Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/05/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session May 22, 2006 6:30 PM Council Chambers 6:00 PM Joint Meeting with Charter Commission - Box Lunch Discussion Items Approximate Times 1. 6:30 PM Instant Run-Off Voting (Joint Meeting with Charter Commission) 2. 7:30 PM Bass Lake Site Concept Development Plans (Park Nicollet) 3. 8:30 PM Southwest Transitway Update (Jim Brimeyer) 4. 9:00 PM Interim Ordinance – Subdivision in the R-1 Zoning District 5. 9:15 PM Future Agenda Planning 9:25 PM Adjourn Written Items 6. 36th Street Streetscape Plan 7. Council Policy Update 8. April 2006 Interim Financial Statements 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. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 1 - Instant Run-Off Voting Page 1 1. Instant Run-Off Voting Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: This is a joint meeting between the Charter Commission and the City Council to learn more about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). BACKGROUND: Under current election laws, voters cast one vote for the candidate of their choice. With IRV, the ballot allows voters to rank order candidates (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc.) and the first candidate to collect a majority of the votes while gathering 50% or more of the total votes cast is declared a winner. The ranked order comes into play when the majority candidate collects fewer than 50% of the cast votes. If this occurs, the candidate who collected the fewest votes is considered defeated and removed from the ballot. Then the votes cast for the defeated candidate are recast based on the ranked order of the cast ballots. To put it into simpler terms, IRV is similar to a runoff election except that voters do not need to return to the polls to vote again in a runoff election. In an IRV process, results from the single ballot are computed with computerized election equipment or are done by hand. Currently, St. Louis Park holds local elections in odd-numbered years. If three or more candidates file for a local office, there is a primary election prior to the general election in November. Only one local primary has been held in St. Louis Park in the past nine years, and that was in 2005. Staff estimates the primary election cost the city approximately $20,000. Staff has compiled local election results from 1997-2005 and included them in the attached table. In each local race from 1997-2005, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the votes cast in the general election. In addition, the winners of the Ward 1 and Ward 4 primaries received more than 50% in their primary elections and in the general election. Tony Solgaard with Fair Vote Minnesota has volunteered his time to provide the IRV educational session. The city’s attorney, Roger Knutson, will also be at the meeting to answer statutory questions related to IRV. Mr. Solgaard and Mr. Knutson will make themselves available to answer questions following the presentation. Attachments: City of St. Louis Park Non-Partisan Municipal Election Results FairVote Minnesota brochure League of Minnesota Cities - correspondence Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office - correspondence Session Weekly Article on Instant Run-Off Voting Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 1 City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 2 - Bass Lake Site And Park Nicollet EDI Page 1 2. Site Alternatives for the Bass Lake Site: 3735 Belt Line Boulevard Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION As a follow-up to conversations by the Council at its February 13th, 27th and April 10th study sessions, this item is being presented to allow for a discussion on the potential future uses of the Bass Lake site located at 3515 Belt Line Boulevard (NE corner of the intersection of Monterey Drive, W. 36th Street, and Beltline Boulevard) including the possibility of accommodating Park Nicollet’s Eating Disorders Institute (EDI) on the site. Park Nicollet is looking for direction as to whether the City supports the EDI at the Bass Lake site or not. BACKGROUND/UPDATE At the 2/13/06 study session staff provided background information about the Bass Lake site, an analysis of the site and proposed ideal characteristics of any future development of the site. Attached is a Summary of staff’s site analysis of the property. At the last study session on this topic City staff and Park Nicollet were requested to explore a number of possible development scenarios for the subject property. Park Nicollet was also asked to reach out to Wayside House and explore potential win/win solutions with them. Park Nicollet has contacted Wayside but Wayside has indicated they are not ready for discussions at this time. At previous study sessions the City Council heard presentations and discussed Park Nicollet’s interest in locating its Eating Disorders Institute (EDI) on the City’s Bass Lake site. The Council indicated at the 2/27/06 study session that it was