HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/10/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session
October 9, 2006
6:30 PM
Council Chambers
Discussion Items
Approximate
Times
1. 6:30 p.m. Overview of Organizational Development Session
2. 6:45 p.m. Overview of Upcoming Joint Meeting of City Council/School Board
3. 7:00 p.m. 2007 Budget
4. 8:00 p.m. R-1 Zoning District Study
5. 8:45 p.m. WiFi Update
6. 9:30 p.m. Council Policy Item – Group Homes (Sanger)
7. 9:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda
Written Items
8. Environmental Initiatives
9. Prosecuting Attorney Update
9:45 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD
(952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 1 - Overview Of Organizational Development Session
Page 1
1. Overview of Upcoming Organizational Development
Session
Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this item is to review the proposed “Outcomes” and approach for the City
Council Organizational Development Session scheduled for October 23. Jean Morrison, the
facilitator for the OD session, will be in attendance at the Study Session.
Attachments: Brief Outline of the Proposed Outcomes and Approach for the OD Session
Jean Morrison Biography
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 1 - Overview Of Organizational Development Session
Page 2
City Council O.D. Session
October 23, 2006
6:00 p.m. Dinner
6:30 p.m. — 10:00 p.m. O.D.
Outcomes:
Identify strategies for building a high performing city council
Describe how to best work with each other and what is need for maximum effectiveness
Establish norms and expectations for working effectively together
This O.D. session has been scheduled based upon interest expressed by City Council members.
The proposed outcomes and meeting details were developed as a result of a conversation
between Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tom Harmening, Bridget Gothberg and a recommended facilitator.
The facilitator/trainer proposed to be used is Jean Morrison. Jean’s biography is attached for
your review.
The session will include identifying strengths of how the council operates and barriers to higher
performance. We will look at effective group functioning, trust, personal interaction, and
impression management. In addition, time will be spent on how council members can better
understand one another and identifying key areas for increased effectiveness.
The style of the session will be a combination of some presentation and quite a lot of dialogue
between council members, with assistance from our facilitator.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 1 - Overview Of Organizational Development Session
Page 3
JEAN MORRISON
Jean Morrison is President of Morrison & Associates, Inc. a human resource management
consulting firm serving the human resource management needs of businesses and organizations
for nineteen years. Jean specializes in performance management, conflict resolution, team
building, employer/employee relations, executive/individual coaching, people management, and
organizational change. In addition, Jean is a founding partner of RESOLVE, a consulting firm
providing conflict management and professional training and development services.
Prior to founding Morrison & Associates, Inc., Jean held key management and officer positions
with Pillsbury, Green Giant, Michigan National Bank, St. Joseph Bank & Trust, and Norwest
Bank. Jean has been an instructor at the University of Minnesota, Carlson School of
Management, for several years in the areas of performance management, communications,
conflict management, and human resource management. She provides presentations, workshops,
and keynote talks to hundreds of people each year. She has received numerous awards and
recognition for her presentation ability and community services such as Woman of the Year,
Minnesota Small Business Advocate, Volunteer of the Year, and Speaker of the Year. She
serves on several area Boards and donates significant time to assisting minority businesses in the
area of human resources. Jean is a volunteer mediator for The Minneapolis Mediation Program,
and a mentor at the Metropolitan Economic Development Association and at the North Star
Elementary School.
Jean’s successful approach to addressing human resource issues has been featured in numerous
articles.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 2 - Overview Of Upcoming Jt Meeting Of City Council And
School Board
Page 1
2. Overview of Upcoming Joint Meeting of City
Council/School Board
Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this item is to review the “Outcomes” and agenda for the joint meeting scheduled
for October 30. The attached draft agenda was developed in part with the assistance of the
School Board Chair, Superintendent, the Mayor and City Manager.
Bridget Gothberg will facilitate the joint meeting.
Attachments: Rough Draft of Agenda (This agenda has not yet been signed off by the
School District)
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 2 - Overview Of Upcoming Jt Meeting Of City Council And
School Board
Page 2
Joint Meeting
St. Louis Park City Council and School Board
Monday, October 30, 2006
6:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. Meeting
Citizens Independent Bank Building Conference Room
36th and Beltline
We will post directional signs. Just come in the front doors.
DRAFT AGENDA
Outcomes:
To dialogue on common issues, concerns and dreams
To update each other on projects and goals
To strengthen our collaborative relationship so we can continue to move
the community in a direction that creates unity and synergy for both
bodies.
1. Connections (15 minutes)
2. Handouts from our previous work together (see Attachment A and B)
Questions or comments? (15 minutes)
3. Dialogue on Data/Demographics: Our community is mobile and
demographics are changing. How can we work together to look at that
mobility and be strategic around gathering data and demographics?
