ave S. in preparation for building rehabilitation and expansion;
and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Brownfield Gap Program Guidelines require support
by the governing body of the City of St. Louis Park for submission of a grant application to the
Hennepin County Brownfield Gap Program; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park supports the
submission of Hennepin County Brownfield Gap Program grant application.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 16, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: October 9, 2017
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Sidewalk Snow Removal Pilot Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None, the purpose of this report is to provide the Council with
information on a pilot sidewalk snow removal program that staff will be implementing for this
coming winter season in partnership with Senior Community Services.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the council support offering senior homeowners with an
option for accessing assistance snow removal from boulevard sidewalks?
SUMMARY: In response to direction provide by the Council during its budget discussion on
August 14, city staff has developed a partnership with Senior Community Services to offer a pilot
snow removal program for the 2017/2018 winter season. The pilot program will provide snow
removal services to seniors (60+) in targeted neighborhoods identified by the city. The service
will remove snow on the sidewalk on the boulevard and would not include sidewalks up to the
house or the resident’s driveway.
SCS will charge a flat fee of $45/snowfall per property for the removal of two inches of snow or
more. The city will pay half of the fee and the resident will pay half.
SCS has asked to limit the pilot program to a smaller geographic area to ensure households are
adequately served. Four neighborhoods have been identified to participate in the pilot program:
Lenox, Sorensen, Birchwood and Bronx Park. The four neighborhoods were selected by reviewing
maps identifying public sidewalks that are located in residential areas, demographics of
neighborhoods, and zoning maps identifying the location of single-family homes. The race equity
toolkit was also applied. SCS needs a minimum of 10 participants to implement the program and
will limit the number of participants to a maximum of 50.
After the pilot program ends in the spring of 2018, the effectiveness and success of the program
will be evaluated and reported back to the Council for further discussion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The source of funding for the program will
be the Housing Rehab fund. $10,000 has been included in the city’s proposed budget for 2018.
The annual cost of the program will be dependent on the number of participants and the number
of 2” or greater snowfalls events. Any funds need in excess of $10,000 would be paid from the
Housing Rehab fund
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/CD Deputy Director
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 9, 2017 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Sidewalk Snow Removal Pilot Program
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Senior Community Services (SCS) is partnering with the City to offer a pilot
snow removal program for boulevard sidewalks for the 2017/2018 winter season.
Who would this serve: Seniors (60+) in targeted neighborhoods identified by the city.
What would program include: Snow removal on the sidewalk on the boulevard only; would not
include driveway or sidewalks up to the house.
Price: A flat fee of $45/snowfall is charged per household, per snowfall for two inches of snow
or more. Snow will be removed in accordance with the timeframes specified in the city code.
Who pays: City pays half ($22.50) and resident pays half ($22.50). SCS will bill monthly. If
participants do not pay their portion of the bill, SCS will cease to provide snow removal services
until paid in full. If participants did not pay any outstanding bills for work done, the city will cover
this unpaid portion.
Geographic area: Four neighborhoods – Lenox, Sorensen, Birchwood and Bronx Park
neighborhoods. SCS prefers a smaller geographic area such as a neighborhood or adjacent
neighborhoods to ensure more households are served. SCS has confirmed these four
neighborhoods would work. To identify neighborhoods, SCS recommended looking at properties
with snow removal citations, demographic data on neighborhoods with high senior populations,
and strong neighborhood commitment to help recruit both clients and “contractors”. There have
been relatively few citations in the last few years, so these four neighborhoods were identified by
looking at the maps of where public sidewalks are located in residential areas, demographics of
neighborhoods, and zoning maps of where single-family homes are located. The race equity toolkit
was also applied.
Marketing and hiring: SCS has some difficulty hiring people to do snow removal. SCS would
be hiring a special group of “contractors” for this pilot program. Ideally they would try to hire
people right out of the neighborhood, or at least in St. Louis Park. They have found that the
motivation for people to work as contractors is more than just the money, it is helping out and
when you are helping neighbors, they get an even better commitment. The city will need to work
with SCS on marketing this pilot program.
Number of participants: SCS needs a minimum of 10 participants to implement the program,
and will limit the number of participants to a maximum of 50.
Snow Removal: Snow removal will be done after every snowfall of 2 inches or more.
Cost: The number of 2” snowfalls per year varies from year to year. Depending on the number of
participants and snow events, the cost can vary significantly. The chart below shows the potential
city costs with 10 – 50 participants and 10 – 25 snow events at $22.50/snow event.
# of Snow events 10 15 20 25
10
Number of 20
participants 30
40
50
$2,250 $3,375 $4,500 $5,625
$4,500 $6,750 $9,000 $11,250
$6,750 $10,125 $13,500 $16,875
$9,000 $13,500 $18,000 $22,500
$11250 $16,875 $22,500 $28,125
NEXT STEPS: Staff will be meeting with SCS staff next week to finalize the program specifics
and map out a marketing plan. It is our goal to get the program in place prior to the first snowfall.