willing to consider concept designs for the EDI on the Bass Lake site. They also accepted Park Nicollet/United Properties’ offer to prepare preliminary site plans that showed both the EDI and a potential public use or housing on the Bass Lake site. The City Council also directed staff to prepare potential concept plans for the use of the Bass Lake site to help the City Council understand the development potential of the site and evaluate the appropriateness and desirability of selling at least a portion of the Bass Lake site for the EDI. Alternative Concept Plans Over the past several weeks Park Nicollet, working with United Properties, has prepared a series of alternative concept plans showing how the EDI and other uses could be accommodated on the Bass Lake site. Representatives of Park Nicollet and United Properties will be in attendance at the City Council’s study session to share with the City Council their ideas. In addition, staff retained the consulting planning and design firm, MFRA, to analyze the Bass Lake site and prepare alternative concepts plans for the site. Mike Gair with MFRA will also be at the City Council’s Study session to present MFRA’s analysis and concept ideas. Both the Park Nicollet concept plans and the MFRA concept plans show several ways in which both the EDI and other uses, including housing or public uses, could be accommodated on the Bass Lake site. The EDI would require about half the property. The remainder of the site would be available for other uses that could be selected in the future as the City’s updated community vision and Rec Center plans become clearer. The EDI could be sited in a way to maximize future flexibility for the use of the rest of the site and compatibility with future uses and/or the Rec Center. Shared parking and integration of common public space are possibilities. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 2 - Bass Lake Site And Park Nicollet EDI Page 2 Single Family Home Considerations Special attention has been focused on developing single family homes on the Bass Lake site; either in concert with the EDI or as the sole use of the site. The City Council has expressed particular interest in developing the property with single family homes. Aside from the land use considerations, it is important to note that the significant contamination on the Bass Lake site will present special challenges to the development of the site for residential usage, especially for single-family homes. Environmental standards for residential land uses are more stringent than for non- residential land uses. This can increase the cost of site remediation. The environmental history and condition of the Bass Lake site may make the marketing of lots or homes to individual home buyers more difficult and potentially increase the responsibility of the City to ensure that home buyers understand any risks or limitations that come with the purchase of a Bass Lake lot. Individual home or lot buyers are relatively unsophisticated in comparison to institutions or businesses. That places increased responsibility on the seller to ensure that buyers understand any conditions or limitations associated with the lot they are purchasing. Relatively cost effective remediation techniques such as capping contaminants on site or other institutional controls may not be an option when using a site for single family homes, but can work for businesses and institutional buyers. Staff has asked the EDA’s legal counsel for advice on this issue. NEXT STEPS It is hoped that the analysis and alternative plans presented Monday evening will provide the context necessary for the City Council to decide if it is appropriate and desirable to take the next steps toward accommodating the EDI on the Bass Lake site. The EDI is a rare and extraordinary opportunity for St. Louis Park, with many potential economic benefits for the community. Some of them are highlighted in an attached outline. If the City wishes to capitalize on the EDI opportunity it needs to move forward in a timely fashion. If the EDA/Council is supportive of EDI on a portion of the Bass Lake site, staff would recommend that it be directed to begin preparing a preliminary development agreement (PDA) with United Properties and Park Nicollet to more clearly define the terms and responsibilities of all parties. Presumably such an agreement could be reached and brought back to the EDA/Council for its consideration in the next several weeks. Staff would also have a Phase II environmental analysis conducted to more precisely determine the type, level, and extent of contamination on the site. This, then, will allow United Properties to better calculate the anticipated cost of preparing the site for development. Attachments: Summary of Bass Lake Site Analysis Potential Community Benefits of EDI in St. Louis Park Prepared By: Adam Fulton, Assistant Planner Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 2 - Bass Lake Site And Park Nicollet EDI Page 3 SUMMARY OF BASS LAKE SITE ANALYSIS Site Overview The Bass Lake site