(30 minutes)
4. Dialogue on External Communication: Why is it important that we
communicate our commonalities together? What are key messages that we
both should be communicating? How do we move forward in a way that
creates synergy, benefits both bodies, and, most importantly benefits our
constituents/community? (60 minutes)
5. Updates
a. WIFI city
b. IB school district
c. Vision Process city
d. Community Education Adult Learning Plan school district
(40 minutes)
6. Adjournment
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 2 - Overview Of Upcoming Jt Meeting Of City Council And
School Board
Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
Ways we work together: 2005
Collaboration and Communication between the City and School District
• Community Education and CEAC
• Boards & Commissions
• Children First
• Meadowbrook
• Family Service Collaborative
• STEP
• Housing Summit
• Youth Summit
• Senior Citizen Summit
• Joint Calendar
• Joint Handbook
• Joint Advertising
• Summer Programs
• Joint facilities
• Special programs
• Lenox
• Volunteers
• Funding – City – Community Education & Television
• Funding – School –Parks and Recreation
• DARE
• Police Liaison Officers
• NORC
• Friends of the Arts
• Strategic Planning
• Vision St. Louis Park
• Book Mark in Park
• Day 1
• Parktacular
• Joint real estate
• Spaghetti Dinner & Pancake Breakfasts
• Foundations
• Inspections
• Neighborhood Association
• Home Remodeling Fair
• Elections
• Bid Packages
• WIFI
• Gas Purchasing
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 2 - Overview Of Upcoming Jt Meeting Of City Council And
School Board
Page 4
ATTACHMENT B
Communication’s Guidelines: November 2005
City Council and School Board Communication Guidelines
Purpose Statement: Growing a strong community and a strong school district is complex and
vitally important. One depends upon the other. Therefore, a symbiotic relationship between the
school district and city must be developed, nurtured and constantly calibrated. To do this, the
school board and the city council recognize that both formal and informal communication is
necessary to maintain and grow their relationship, and to promote and engage the community. It
is incumbent upon both bodies to intentionally create opportunities for this communication to
occur. We owe it to the community to work together for our mutual constituencies. We can do
more together.
Formal Communication:
• To the extent necessary and possible, strive to hold two formal joint meetings annually
for three purposes:
1. To dialogue on common issues, concerns, and dreams
2. To proactively update each other on projects, goals, and
3. To build positive relationships with each other
• Additional meetings may be called if there are projects or issues which affect the other
board/council. These projects or issues could be such things as major facility use or
property changes, zoning impact, funding requests, joint projects, need for public process,
etc. Any additional meetings should be called as promptly/quickly as possible to ensure
quality communication as early as possible.
• The superintendent and city manager will continue their regular breakfast meetings.
• The community education director and the park and recreation director will continue their
regular meetings.
Informal Communication: Informal communication between members is considered important
and is encouraged. It is not intended to take the place of formal communication. However,
when either the school board or the city is facing an issue that affects/effects the other body it is
critical that members state their expectations and take intentional steps to formalize discussion
(i.e. call a special meeting, send a letter, ask the administrators to handle it etc.).
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 3 - 2007 Budget Discussion
Page 1
3. 2007 Budget Discussion Finance Department
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to follow up with the Council on progress in meeting the 2007
budget goal and to describe the programs that are funded in the General Fund and Park &
Recreation Fund. Since staff last met with the Council it has achieved the 5.2% tax levy increase
through detailed examination of each budget coupled with expenditure cuts and revenue
increases offered by department directors.
BACKGROUND:
Tax Levy
The proposed property tax levy necessary to provide a balanced budget (and meet the 5.2 %
levy increase goal) has been reduced by $148,122 from the preliminary adopted levy of
$19,626,124. This includes the $64,668 in excess of the amount necessary to balance the
budget that the City Council decided to levy in case our budget assumptions had significant
changes between September and final adoption in December.
Current
Adopted Preliminary Required Reduction
2006 2007 2007 In Tax Levy
General Fund $13,092,719 $13,263,103 $13,170,348 $92,755
Park & Recreation $2,887,292 $3,596,221 $3,540,854 $55,367
$15,980,011 $16,859,324 $16,711,202 $148,122
Park Improvement $1,010,000 $1,010,000 $1,010,000 $0
Pavement
Management $415,000 $415,000 $415,000 $0
Debt Service $1,110,200 $1,341,800 $1,341,800 $0
$18,515,211 $19,626,124 $19,478,002 $148,122
Percentage Increase 6.00% 5.20%
Tax Supported Operations Overview
Governmental accounting requires the use of a “general” fund for the basic operations that are
funded by the government. There are a variety of other fund types which are available for use
when required by legal restrictions for the expenditure of certain monies or when it is prudent to
keep some monies segregated in order to show that the government is exercising prudent
stewardship. The General Fund accounts for all programs not required to be funded elsewhere.
In our accounting setup, we have segregated Parks and Recreation into a special revenue fund
type. This is merely because it gets a significant portion of its revenues from charges for service
(entrance fees, class registrations, program fees) and rentals (ice time and park facility charges).
There is still a large amount of property tax levy needed to support the operations of Parks &
Recreation, so we refer to the combination of both funds as tax supported operations.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 3 - 2007 Budget Discussion
Page 2
This is further broken down into general expenditure categories on our state reporting forms into:
General Government, Public Safety, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Other Sources and
Uses (used for transfers, contingency, and bond issues).
The combined total expenditure of the General Fund and Park/Recreation Fund is $27,493,019.
The pie chart below shows the breakdown by expenditure category.
Operations Expense By Category
Gen Govt,
24.0%
Pub Safety,
40.8%
Pub Wks,
14.0%
P&R, 20.5%Other, 0.7%Gen Govt
Pub Safety
Pub Wks
P&R
Other
Service Levels
For 2007 the proposed general operations of the city are remaining nearly status quo. The
number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) employees is going up only slightly. The Community
Development and Inspections departments need to add a .75 full-time equivalent (FTE) and a 1.0
FTE employee, respectively. Both of these departments are using equivalent staff on a
temporary basis to fill needs. This has added approximately $100,000 to the general fund above
our general wage adjustment. The temporary positions are being eliminated. The Assessing
division is adding an intern position to assist with updating field card information so the
appraisers can be more efficient when they are in the field and to assist with scanning records
into our permanent archival system.