is a part of the Park Commons area – the City’s downtown. It is connected by trails to Excelsior & Grand, and is also within walking distance of Target, Byerlys and the Park Nicollet Clinic campus. It is well located with its proximity to recreational opportunities - the Rec Center, Bass Lake, and Wolfe Park. It is part of a continuous swath of public land extending from the Park Shores area on the west, to the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood and Bass Lake Park on the east. Being next to Bass Lake and the George Haun Trail is a special amenity of this site. It is a highly visible site. It is at the visual terminus of Monterey Drive, West 36th Street and Beltline Boulevard. It occupies a prominent location. This prominence suggests careful attention should be give to the aesthetics and design of any use of this site. It is a location particularly suitable for a building of high quality and signature design. It also may be an appropriate location for some form of public art. The location’s relative remoteness from single family homes, adjacency to large open spaces (Wolf Park, Bass Lake), proximity to multi-family housing and adjacency to large non- residential land uses (Rec Center, Wolfe Lake Professional Center) makes this site potentially suitable for relatively tall buildings. Its connections/proximity to Park Commons also suggests that relatively high density and taller buildings may be appropriate on this site. The Park Commons, as our “downtown” area, is intended for higher density development. The location is at a nexus of public, residential, office and light industrial land uses. It is easily accessible from Highway 100 and Highway 7. Access to the site is available from three public streets that surround it. What uses or combination of uses could locate on the Bass Lake site? As discussed at the previous study session there are number land uses that could be accommodated and would be appropriate on the Bass Lake site. With approximately 8 acres with which to work this relatively large site could easily accommodate one or more uses. Listed below are some of the possible land uses for the subject property with the recognition that some of them may require a change to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: Housing Uses 1. Move up (larger) single family houses 2. Low density housing (i.e. Victoria Ponds) 3. Affordable single family houses 4. Townhouse or cluster housing 5. Market rate condominiums 6. Senior condominiums (market rate or affordable) 7. Apartments (market rate or affordable) Commercial Uses 1. General office 2. Medical office (EDI and other medical related uses) 3. Extended stay motel City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 2 - Bass Lake Site And Park Nicollet EDI Page 4 Public Uses 1. Visual arts / public meeting facility 2. Performing arts 3. Library 4. Recreational 5. Public safety Based upon input staff has received the Bass Lake site is not considered a strong single family residential site. This is primarily due to the site’s isolation from other single family homes. More significantly, residential use (particularly single family and low density) requires much more stringent cleanup standards primarily because of the greater potential exposure to humans notably children. The cost of meeting cleanup levels for residential reuse are higher than costs for restricted commercial use or industrial use due to the fact that the hazardous substances are required to be remediated to a higher level. In addition, the soils on the property are soft requiring extra structural support possibly piling. The combination of these costs would make the resale of these lots extremely expensive, if not, cost prohibitive. Furthermore, the liability exposure for the EDA and City would far greater the more property owners there are with direct contact with the soils. Lastly, such a site would yield only about 20 “move up housing” sites. Given all of the above, single family houses may not be the highest and best use for the subject property. Likewise, the site is not particularly well suited for retail or industrial uses given the changing character of the surrounding land uses. As noted in a previous staff report it is recommended that the future use of this site exhibit the following attributes: 1. Any building on this site should be of high quality design, suitable for a very prominent, highly visible site. 2. Buildings on this site should be carefully located in recognition of the prominence of the site and the proximity to Bass Lake and George Haun trail. 3. Public art should be incorporated into the development of the site. 4. Development of this site should be consistent with the overall goals for Park Commons. 5. Development of the site should enhance, respect and compliment the adjacent lake/wetland, park land and trails. It would be a lost opportunity to use this site for something that did not benefit from its proximity to the natural amenity provided by Bass Lake and the George Haun trail. 6. Development of this site should accommodate pedestrian connections to the Haun trail, the Rec Center, Park Commons, Wolfe Park and access to Bass Lake. 7. Any use of this site must address or incorporate the existing tennis courts. “Make no small plans” Given the rarity of a development site of this size in St. Louis Park careful thought should be given to its ultimate use or uses. With that in mind significant consideration should be provided to making maximum use of the property. That is why providing for a combination of uses would appear to be reasonable. The site also affords the City the opportunity to do something unique on the property perhaps something not present in the community or undersized. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 2 - Bass Lake Site And Park Nicollet EDI Page 5 POTENTIAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF EDI IN ST. LOUIS PARK Locating the EDI in St. Louis Park would be highly desirable from both a social and economic development perspective as noted below. 1. It would enable St. Louis Park’s largest employer to expand thus allowing it to further contribute to the City’s local economy. 2. Health care is a rapidly growing industry and this trend is projected to continue increasing according to demographic trends. 3. Park Nicollet will consolidate several medical disciplines from the clinic and the hospital into this new facility thus freeing up additional space at those facilities for further expansion opportunities. 4. Park Nicollet will also be relocating medical personnel from facilities in other communities to the St. Louis Park facility. 5. The new facility will retain and create a total of approximately 365 quality jobs. 6. The facility will further enhance St. Louis Park’s reputation as a strategic location for the medical industry. 7. The EDI is proposed to be a “world class” center for treating eating disorders and as such the St. Louis Park–based facility will receive ongoing national if not, international, recognition. 8. It will attract patients and their families from the Midwest (primarily) and beyond. These visitors will be patronizing local hotels, restaurants and stores. This will, no doubt, economically benefit several retail areas throughout the City particularly those in close proximity. 9. Hundreds of patients annually will receive care and treatment for eating disorders – a serious, life-threatening, illness. The new EDI will have significantly increased capacity to treat patients. 10. EDI is consistent with our commitment to children first and will further enhance St. Louis Park’s national reputation as a “Children First” community. Clearly, the proposed facility would provide the City with multiple economic benefits (both direct and indirect) for many years to come. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 3 - Southwest Transitway Update Page 1 3. Southwest Transit Corridor Update Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To discuss the results of the Southwest Transitway Funding Subcommittee Report and review the overall planning schedule for the Southwest corridor transit planning. Jim Brimeyer, who represents the City on the Policy Advisory Committee for the study, will be in attendance to assist in providing the update. BACKGROUND: Work is progressing on the “Alternatives Analysis” portion of the Southwest Transitway planning study. Attached is a subcommittee report on funding; please refer to pages 4 and 5 for the Key Findings and page 6 for the Recommendations. These are the items to be discussed at the meeting. STATUS OF PLANNING PROCESS: Attached are schedules for the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the rest of the year. Of particular note is the determination to be made from the Alternatives Analysis on a mode – Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT), and on the preferred route. In September it is expected the TAC will make a recommendation on these items and then proceed to community open houses. In November it is expected the PAC will make a recommendation to the Regional Rail Authority on the Preferred Alternative. NEXT STEPS: Information on Capital Costs, Ridership and Operating Costs are due out between May and August. Those evaluation items, along with other evaluation items, will lead to the recommendations for a Preferred Alternative mode and route. Attachments: Southwest Transitway Funding Subcommittee Report Southwest Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting schedule Southwest Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting schedule Prepared By: Jim Brimeyer, Policy Advisory Committee Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 4 - Interim Ordinance - Subdivision In The R-1 Zoning District Page 1 4. Interim Ordinance - Subdivisions in the R-1 Zoning District Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To discuss a six month “interim ordinance” for subdivisions in the R-1 zoning district. BACKGROUND: During the study session of May 8 the Council reviewed possible zoning ordinance amendments. As