General Government
The general government category included expenditures for the City Council, Administration,
Technology and Support Services (TSS), Finance, Community Development, and Facilities
Maintenance. These are the staff functions of our city that provide administrative support rather
than the line positions that provide services directly to residents.
The Administrative/Legislative Department covers the cost of running the general functions of
the city such as covering salaries and expenses for the City Council, the City Manager’s office,
City Clerk (including elections), and legal counsel. This budget increased primarily due to an
increase in the prosecution contract. While official action by the City Council won’t occur until
later this year, the cost per hour is expected to increase by 43% because the rates haven’t
changed in many years. Some of the other functions have been reorganized with the planned
transition of the Community Outreach position to the Police Department and the
Communications Coordinator position into TSS.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 3 - 2007 Budget Discussion
Page 3
The Finance Department provides the vital function of proving accountability by setting up
annual budgets, accounting for all revenues and expenses, providing long-range financial
planning through the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and providing a Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which meets the highest standards for governmental
accounting. The Assessing division provides for uniform valuation of the approximately 14,000
properties in the city. This is accomplished by tracking sales against assessed values, comparing
properties with similar characteristics, and by physical inspection of each property at least once
every five years to verify property size, amenities, and condition. The Finance Department also
provides the financial operations of the water, sewer, storm sewer, and garbage enterprise funds
and the Housing Authority.
Community Development provides for orderly redevelopment in the city through the use of the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Planning Commission. They are responsible for the
creation, implementation, and on-going monitoring of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts,
Special Service Districts, Housing Improvement Areas, and the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority levy in order to redevelop and maintain property values in various areas of the city.
This department also assists low-income households through the Housing Authority, low-interest
home improvement loan programs, and the Housing Rehabilitation Fund.
Computer and technology services are provided by the Technology and Support Services
Department (TSS). This department supports approximately 200 computer users throughout the
city, coordinates service through LOGIS for primary applications including Finance, Permits and
Inspections, Police, and GIS. They also provide printing, mailing and other communications
services on a city-wide basis.
Facilities Maintenance does the vital job of making sure all structures in the city are maintained
in a safe, clean, and secure manner. Regular cleaning, preventative maintenance, internal
remodeling, and renewal projects (such as roof replacements, landscaping projects, etc.) are
planned and completed in an efficient manner. The costs for maintenance of the Municipal
Service Center (MSC) have been transferred into this department as part of the shift away from
tracking this activity as an internal service fund.
Public Safety
The Public Safety area of the budget provides for the physical safety of residents. This is
accomplished in the Police Department through the community-oriented patrolling throughout
the city, neighborhood outreach programs, and school liaison partnerships. This department also
provides emergency dispatching service to the police and fire departments of St. Louis Park and
Golden Valley through an intergovernmental cooperative agreement.
The Fire Department inspects buildings to verify compliance with fire safety regulations. They
respond to fire and emergency medical calls, and coordinate emergency management programs
like the National Incident Management System (NIMS) training
The Inspections Department provides for building safety by checking plans for Uniform Building
Code compliance and verifying that construction follows the plans. This department also
inspects commercial food preparation establishments, swimming pools and other facilities to
ensure that state safety standards are met.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 3 - 2007 Budget Discussion
Page 4
Public Works
Public Works is the infrastructure improvement and maintenance arm of the city. They make
sure that the streets, water and sewer lines, and storm water system are physically maintained in
good working order. They plan for regular maintenance, replacement when necessary, and make
sure that the size and function of each item has the proper capacity. They also supervise the
garbage and recycling collection contracts. Coordination of our road systems with Hennepin
County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN-Dot) is also an important function
of this department.
Parks and Recreation
Organized recreational activities and maintenance of park areas are provided through this
department. Organized recreation consists of classes, organized recreational competitive sports,
and neighborhood programs. The Recreation Center provides office space for staff members, the
two ice rinks, the aquatic center, and a skate park along with activities at Wolfe Park. The
Westwood Nature Center allows for interpretive walks through a 160 acre park and wetland area
along with nature programs and exhibits inside the building. This department maintains all the
parks in the city and assists with street, sidewalk, and trail cleaning in the winter. An added
responsibility this year is supervising the vehicle maintenance services that are provided at the
MSC.
Other Financing Sources and Uses
The use of funds in this area is for a budget contingency. The proposed amount is set at
$180,000. This is to be used for unanticipated expenditures that fall outside of a department’s
adopted budget. A good example is the emergency expenditure to add new support to the fire
station floors. From a procedural standpoint, the preferred method by accounting standards is to
avoid spending funds directly from the contingency line item by doing a formal budget
amendment to reduce the contingency and increase the departmental budget.
The other use of a contingency is to cover shortfalls in tax collections. Rarely does a city get
100% of the taxes that it levies in the current year. Our delinquencies have run between 1-5%
over the last several years. The $180,000 in this line item is just over 1% of the total tax levy for
operations. The other method to account for this is to budget a line item for uncollectible taxes.
This is similar to an allowance for doubtful accounts in business accounting.