part of this discussion the Council asked staff to provide more information on the possible implementation of a “moratorium” or interim ordinance on the subdivision of single family lots in the R-1 district. It was felt an interim ordinance may be necessary in order to allow time for new standards to be developed regarding this issue. Since this Study Session, staff has received two inquiries for subdivision in the R-1 zoning district. For this reason, staff proposes that an “interim ordinance” or moratorium be adopted for a six month time period in order that a planning study can be conducted to create a new zoning district. PROPOSED ORDINANCE: The ordinance would cover requests for “subdivisions” in the “R-1” zoning district only. As proposed, it would not cover other zoning districts, or zoning items. Rather it would place a hold on any request to subdivide land in R-1 districts; the city would not have to act on new applications for the duration of the ordinance. RESOURCE ISSUES: Staff believes a six month time frame would be the appropriate amount of time to study and enact such an ordinance. A new zoning ordinance for larger lot sizes could be drafted relatively quickly. Some time would be needed for a public hearing, readings and publication. State law allows extensions to the time frame if needed. OUTLINE OF PROCESS: If the City Council agrees that an interim ordinance is appropriate at this time, the ordinance will be drafted for City Council consideration. The ordinance is typically prepared in a relatively straightforward format, and does not require a public hearing. The suggested timeframe for adopting it is: First Reading June 5, 2006 Second Reading June 19, 2006 Date of Publication June 29, 2006 Date Ordinance takes effect July 14, 2006 Prepared By: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 5 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 1 5. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next Study Session agenda. BACKGROUND: At each study session, approximately 15 minutes is set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for the special study session on June 5, 2006 and the regularly scheduled June 12, 2006 study session. Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 052206 - 5 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 2 Future Study Session Agenda Planning Monday, June 5 6:30 p.m. Study Session Starts A. Highway 100 Revised Layout and Options – Public Works (50minutes) Council to review revised layout for Highway 100 with options and discuss next steps in the process. 7:20 p.m End of Meeting Monday, June 12 7 p.m. Study Session Starts Discussion Items: A. Police Department Annual Report – Police (60 minutes) Police Dept. leadership will present Council with the highlights of the department’s 2005 activities. Council will have an opportunity to hear from each of the separate workgroups and ask questions of staff. B. Boards and Commissions Governance – Administrative Services (45 minutes) Staff will update Council about boards and commissions governance. Council to provide feedback to staff about future direction of boards and commissions and discuss housekeeping changes to policies and ordinances. C. Flood Mitigation Areas – Public Works (60 minutes) Staff to provide an overview of flooding issues, implications and possible solutions. Council to provide direction to staff on several possible flood projects. D. Future Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (10 minutes) Reports: A. 36th Street Art Visioning Project– Parks and Recreation Status update regarding the emerging themes from the first stakeholder meeting for the 36th Street artscape. 10:00 p.m. End of Meeting City Council Study Session Written Report: 052206 - 6 - 36th Street Streetscape Planning Page 1 6. 36th Street Streetscape Planning Community Development PURPOSE OF REPORT: To update the City Council on the planning for the 36th Street Streetscape BACKGROUND: As a part of the redevelopment of the Elmwood area, SRF Consulting has been retained to prepare a streetscape plan for 36th Street. A streetscape for the area was installed approximately 20 years ago, and is in need of an update (see attached photos). The intent is to provide additional on-street parking where possible, update lights, sidewalks and other street amenities. SRF will be providing alternative streetscape ideas for fixtures, furniture etc., with the intent that the area would “complement” our other streetscape patterns yet still be distinctive for the area. SCENARIOS: We have asked SRF to look at two scenarios: one if the existing buildings are replaced (an ultimate scenario) and one with accommodating the existing buildings and proposed redevelopment (interim scenario). Two blocks are expected to be redeveloped in the short term (Hoigaard’s Village and Rottlund VIP II), however we are unsure when others may be redeveloped. SRF is looking at possibilities for the four blocks without specific/current redevelopment plans to see if we could improve them to match the redeveloping blocks. We intend to work with property owners and potentially apply for a Met Council Livable Communities Grant to possibly implement the interim plan. Attached are draft drawings of the work to date. Please note it is a work in progress. We will take more refined plans to the business owners and neighborhood for input and recommendations prior to bringing alternatives back for City Council approval. Attachments: Photos of existing 36th Street streetscape Redevelopment and Interim Alternative draft drawings Prepared By: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Written Report: 052206 - 7 - Council Policy Update Page 1 7. Council Policy Discussion Update Administrative Services PURPOSE OF REPORT: Policy discussions initiated by a councilmember often require additional research by staff so that the entire Council can discuss the policy options and implications at a later date. This report provides Council with an update on five recent policy discussions initiated by the Council: boards and commissions; environmental initiatives; historic housing; off-sale liquor stores; and paperless agenda. STATUS UPDATE: Boards and Commissions: Staff met with Council on February 14, 2005 and January 23, 2006 to discuss the interview process and vacancies for boards and commissions. Since that time, staff has met with the various boards and commission liaisons to discuss ways to improve internal communications and processes with the Council. There are some minor inconsistencies between the ordinances, state statutes and policies governing boards and commissions that are causing some confusion. Staff will return to Council at the June 12 study session to discuss these housekeeping items as well as provide an overview of the boards and commissions governance. Environmental Initiatives: On February 22, 2006, Council directed staff to investigate ways the City organization/operation could be more environmentally friendly, including its use of energy. Examples that were given included the use of hybrid vehicles and wind turbines to power city buildings. Council requested that staff return with a list of ideas for discussion. Administrative Services staff met with the “Green Team” (an internal staff group which meets monthly to discuss environmental programs and ideas) in April and May to talk about the Council’s directive. The team has collected a preliminary list of the city’s current environmental practices. At a fall study session, staff will return with a summary of the Green Team’s findings, a compilation of pros and cons with identified options and alternatives, and will lead Council in a discussion about possible policies, procedures or new initiatives. Historic Housing: On February 27, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the idea of historic and architecturally significant housing as brought forward by Councilmember Sanger. The Council recommended looking into the idea of historic or architecturally significant housing in St. Louis Park. Since that time, the Planning Staff has been researching this issue through the Minnesota Historical Society and through two architects who work with these issues. The person referred to Staff by Councilmember Sanger, Tim Quigley, was contacted, and he referred staff to another person who consults in this field. Staff met with the consultant on May 16th and will report back on the meeting as well as the cost of researching the issues and the steps that would be required. City Council Study Session Written Report: 052206 - 7 - Council Policy Update Page 2 Off-Sale Liquor Stores: Staff has assembled a small work group to discuss ways to address Council’s concerns about off- sale liquor establishments. The work group will meet in June to develop a menu of options for Council to discuss and consider. This item is scheduled to return to Council at the July 12, 2006 study session. Paperless Agenda: At the March 13, 2006 study session, Council directed staff research the feasibility of creating and disseminating agendas to the City Council and others electronically versus the current paper format. Staff has asked our city attorney about the legal implications of going to a paperless agenda and has talked with the City of Minnetonka to learn more about their electronic agenda process. Staff will return to Council in August with a summary of our findings and options for Council to consider. Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Written Report: 052206 - 8 - April 2006 Interim Financial Statements Page 1 8. April 2006 Financial Statements Finance PURPOSE OF REPORT: Attached are the April 2006 financial statements for the General Fund and the Park and Recreation fund. The list below summarizes what is included in this packet. 1. Monthly financial statements for the overall general fund and park and recreation fund by account summary level comparing the annual budget figures to the fourth month of 2006 actual figures. 