Insurance Benefits
Previous Study and Goal – Gradually Equalize The Employer Contribution
Last year, St. Louis Park undertook a comprehensive study of our benefits compared to our
market (metro suburbs with population of at least 25,000). The results of the study showed our
non-exempt (FLSA) employees falling behind market. To alleviate this problem, it was agreed
that the disparity between exempt and non-exempt employer contributions would be gradually
eliminated. The gap between these two groups has been decreasing over the past two years with
additional funds being allocated to non-exempt employees who select the high deductible/VEBA
health plan. The change to Blue Cross/Blue Shield in 2007, along with savings due to premium
reduction, provides us with an opportunity to further reduce the gap between exempt and non-
exempt employer contributions.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 3 - 2007 Budget Discussion
Page 5
Recommendation For 2007 Employer Contribution For Benefits – Continue Closing The Benefit
Gap Between Exempt And Non-Exempt Employer Contribution
We are recommending a $0 increase (remain at $715/month) to the monthly employer
contribution for exempt, and non-exempt employees who participate in the High Deductible
plan. For other non-exempt employees, we recommend a $30 increase (from $660 to
$690/month). Our goal with this recommendation is to continue to work on equalizing the
employer contribution for benefits for all employee groups.
2007 Recommended Employer Contribution:
Recommended
2006 2007
Exempt employees, all plans $715/mo $715/mo.
Non-exempt employees, High and Elect/Essential $660/mo. $690/mo.
Non-exempt employees selecting the $715/mo. $715/mo.
High Deductible with a VEBA
We are pleased that the BCBS plan designs match what we had through Medica. Our employees
also appreciate the opportunity to continue having a high deductible option with a VEBA.
Budget Impact
In setting the employer contribution for 2007, we reviewed the goal of equalizing all groups
along with the budget impact. The effect of this recommendation on the 2007 budget is $36,540
(about $30,000 in the General and Park & Recreation Funds). The amount necessary to equalize
all groups in 2007 would require an additional $30,360 in tax levy.
Other Funds
The enterprise funds are being reviewed to evaluate the rate structure and make sure that the fees
are adequate to cover the cost of providing the services. The sewer and garbage fees do not
require much adjustment at this time. However, the water and storm water fees are under
significant pressure because of the capital projects that we are performing in addition to the
general system management and maintenance.
We have been consulting with Ehlers and Associates regarding the rates to make sure we are
fully covering our costs for the long term while keeping a prudent amount of cash on hand. They
have reviewed our rate structure and have recommended that we change two items in the water
and sewer funds. The first is implementation of water and sewer availability fees. These are
charged in most communities at the time of hookup to the system. They represent a proportional
percentage of the system construction costs which were necessary to have the capacity available
to allow new users to connect. This includes the amount of over-sizing necessary in our water
lines to provide water to new users and to take the additional sewage flow in our collector lines
from those users. We expect those fees, which will be new on the fee ordinance, to be around
$2,500 each.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 3 - 2007 Budget Discussion
Page 6
The other item that Ehlers staff is recommending is that we move to a tiered rate structure.
These conservation rates encourage residents to minimize seasonal water use by charging higher
rates for amounts over and above what is necessary for general household use. This mainly
affects lawn sprinkling in the summer. We have completed a preliminary analysis that shows we
have some additional work to do in evaluating how we track multi-family properties. The
consumption patterns don’t fit ordinary residential use for the larger meter size accounts.
Because of this complexity and the utility billing software conversion that Finance is
implementing now, we do not expect to put conservation rates into place for 2007. Staff will
keep working on the analysis so that the Council will be able to evaluate conservation rates in
2007 for 2008 usage.
Attachments: General Fund and Park & Recreation Revenues and Expenditures
(With footnotes)
Prepared By: Bruce M. DeJong, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 3 - 2007 Budget Discussion
Page 7
General Fund and Park & Rec
2005 2007
Actual Adopted CM's Proposed % change
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,265,342$ 15,980,011$ 16,711,202$ 4.6%
Licenses and Permits 2,932,989 2,483,600 2,622,500 5.6%
Intergovernmental 1,758,252 1,782,467 1,685,206 -5.5%
Charges for Services 2,430,519 2,074,206 2,123,049 2.4%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 286,003 283,300 309,600 9.3%
Investment Earnings 207,603 181,500 300,660 65.7%
Miscellaneous Revenue 969,285 830,372 960,061 15.6%
Transfers In 2,777,063 2,609,819 2,754,836 5.6%
Total Revenues 26,627,056$ 26,225,275$ 27,467,114$ 4.7%
Appropriations 25,816,588$ 26,225,275$ 27,467,113$ 4.7%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appopriations 810,468 (0) 0
Excess Certified Levy Available
for Appropriation N/A 0$ 148,122$
*Total levy increase is currently at 5.2%. The changes that have been made include:
Employer benefit contribution increase reduced from $55/mo to $30/mo for all non-exempt
employees who don't elect VEBA. This change reduced General Fund expense by $30,000.
Four copier leases have been eliminated because they will be purchased with 2005A bond funds.
This reduced the budget by $16,500.
Revenue has been added for parking lot rent in the amount of $25,000.
There were about $12,000 of other budget reductions of less than $2,000 per item.
2006
Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 3 - 2007 Budget Discussion
Page 8
General Fund and Park & Rec
Department, Division 2005 2006 2007
and Activity Actual Adopted CM's Proposed % change
General Government:
Administration/Legislative 739,278 907,399 993,154 9.5%
Communications & Marketing 172,693 219,262 218,751 -0.2%
Community Outreach 112,128 122,451 116,397 -4.9%
Human Resources 505,270 531,287 568,372 7.0%
Technology and Support Services 1,322,796 1,384,839 1,482,306 7.0%
Finance 954,945 1,041,138 1,053,701 1.2%
Community Development 899,065 982,831 1,024,954 4.3%
Facilities Maintenance*809,422 913,624 1,131,275 23.8%
Total General Government 5,515,597 6,102,830 6,588,910 8.0%
Public Safety:
Police*5,824,347 6,695,044 6,676,605 -0.3%
Fire Protection*2,580,779 2,693,964 2,756,522 2.3%
Inspectional Services*1,613,036 1,735,299 1,783,294 2.8%
Total Public Safety 10,018,162 11,124,307 11,216,422 0.8%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 733,413 828,648 799,587 -3.5%
Engineering*647,230 724,824 745,302 2.8%
Operations*2,392,011 2,505,968 2,295,663 -8.4%
Total Public Works 3,772,654 4,059,440 3,840,552 -5.4%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,123,739 1,193,136 1,223,354 2.5%
Recreation Center 1,283,891 1,306,850 1,319,600 1.0%
Park Maintenance*1,532,978 1,527,675 1,366,474 -10.6%
Westwood*411,451 445,457 452,085 1.5%
Environment 826,793 273,618 276,598 1.1%
Vehicle Maintenance - - 1,003,119 100.0%
Total Park & Recreation 5,178,852 4,746,736 5,641,230 18.8%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency - 191,962 180,000 -6.2%
Transfer Out 1,331,323 -
Total Non-Departmental 1,331,323 191,962 180,000 -6.2%
Total General & Park Funds 25,816,588$ 26,225,275$ 27,467,113$ 4.7%
*These departments were affected by the MSC change. To compare to last year:
Budget Amt % Change
Department w/o MSC w/o MSC
Facilities Maintenance 955,675 4.60%
Police 6,868,786 2.60%
Fire Protection 2,863,867 6.31%
Inspectional Services 1,804,495 3.99%
Engineering 755,888 4.29%
Operations 2,725,615 8.76%
Park Maintenance 1,643,592 7.59%
Westwood 454,491 2.03%
Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures By Department and Division
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 4 - R-1 Zoning District Study
Page 1
4. R-1 Zoning District Study Community Development
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to report on the outcomes of the R-1 Zoning District Study.
BACKGROUND:
In July 2006 the Planning Staff was directed by the City Council to conduct a study of the R-1
zoning district. The following process was outlined:
R-1 Zoning District
1. Collect and study data:
a. Review lot data in the R-1 zoning district related to lot size, lot width, floor area
ratio, etc.
b. Identify specific areas to study more closely based on distinguishing
characteristics (i.e. larger lot sizes). Clearly the Lake Forest and parts of Fern
Hill will be key areas. Other areas may be identified as well.
c. Analyze specific lot information within the specific areas - such as floodplain;
location of house on lot; value of building to land; ability to subdivide, etc.
d. Evaluate the potential impact of changes to city ordinances on move-up housing
opportunities.
2. Determine and present options related to creating a new, larger lot zoning district.
This portion of the study has been completed and the study report is attached for your review.
A second portion of the study was to evaluate other regulations related to environmental and
neighborhood characteristics. The study outline is as follows:
Environmental/Neighborhood
1. Evaluate environmental protection and neighborhood character:
a. Review existing regulations, identify areas of the code to improve or change, and
conduct research on potential code changes.
2. Determine and present options for Subdivision Ordinance additions/changes.
This portion of the study is underway and has not been completed. Staff is currently compiling
and reviewing our environmental/land use regulations. It is expected that further information
and recommendations will come forward to the City Council in January or February.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
On August 2nd, August 16th, September 6th and September 20th the study was discussed at
Planning Commission meetings. Staff presented the work completed as shown in the outline
above. Property owners were welcomed to participate and several attended the meetings; a
formal letter was sent to affected neighborhoods for the August 16th and September 20th
meetings.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 4 - R-1 Zoning District Study
Page 2
OPTIONS:
After collecting the information as shown in the attached report, Staff looked at three options for
changing the zoning in two areas, the Lake Forest neighborhood and a portion of the Crestview
neighborhood. The options presented included: a) keeping the 9,000 square foot minimum lot
size; b) creating a new zoning district with the minimum lot size increased to 13,500 square feet;
and, c) creating a new zoning district with the minimum lot size increased to 18,000 square feet.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Public input received was primarily from citizens of the Lake Forest and Crestview
neighborhoods. Homeowners in both neighborhoods were informed of and welcome at all the
Planning Commission meetings, but their input was especially encouraged at the formal
September 20th meeting. At that meeting staff presented the study and citizens were encouraged
to provide comments. Input was mixed, with some property owners wanting a change to the R-1
lot size and some requesting it stay at the 9,000 square foot minimum.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommended that the R-1 zoning lot size remain as is on a 4-1 vote.
While not unanimous, reasons given for the recommendation were that the current minimum lot
size does not appear to be a major issue, few lots are suitable to be subdivided; and, they were
concerned about creating special zoning districts on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
Attachments: Planning Commission draft minutes of 9-20-06
Planning Commission draft minutes of 9-06-06
R-1 Zoning District Study
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planner and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 4 - R-1 Zoning District Study
Page 3
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9-20-06
4. Other Business
A. R-1 Zoning District Study
Associate Planner Adam Fulton presented the staff report.
Ms. McMonigal said staff notified, by mail, a portion of the Crestview neighborhood and
the Lake Forest neighborhood regarding this item. She said the item is not an official
public hearing, but staff is seeking input from neighbors prior to making a
recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Bob Klepenski, 2124 Parklands Lane, asked if there an issue or problem.
Ms. McMonigal said the Lake Forest neighborhood asked for a study as a result of a
recent Hill Lane subdivision. Staff is studying the issues and presenting alternatives.
Nicholas Slade, 2316 Westridge, asked about average lot size throughout St. Louis Park
and in specific neighborhoods.
Kristine Stevenson, 9421 West Franklin, said barring a problem, some R-1 lots could be
protected and that is good.
Cindy Baumann, 2300 Parkwoods Road, thanked staff for the study. She asked about
setbacks. Mr. Fulton said uniform setbacks in Lake Forest would be difficult.
Sandra Stanley, 2205 South Hill Lane, asked if some subdividable lots don’t have
adequate frontage, would there be pressure to insist that new roads be built. Ms.
McMonigal said it would be very complicated but possible.
Ellen McGratten, 4636 Cedarwood, asked what neighboring cities are using for lot sizes.
Ms. McGratten supports a 13,500 square foot minimum.
Dan Schneiger, 1600 Independence, asked if multi-family or duplexes are allowed on
subdivided lots. Ms. McMonigal said multi-family and duplexes are not allowed in the
R-1 District.
Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Road, asked about smaller lots in Lake Forest.
Mr. Fulton responded that zoning changes from the 1950s are hard to track.
Betty Goodman, 2211 S. Hill Lane, asked about subdividable lots in Lake Forest.
Ed Christensen, 1830 Flag Avenue, recommends moving to a 13,500 square foot
minimum to allow larger lots to be subdivided.
Nicholas Slade, 2316 Westridge, said the floodplain is vastly oversized and he
encourages subdivision and in-fill to avoid sprawl. He recommends reducing the
minimum lot size.
Pat Schmidt, 9322 W. 18th St., said it seems to be a personal choice issue. She said she
agrees with Mr. Christensen.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 4 - R-1 Zoning District Study
Page 4
Joyce Prudden, 2318 Parkwoods Road, said she has mixed feelings. She is a Sierra Club
member. She said that Lake Forest epitomizes 1950s urban sprawl. Ms. Prudden said if
done carefully, a certain amount of in-fill is not a bad idea. Hill Lane has terrain issues,
and she would like to see higher restrictions for those lots. She would like to see study
on setbacks. She said she isn’t sure about lot size.
Sharon Segal, 2211 Parklands Road, supports a 13,500 square foot minimum lot size.
She said the neighborhood is a treasure.
Paul Olfelt, 2206 Parklands Lane, said development is good and bad but it can work out
well in the market place. He said it would be wrong to take away privileges of 9,000
square foot lots.
Ellen McGratten, 4636 Cedarwood, said she supports the 13,500 minimum lot size. She
said the neighborhood is a treasure.
Bob Klepenski, 2124 Parklands Lane, stated that it seems to be a personal choice
affecting 6-8 homeowners. He said there isn’t a crisis or a problem. He commented that
the marketplace has been working on Lake Forest for a long time. He said everyone has
things they don’t like but that isn’t a reason to change zoning. He said that in-fill is
upgrading the neighborhood.
Commissioner Robertson said he doesn’t think it is a big issue and he is strongly opposed
to changing the zoning along these lines. He said it is incumbent for cities to do in-fill
thoughtfully and respectfully. Commissioner Robertson doesn’t support increasing the
minimum lot size at all.
Commissioner Kramer agrees with Commissioner Robertson.
Commissioner Morris favors a vote now; he opposes a zoning change for the R-1 on a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison agrees with Commissioner Morris. She said the study
showed how many lots were affected. The issue doesn’t seem to be there.
Commissioner Carper said positives have been accomplished by the study and it doesn’t
make sense to go forward with changes. The Planning Commission should vote on it
now.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending to the City Council that the R-1
zoning lot size remain as is. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. The motion
passed on a 4-1 vote (Carper opposed).
Ms. McMonigal said this item is tentatively scheduled to go to a City Council study
session on October 9, 2006.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 4 - R-1 Zoning District Study
Page 5
Study Session
Planning Commission
September 6, 2006
Draft Notes
R-1 Single Family Residential District
Associate Planner Adam Fulton presented the staff report.
Commissioner Carper asked what the floodplain meant and how its level would affect
development.
Ms. McMonigal explained the 100-year floodplain and its affects upon development.
Commissioner Carper asked which lots might be combined, and whether the potential lots that
would be created are under consideration. He said he would like to see the addresses of those
properties.
Commissioner Timmian stated that the Planning Commission should not be pushing people into
feeling forced to subdivide their property.
Commissioner Kramer requested that staff include information about the topography of the
neighborhoods.
Mr. Fulton stated that the topographical information is not yet available, but may be ready at
subsequent meetings.
Commissioner Carper stated that topography is an important consideration.
Commissioner Timmian stated that the floodplain should be included on every map, especially
those displaying the theoretical subdivisions.
Commissioner Carper emphasized that current homeowners only should be permitted to
subdivide, not predatory people such as developers.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated that it is naïve for people to sell property without an
understanding of how it may be used in the future.
Commissioner Kramer stated that owners are responsible to know if their property can be
subdivided and what is going on in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Robertson stated that the person owning the lot is the only person responsible for
what happens on that lot.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated that the person owning the lot is responsible, but it is an
issue for the whole City, not just the neighborhood where the subdivision is happening.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 4 - R-1 Zoning District Study
Page 6
Commissioner Robertson stated that all the easily developed lots are already built on, and that
new construction on other lots is more difficult. He said that if there is a change to the minimum
lot size, he is not sure how many lots would then be undersized. He requested more information
regarding this issue.
Ms. McMonigal said that there may be some impact to attempting to create more single family
lots, but that undersized lots will still be able to expand their houses.
Commissioner Kramer stated that this issue is like opening a can of worms, and that it will bring
architectural standards to the forefront.
Ms. McMonigal said that the City Council has considered creating new architectural design
standards and has not brought the issue up for further study.
Commissioner Timmian stated that he is concerned about keeping families in the City.
Commissioner Robertson said the issue is more about how to prevent density in this
neighborhood.
Commissioner Kramer said that one option under consideration is to do nothing.
Commissioner Robertson asked for more information regarding what lots in the neighborhood
are smaller than the proposed standards, and how many would be larger? He would also like
additional information about how many lot subdivisions would be prevented.
Commissioner Carper said that the portion of Lake Forest east of France Avenue is not part of
the Lake Forest neighborhood. He said that he does not consider it part of the neighborhood and
that it should not be included as part of the study.
Commissioner Robertson noted that the study is focused on lot sizes, but asked whether changes
to lot widths would make a difference? He then asked how the standards could be changed
without changing the required minimum lot size.
Mr. Fulton said that changing lot widths would result in a negligible impact to the number of lots
available for subdivision.
Ms. McMonigal stated that staff would continue the presentation of data on September 20. She
said that staff would provide alternatives at that meeting.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 5 - Wireless Update
Page 1
5. Wireless Update TSS
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION
To report back to Council on the status of bids received for the possible citywide wireless project
in preparation for the October 16 public hearing.
BACKGROUND
Five vendors responded to the request for bids (RFB) for the possible citywide wireless project.
Staff is currently in the process of bid reviews and follow-up with the apparent lowest
responsible bidder in a manner consistent with consultations with the City Attorney.
That follow-up will include travel to the bidder’s installations and confirmation of the bidder’s
ability to deliver on performance expectations set forth in the RFB. That follow-up travel will be
concluded this weekend, thus, a written report is not available at this time. A summary of
findings, as well as the overall status of the bid process and other related issues, will be reported
to Council at the study session.
The public hearing on this project is scheduled for October 16. As part of the study session
meeting, Council may wish to provide direction on an intended decision making plan and timing.
Prepared By: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
6. Council Policy Item – Group Homes Sue Sanger
No Report
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 7 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 1
7. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next Study Session agenda.
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes 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 study sessions on October 16 and 23, 2006.
Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 100906 - 7 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Monday, October 16, 2006
6:30 p.m. Special Study Session starts
Discussion Items
A. Duke Concept Plan – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will discuss/introduce the preliminary site plan for Duke’s proposed “West End”
project (I-394 & Hwy 100) for Council’s initial reaction to the plan.
B. Housing Matrix Presentation (will include Assisted Housing Activity Update
Attachments) – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will present a draft “housing matrix” for review and discussion with the Council.
Throughout the Housing Summit of 2003-05 a desire for a comprehensive tool that
clearly relays the types of housing within the City was expressed. The purpose of this
tool is to provide an evaluation tool for policy makers to monitor housing development in
the city and the City’s progress in maintaining and/or meeting established housing goals.
End of Meeting: 7:30 p.m. (to allow the start of the regular Council meeting)
Monday, October 23, 2006
City Council Organizational Development Session
Monday, October 30, 2006
Joint meeting of City Council and School Board
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 100906 - 8 - Enviro Initiatives
Page 1
8. Environmental Initiatives Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF REPORT
To report back to Council as previously directed at a study session regarding alternate energy
sources and other possible environmental initiatives.
BACKGROUND
At the February 27, 2006 study session, Council discussed getting ideas on alternate sources of
energy for city buildings and other best environmental practices. The minutes on the item are as
follows:
6. Alternate Sources of Energy for City Buildings
Mayor Jacobs requested this subject be discussed. Mayor Jacobs spoke on the subject of
alternative sources of fuel. He asked: Is it worthwhile to have staff investigate the notion that
the city pursue alternative sources of energy?
Councilmember Carver and Councilmember Finkelstein think it would be a good idea to explore
the pros and cons; Councilmember Sanger agreed and she suggested perhaps looking at hybrid
city vehicles.
Mayor Jacobs likes the idea of researching natural gas powered vehicles, hybrid vehicles,
alternative fuel vehicles, and perhaps a small wind-powered generator as a Children First type
of project.
Councilmember Finkelstein said alternative sources of energy would be an ideal subject for the
League of Cities or the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, perhaps a conference on how
cities can promote alternative energies.
Mr. Harmening said, let us do some research and return to Council with information and ideas.
The City Manager asked the city’s Green Team (the Green Team is an informal staff committee
which encourages city departments to think “green”) to inventory the city’s current
environmental practices and report back to him with their findings (matrix attached).
The Green Team compiled a comprehensive list of current practices for each department,
including in progress and completed tasks, such as retrofits. As a group, they also brainstormed
ideas for future consideration. Some of the ideas could be implemented for little or no cost by
the city or other organizations; others would be more costly and would require more analysis.
The attached matrix, complied by the Green Team lists the following:
• Current internal initiatives
• Current external initiatives
• Future matrix: possibilities, concepts, ideas and dreams
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 100906 - 8 - Enviro Initiatives
Page 2
NEXT STEPS
There is a Vision Action Team also working on Environmental Initiatives. The information
compiled by the Green Team has been shared with this Action Team. The final
recommendations of the Environmental Action Team will be brought to Council along with the
reports from the other Action Teams. It is recommended that before the City move further on
specific environmental initiatives, that we wait until the Environmental Action Team completes
their work
Thank you to Green Team staff members for their work on the attached matrix: Sarah
Hellekson, Jim Vaughan, Scott Merkley, Terre Packham, Kathy Larsen, John Altepeter, Mark
Oestreich, Dennis Millerbernd, Rick Beane, Craig Panning, Reg Dunlap, Brenda Nelson,
Kimberly Bretza & Heather Flueger.
Attachments: Green Team Environmental Matrix (supplement)
Prepared By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 100906 - 9 - Prosecuting Attorney Services Update
Page 1
9. Prosecuting Attorney Services Update Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To provide the City Council with information on prosecuting attorney services and rate increase
effective January 1, 2007.
BACKGROUND:
The City has worked with Colich and Associates to handle services needed as the City’s
prosecuting attorney since 1986. Due to inflation and the increasing cost associated with
conducting business, Mr. Colich has requested a fee increase from the City.
Over the years, the fees for prosecuting attorney services provided by Colich and Associates
have been as follows:
Year Hourly Rate
1986 $55.00
1992 $67.50
1999 to current $75.00
Rates Comparison and Recommendation for Fee Increase
A survey was conducted with cities in the metropolitan area to determine the average hourly fee
or annual contract rate paid to prosecuting attorneys. The survey indicates that the fee paid by
the City of St. Louis Park of $75/hour is below rates paid in other cities for prosecuting attorney
services. The average annual fee in 2006, not including out of pocket expenses, is $196,000
(survey attached).
Performance
We are pleased with the work performed by our current prosecuting attorney firm of Colich and
Associates. Chief of Police John Luse recommends renewal of the agreement for services with
this firm.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the following:
• Continue contracting services for prosecuting attorney with Colich and Associates based
on the quality of the work performed and the years of service with the City.
• Fees for such services paid to Colich and Associates be increased to $100/hour, not to
exceed $200,000 per year (unless otherwise approved by City Manager based on business
needs) effective January 1, 2007.
• Terms would remain in place for 2007, 2008 and 2009, unless otherwise determined by
the City Council.
• Approval of resolution and contract will be at the October 16, 2007 regular Council
meeting as a consent item unless otherwise directed.
The cost for this increase has been included in the proposed 2007 budget.
Attachments: Survey of fees for prosecuting attorneys
Resolution approving rates effective 1/1/07
Contract for prosecuting services
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 100906 - 9 - Prosecuting Attorney Services Update
Page 2
RATES FOR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SERVICES
2006
City Hourly Rate Annual Fee Comment
Apple Valley $265,044 + out of pocket expenses
Burnsville $110 $264,000
Brooklyn Park $238,980
Cottage Grove $131,200
Eden Prairie $240,000 + out of pocket expenses
Lakeville $182,244 + out of pocket expenses
Maple Grove $106.60
Plymouth $241,020 + out of pocket expenses
Richfield $65 $133,000
Roseville $128,400 + out of pocket expenses
Woodbury $141,000
St. Louis Park $75.00
Comment: Our 2005 annual prosecuting
attorney expenses were $147,792.
AVERAGE $196,000
Average does not include estimated costs
for cities that also pay out of pocket
expenses.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 100906 - 9 - Prosecuting Attorney Services Update
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SERVICES AND FEES PAID TO THE
CITY’S PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has acquired the services of Mike Colich of
Colich and Associates to be the City’s prosecuting attorney;
WHEREAS, the City Council is in consensus and wishes to continue using the services
of Colich and Associates;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, that:
The hourly fee paid to Mr. Colich should be increased to $100.00 per hour, effective
January 1, 2007; and
The annual rate will not exceed $200,000 unless otherwise approved by the City Manager
based on business needs; and
The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract
for services for prosecuting attorney services.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 16, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 100906 - 9 - Prosecuting Attorney Services Update
Page 4
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK &
COLICH AND ASSOCIATES
THIS AGREEMENT is effective January 1, 2007 by and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and Colich and Associates, a
Minnesota corporation ("Attorney").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. SERVICES AND RELATIONSHIP.
A. The Attorney shall furnish and perform prosecution legal services for the City.
B. The Attorney shall be engaged as an independent contractor and not as a City
employee. The Attorney is free to contract with other entities.
2. TERM.
A. The Attorney shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council, and this Agreement
may be terminated without cause by resolution of the City Council.
B. The Attorney may terminate this Agreement at any time, provided that the Attorney
shall give the City sixty (60) days written notice before the termination becomes
effective.
3. PAYMENT
A. Rate for services will be $100/hour for all legal services.
B. Fees for all services shall not exceed $200,000 per year effective January 1, 2007,
unless pre-approval is obtained from City Manager regarding business need for rates
to exceed the annual maximum.
C. Terms of this agreement will remain in place through 2009 unless otherwise
determined by the City Council. Agreement shall be deemed to be automatically
extended from year-to-year or extended with such modifications and adjustments as
the City and Contractor may from time-to-time mutually agree.
D. Payments for legal services provided to the City shall be made in the manner
provided by law. The City will normally pay for services within thirty (30) days of
receipt of a statement for services rendered.
4. INSURANCE.
The Attorney will purchase and maintain sufficient insurance to protect Attorney against
claims for legal malpractice.
5. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
B. Assignment. The Attorney may not assign or refer any of the legal services to be
performed hereunder without the written consent of the St. Louis Park City Council.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 100906 - 9 - Prosecuting Attorney Services Update
Page 5
C. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by the
City and the Attorney. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended without
the approval in writing of the St. Louis Park City Council.
Dated:____________________________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BY:
______________________________________
Mayor
AND
______________________________________
City Clerk
Dated:____________________________ Professional Association
BY:
_______________________________________