2. Monthly financial statements for expenditures of the general fund by each department and for expenditures of the park and recreation fund by each division that compares the annual budget figures to the fourth month of 2006 actual figures. Please note that a negative sign in front of a revenue figure indicates a positive number or rather actual revenue received. In addition, when comparing the “Monthly Financial Report” to the “Departmental Expenditure report”, the “Departmental Expenditure Report” does not include budgeted or actual transfers nor miscellaneous expenses that are included as “other expense”. In reviewing the April financial statements, it is important to note key factors that had an impact this month to the previous monthly statements provided: GENERAL FUND: In comparison from March’s to April’s monthly financial report, there were significant increases in the April report in Licenses and Permits, Fines and Forfeits, Intergovernmental and Charges for Services Revenue. While Personal Services, Supplies and Services and Other Charges Expenditures all experienced significant decreases. • Licenses and Permits increased by approximately $41,000 which is attributed to large permits for Excelsior and Grand for building, electrical and mechanical inspections. • Fines and Forfeits increased by $34,131 which is entirely attributed to court fines. • Intergovernmental Revenue increased by approximately $17,000 which is attributed to the State Highway User Tax receipt. • Charges for Services Revenue increased by approximately $17,000 which is attributable to the following items; Two months of Housing Authority wages for an approximate increase of $106,000 and decreases in the following areas; Engineering project reimbursements for approximately $62,000, zoning subdivisions for about $19,000, training revenue in Administration for $5,000 and Patrol Officer services revenue for approximately $3,000. • Personal Services Expenditures decreased by approximately $155,000 which is a result of three days less of payroll when compared to March. • Supplies Expenditures decreased by approximately $22,000. This is attributable to reduced cleaning/waste removal costs in Facilities Maintenance for approximately $11,000. No new purchases of vest and uniforms in Police resulting in a $6,000 difference. Finally, in Public Works – Operations, there were fewer purchases of equipment parts resulting in a $5,000 difference. City Council Study Session Written Report: 052206 - 8 - April 2006 Interim Financial Statements Page 2 • Services and Other Charges Expenditures decreased by approximately $63,000 from March to April which is attributable to the following areas; Public Works – Operations – 2 months of electricity paid for in March - $31,000. Technology and Support Services – Wireless Pilot Program – $11,000. Administration – Advertising for open positions - $9,000. Finance – Public Liability Insurance - $6,000. Police – Forensic Interview Services - $6,000. PARKS AND RECREATION: In reviewing the Park and Recreation fund, the monthly financial report shows decreases in Charges for Services Revenue, Miscellaneous Revenue, Personal Services Expenditures and Services and Other Charges Expenditures. • Charges for Services Revenue experienced a decrease of approximately $60,000, which was for adult, youth and family programs. • Miscellaneous Revenue decreased by approximately $78,000 which is solely attributable to decreased ice rental. • Personal Services Expenditures decreased by approximately $24,000 which is a result of three days less of payroll when compared to March. • The decrease in Services and Other Charges of approximately $56,000 is attributable to the following items; Recreation Center – Utilities and refrigeration/dehumidification costs of approximately $24,500 and $8,000 respectively. Organized Recreation – printing and publishing of the Park and Recreation brochure - $11,000. Park Maintenance – STS programs costs of $7,500. General and Administration – Insurance - $5,000. Additional reminders from previous reports: • Since the City budgets on an annual basis, the budget numbers that appear on the monthly financial reports are annual figures. However, the actual revenues and expenditures are monthly figures. Therefore, you will see much fluctuation in the month to month comparison. • The interest revenue allocation is not yet reflected in the Year-to date actual numbers. Therefore, interest revenue is showing as a negative number. This number will be offset with the interest earnings once the allocation is completed. • Due to the fact that overall revenues are low during the beginning months of each year, the city keeps a reserve of approximately four months of expenditures for cash flow purposes. • The numbers for the year are not final until all year end adjustments are made to accurately reflect the year’s activity and the fiscal year subsequently closed. This will take place after the auditors’ complete their fieldwork. Attachments: Monthly Financial Statements Prepared By: Brian Swanson, Accounting Manager Reviewed By: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager