HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/10/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
OCTOBER 22, 2018
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – *Council chambers
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning
2. 6:35 p.m. St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
3. 7:35 p.m. Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
4. 9:05 p.m. Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities
9:50 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
9:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
5. Draft Ordinance amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 10 related to the rules
of conduct for municipal elections
6. September 2018 monthly financial report
7. Third quarter investment report (July – Sept 2018)
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 22, 2018
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Future study session agenda planning
Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the special study
session on November 5, 2018 and the regularly scheduled study session on November 13, 2018.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the special study session on
November 5, 2018 and the regularly scheduled study session on November 13, 2018. Also
attached to this report is the study session prioritization and tentative discussion timeline.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – November 5 and 13, 2018
Study session prioritization and projected discussion timeline
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning
November 5, 2018.
6:15 p.m. – Study session – *Council chambers
Tentative discussion items
1.Budget discussion – Administrative services (60 minutes)
Staff will provide an update on the overall budget and tax levy for 2019.
November 13, 2018 (tues.).
5:30 p.m. – Tour of Hamilton House
6:30 p.m. – Study session – *Hamilton House
Tentative discussion items
1.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes)
2.TIF management plan update – 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.
3.Affordable housing tools – Community development (45 minutes)
Staff will be reviewing the status of various housing strategies being explored to create and
preserve affordable housing.
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.
End of meeting: 8:10 p.m.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Future study session agenda planning
Study session prioritization and projected discussion timeline
Priority Discussion topic Comments Date
4 Communication to human rights
commission on council expectations Discussed 7/23. Staff following up. TBD
4 Establish a local housing trust fund Completed 10/15/18
4 Revitalization of Walker Lake area
Part of preserving Walker building reports:
8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, design study
2/12/18, update 4/23/18, design study
update 8/27/18
1st Qtr.
2019
4 Zoning guidelines for front-facing
buildings with windows not papered over
Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for
review & recommendation.
1st Qtr.
2019
4 Finalize Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; adoption postponed
on 5/21/18. To be discussed at Jan. Retreat
2019
Workshop
3 Develop a youth/senior advisory
Commission Discussed 7/23. Staff following up. TBD
3 Living streets policy 4th Qtr.
2018
3 Design guidelines - New home construction Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for
review & recommendation.
1st Qtr.
2019
3 Discuss and evaluate our public process TBD
3 Retail/service/liquor stores size Discussed on 6/11/18; referred to PC. Dec. 2018
3 Crime free ordinance/affordable housing
strategies
Discussed 5/14/18. 1st reading housing
trust fund 10/1/18; Other affordable
housing strategies/Crime Free Ordinance –
Nov/Dec
Nov/Dec
3 Easy access to nature, across city, starting
with low-income neighborhoods TBD
2 SEED’s community greenhouse/resilient
cities initiative TBD
2 Community center project TBD
? Firearm sales
Discussed 5/21/18 & 7/23. Written report
provided at 9/24 study session. PC currently
reviewing ordinance options. Policy on city
facilities adopted 10/15
4th quarter
? Immigration & supporting families Discussed 8/6; referred to HRC; HRC
conducting community meeting in October 4th quarter
? Utility pricing policy TBD
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 22, 2018
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
Recommended action: None at this time. Maxfield Research & Consulting will present an
overview of the results of the comprehensive housing market study and respond to questions
from the council.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: Attached is the executive summary of the comprehensive housing market study
update for St. Louis Park completed by Maxfield Research & Consulting. The study updates the
Comprehensive housing market study completed by Maxfield Research & Consulting in 2013.
The update examines demographic and economic factors, current housing market conditions
and determines the market potential for developing additional housing products in St. Louis
Park, and provides detailed recommendations for the housing types identified as being needed
in the short- and long-term.
The study identifies a potential demand for approximately 3,700 new housing units through
2030. Due to the aging of the baby boomers over the next couple of decades, about 29% of the
total demand will be for age-restricted housing types (995 units). There is also a strong demand
for 2,700 rental and for-sale general-occupancy units (which includes market-rate, affordable
and subsidized units) through 2030.
Detailed information regarding recommended housing concepts can be found in the
recommendations and conclusions section at the end of the report.
The complete study can be accessed on the City’s website at: study
Next steps: The study has been posted to the city’s web site and the information in the study
will be used to inform staff and policy makers when making future housing-related program
and policy decisions. Staff is working with the city’s information resources department to create
an executive summary available to the public that will present the key findings of the report in a
consumer-friendly format.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Housing study executive summary
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Community dev. deputy director and housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
Comprehensive Housing Market Study Update
for the City of St. Louis Park
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and scope of study
Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC (i.e. “Maxfield Research”) was engaged by the City of St.
Louis Park to update the Comprehensive Rental Housing Market Study completed in June 2013.
The Housing Market Study provides recommendations on the amount and types of housing that
should be developed in order to meet the needs of current and future households who choose
to reside in St. Louis Park.
The scope of this study includes an analysis of the demographic and economic characteristics of
the City; a review of the characteristics of the existing housing stock and building permit trends;
an analysis of the market condition for a variety of rental, senior, and for-sale housing products;
and an assessment of the need for housing by product type in the City. Recommendations on the
number and types of housing products that should be considered in the City are also supplied.
The housing needs market assessment lays out the demographic, economic, and housing
market performance in St. Louis Park for expanding housing opportunities. The analysis is the
first step in addressing local housing issues and is intended to lay the groundwork for amending
or establishing housing goals, priorities, and strategies for meeting the demand. Furthermore,
the analysis will assist local builders/developers and financial institutions through streamlining
their respective due diligence process.
1.Population and household growth has been strong this decade, in part due to the apartment
boom in St. Louis Park. Population growth is projected to be about 13% this decade, compared
to 2.5% last decade. However, growth is expected to slow next decade as the apartment market
reaches the peak of the current development cycle. New growth will result from infill and
redevelopment opportunities in mostly higher-density housing types. Single-family infill will
continue to be in high demand, but will be contingent on redevelopment/tear downs.
2.The largest age cohort in St. Louis Park is adults between 25 and 34 years old (“Millennials”),
accounting for 21% of the city’s population. Together with young adults ages 18 to 24, 30% of
the population is between 18 and 34. This demographic consists primarily of renters and first-
time home buyers.
3.Baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964) and other older adults are aging and posting substantial
growth over the next five years (+16% 65 to 74 and +23% 75 to 84 year olds). This cohort also
has high homeownership rates and will seek alternative maintenance-free housing products.
4.St. Louis Park has smaller household sizes and is composed of a higher percentage of one-
and two-person households. Near three-quarters of all households in the city are one- or two-
person households, of which 41% are one-person households.
5.As a first-ring suburb, St. Louis Park’s housing stock is older and features smaller building
footprints. Approximately 70% of St. Louis Park’s single-family housing stock was constructed
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
prior to 1960. As a result, the homes are located on smaller lots and have smaller square
footages compared to buyers needs today. Continued promotion of the City’s housing
programs should be a priority to encourage reinvestment into the housing stock.
6. Since the recession, St. Louis Park has experienced significant new luxury apartment
development this decade. Over 1,500 units within multifamily developments have been
delivered since 2010, another 784 units are under construction, and over 600 units are in the
planning phases. St. Louis Park has been one of the “hottest” apartment submarkets in the Twin
Cities as developers and investors have sought out sites in the community. The City will continue
to be pursued by developers, however the apartment boom is at the peak and is expected to
stabilize given the over 6,000 units in the Metro Area expected to be delivered in 2018.
7. Due to the age and condition of St. Louis Park’s rental housing stock, half of the units have
monthly rents that are affordable to households earning 50% to 60% of Hennepin County AMI.
Among the 8,600 market rate units inventoried, 8% of the units are affordable to householders
at 50% AMI. When combined with 41% of the units affordable at 60% AMI, 49% of the market
rate rental housing inventory is affordable at 50% to 60% AMI. This is down from 71% that was
calculated in the 2013 housing study. Only 0.5% of the units are affordable to householders at
30% AMI as of March 2018.
8. Housing prices in St. Louis Park are at the peak; posting a median resale value of $265,000.
The median sales price has increased annually since 2011 and the local real estate market is
favoring sellers as there are few homes as the supply is at an all-time low. The percentage of
lender-mediated properties peaked in 2011 (40%) but is about 2% today. Even with the peak
housing values, housing costs are relatively affordable compared to last decade given the
continued low mortgage interest environment. The recent change to the condominium
construction defect law should help spur interest in the condominium market again after being
dormant since the recession.
9. Strong housing demand is projected through 2030. Over this time, demand is projected for
nearly 2,500 general-occupancy units and 1,000 senior housing units. However, not all demand
may be realized as new housing will result from replacement need, infill, and redevelopment.
Demographic Analysis
• As of the 2010 Census, the City of St. Louis had 45,250 people and 21,743 households. The
City of St. Louis is forecast to grow by 5,935 people and 2,757 households between 2010 and
2020 and by another 2,315 people and 1,000 households between 2020 and 2030.
• From 2017 to 2022, growth is expected in all age cohorts except in the 45 to 54 age cohort.
The 35 to 44 age cohorts are projected to have the greatest numeric growth increasing by 669
people, while the 75 to 84 age cohort is projected to have the greatest percentage growth in St.
Louis Park increasing by 22% between 2017 and 2022.
• As of 2016 American Community Survey estimates, “Whites” comprised the largest
proportion (82.8% in 2016) of the population in the City of St. Louis Park. However, the City is
becoming more diverse and this category has been steadily decreasing since 2000.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
• The City of St. Louis Park had an estimated median household income of $69,125 in 2017.
Non-senior household median incomes peak in the 45 to 54 age group at $88,992. The median
income for seniors age 65 to 74 is $61,978 and for 75+ is $39,334.
• Between 2010 and 2016, homeownership rates decreased from 60.7% to 56.2% in the City of
St. Louis Park. The decline can be primarily attributed to the vast number of new multifamily
rental buildings recently completed or under construction in St. Louis Park.
• In 2016, the average St. Louis Park renter household consisted of 1.87 persons compared to
the average owner household of 2.24 persons. An estimated 78.8% of renter households in the
City of St. Louis Park in 2016 have either only one or two people. Combined with owner
households, about 74% of all households in St. Louis Park are one or two-person households.
• Persons living alone accounted for the highest household type percentage in 2016 at 40.8%.
This household type is significantly larger in St. Louis Park compared to Hennepin County
(33.0%) and the Metro Area (28.8%).
Employment Analysis
• According to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, there were 40,298 jobs in St. Louis
Park. Between 2010 and 2017, the City gained 1,728 jobs (+4.6%). During that time, the number of
jobs increased +15.3% in Hennepin County and +11.0% in the Metro Area.
• St. Louis Park and Hennepin County had an unemployment rate of 2.4% and 2.9% respectively in
February 2018, which is lower than the State of Minnesota (3.9%).
• Based on Employer-Household Dynamics data 8.1% of workers in St. Louis Park live in the City.
Most other workers are commuting from Minneapolis (12.9%), St. Paul (4.1%), and Plymouth
(3.9%). St. Louis Park is considered a major importer of works as over 90% of the employees
working in St. Louis Park are from other communities.
• According to data provided by the City of St. Louis Park, the ten largest employers in the City
account for over 11,300, or 28.9% of the total covered jobs.
Housing Characteristics
• Per the City of St. Louis Park Building Department there were 2,398 units permitted from
2000 to 2017. Beginning in 2007, building permits declined rapidly, and from 2007 through
2011 the City has averaged only 9 units per year. A building boom of multifamily apartments
began in 2012 and has continued all decade. Since then, an average of 222 multifamily units
have been added annually.
• Over the past 18 years, the number of demolitions has averaged seven housing units
annually. However, since 2012, an average of 12 demolition permits have been issued per year,
with a high of 19 demolition permits issued in 2015.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
• The greatest percentage of homes in St. Louis Park were built in the 1950s, which comprised
24.0% of the entire housing stock in the City. As a comparison, the greatest percentage of
homes in Hennepin County were built before 1940 (19.0%). Over 60% of the rental housing
stock was constructed prior to 1980.
• The median owner-occupied home in St. Louis Park was $236,900 or $1,100 higher than
Hennepin County’s median home value ($235,266) and $9,290 higher than the Metro Area
($227,610).
• The median contract rent in St. Louis Park was $966. Based on a 30% allocation of income to
housing, a household in St. Louis Park would need an income of about $38,640 to afford the
median monthly rent of $966. The median contract rent is higher than Hennepin County ($904)
and the Metro Area ($771).
Rental Housing Market Analysis
• In total, Maxfield Research inventoried 8,373 general occupancy units in St. Louis Park,
including 7,823 market rate units, 258 subsidized units, and 292 affordable units. These units
were spread across 102 properties.
• At the time of the survey, there were 363 vacant market rate units resulting in an overall
vacancy rate of 4.3%. However, when considering only stabilized properties, the vacancy rate
was 2.6%. Typically, a healthy rental market maintains a vacancy rate of roughly 5%, which
promotes competitive rates, ensures adequate consumer choice, and allows for unit turnover.
• Affordable/subsidized projects had only three combined vacancies, a vacancy rate of 0.6%.
Senior Housing Market Analysis
• There are eight senior housing developments located in St. Louis Park with 14 different senior
service levels and a total of 957 units. An additional housing project, The Elmwood, is set for
construction in Spring 2018 and will add 53 market rate and 17 affordable active adult
apartments. There were 18 vacancies identified within the housing developments posting an
overall vacancy rate 1.9%. Generally, healthy senior housing vacancy rates range from 5% to 7%
depending on service level. Together with the aging of the baby boomer population; demand
will be strong for senior housing for the next decade and beyond.
For-Sale Housing Market Analysis
• Mirroring the Metro Area, St. Louis Park median home values peaked in 2017 at $265,000,
posting an 8% appreciation year-over-year increase. Home prices have increased annually since
the low of $185,000 in 2011.
• The number of resales in St. Louis Park has averaged just over 800 sales annually between
2000 and 2017. Resales were lowest during the recession in 2010 when 511 homes sold.
Resales peaked in 2016 when over 1,000 homes were sold; before falling in 2017 due to the
lack of supply in the marketplace.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
• Lender-mediated properties have historically been lower in St. Louis Park than other Metro
Area communities. The percentage of lender-mediated properties peaked at 40% in 2011 and
has declined annually since. Today, about 98% of all transactions are traditional sales as the
market has posted very few foreclosures and short sales.
• Single-family housing stock has accounted for about three-quarters of the resale volume in St.
Louis Park since 2000. Multifamily for-sale housing products are more affordable and are priced
about 34% lower than the single-family housing stock.
• On average, the price of an existing home in St. Louis Park is about 16% less than the cost of
new construction ($168 PSF vs. $195). This gap has shrunk as historically new construction was
priced significantly higher than the existing stock. St. Louis Park per square foot housing costs
are about 29% higher than the Metro Area and 16% higher than Hennepin County.
• As a fully developed first-ring suburban community, there are few available lots for new for-
sale construction in St. Louis Park. At the time of this study there were no actively marketing
single-family lots in St. Louis Park; hence any new single-family housing stock would result from a
tear down. The average price for a new single-family home in St. Louis Park is about $600,000 or
more.
Housing Demand Analysis
• Based on our calculations, demand exists in the City of St. Louis Park for the following general
occupancy product types between 2017 and 2030:
o Market rate rental 645 units
o Affordable rental 409 units
o Subsidized rental 318 units
• In addition, we find demand for multiple senior housing product types. By 2030, demand in
St. Louis Park for senior housing is forecast for the following:
o Active adult ownership 164 units
o Active adult rental 273 units
o Active adult affordable 254 units
o Active adult subsidized 22 units
o Assisted Living 203 units
o Memory care 79 units
Recommendations and Conclusions
• Based on the finding of our analysis and demand calculations, the following chart provides a
summary of the recommended development concepts by product type for the City of St. Louis
Park through 2030. Detailed findings are described in the Recommendations section of the
report.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: St. Louis Park comprehensive housing market study update
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: October 22, 2018
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
Recommended action: No formal action required. This report is to assist with the study session
discussion regarding the 2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the Long Range Financial
Management Plan (LRFMP).
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 2019 – 2028 CIP,
and how it is used in the LRFMP. Definitions for each LRFMP fund presented 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 considerations: 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.
Strategic priority consideration:
All areas of the adopted strategic priorities are impacted by the city’s budget.
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to
create a more just and inclusive community for all.
• St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
• St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-
oriented development.
• St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their
way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
• St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Location map of some 2019 parks & pavement management projects
2019 – 2028 CIP projects by funding source
Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)
Summary sheet on various funding source ideas
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 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
Discussion
Background: 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 input into the city’s capital improvement plan 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.
Staff also takes into consideration council policy direction from the strategic priorities, climate
action plan, Vision 3.0, racial equity and inclusion and the comp plan when reviewing projects,
purchases, programs and planning in the CIP and other budget areas.
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 2019-2028 CIP was included in the September 24, 2018 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.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
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
January 2021. Significant expenditures paid by this fund are for personnel and capital. Slow
motion replay will be added and web streaming/video on demand replaced in 2019.
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 related to police or fire purposes. These one-time proceeds
have been and will continue to be used primarily for capital purchases. Over the years we have
been able to use these funds for various capital needs. 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. The fire pension fund will end in the near
future and starting in 2026 the police pension funding source will end and capital needs will be
programed into our other capital funding.
A few of the 2019 projects include:
Police-800 MHZ mobile radio replacements
Fire – 800 MHZ mobile radio replacements
Police squad laptops and Fire apparatus computers
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. This fund covers a portion of the housing related personnel services. The
housing improvement areas (HIAs) are also included in this fund, with the fees from each HIA
covering the costs of each project. If a portion of the future HRA levy is allocated for housing
related activities, staff has summarized on the attached sheet a split between programs that
possibly could stay in the housing rehab fund and those that could shift to the housing trust
fund.
Starting in 2019, staff is recommending two new programs for further discussion with the city
council.
• Single family acquisition/rehab demonstration - The intent of the program is to acquire
a SF home in a transit oriented area, rehab the home and demonstrate how smart
design and the incorporation of energy efficient improvements can be made to the
typical SLP rambler or Cape Cod style home found in SLP. Rehab of the home would
incorporate energy efficient improvements including design, mechanical systems and
appliances. (max amount $350,000)
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
This proposed program aligns with the strategic priorities related to housing and
environmental stewardship.
• On-bill Repayment Program for energy efficient appliances - The intent of this program
is to make it easier for homeowners to complete energy efficiency improvements. On-
bill is considered a form of inclusive financing because it gives loan access to customers
that may not get traditional financing. Making energy efficient upgrades reduces utility
bills, which can be a substantial portion of a homeowner’s monthly expenses. The city
will pay a loan origination fee for this program, but this is a loan so the city will receive
monthly payments which will pay off the loan in no more than 10 years. Income limits
will apply. The Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) will administer this program for
the city in conjunction with CenterPoint Energy. (max amount - $60,000)
This proposed program aligns with the strategic priority related to housing and
environmental stewardship.
Development Fund - Used for 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. This fund is used to help finance projects by loaning money to other funds, for
land purchases, loan programs and 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.
With the interest income on interfund loan repayments becoming less and less this fund will
need to look at additional funding options in the near future. One option other communities
have implemented is an EDA levy which is based on a maximum amount of .0183% of estimated
market value (similar concept to HRA levy, but for economic development purposes).
An option to consider in the near future is to implement the EDA levy in an amount to cover
budgeted salaries initially and then provide some funding for future strategic land acquisitions,
loan programs, grants etc. longer term. For example, proceeds from this levy could be used to
provide small business assistance in the Walker Lake area.
Please note that the fund anticipates some land sales in 2018 and 2019. Depending on the
timing of these land sales the cash position in the LRFMP will decrease if the sales do not take
place. $7.5 million in 2018 and $3.4 million in 2019.
The development fund also acts as the holding fund for the convention and visitors bureau
lodging tax, for which the city retains 5% as an administrative fee. In the 2019 preliminary
budget we anticipate transferring $40,000 out to the general fund to help support our city-wide
communication and marketing efforts. This is consistent with the policy previously established
by the council for these revenues.
HRA Levy - This fund is to be used for infrastructure construction in redevelopment areas and
qualifying housing programs. This fund has financed both the Highway 7 & Wooddale project
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
and the Highway 7 & Louisiana project. Currently, this fund’s full resources are obligated thru
2019 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 possibly more in the future.
Park Improvement Fund - This fund is responsible for financing capital expenditures within city
parks and the improvement of park facilities. The primary sources of revenue are property
taxes, park dedication fees from redevelopment projects, and on occasion bond proceeds.
While park dedication fees are budgeted for future years, the timing is only an estimate as it is
tied to development projections.
A few of the 2019 projects include:
Trail reconstruction – Dakota and Fern Hill Park
Tennis court renovation – Carpenter Park
Various playground equipment replacement
Pickle ball court addition
Rec Center front office – AC replacement
Rec Center – East Arena sound system
Pavement Management Fund - Funds are used for pavement rehabilitation within the city. The
revenue sources for this fund are Center Point and Xcel franchise fees charged to customers
within the City. Currently, the amount is $4/month per utility for a single family residential
home. The LRFMP does anticipate franchise fee increases in 2019 and 2021. This will need to
be evaluated yearly and may change given our pavement management needs over the next 10
years.
The current pavement management program and capital plan will require a $1.00 increase per
utility per month in 2019. With the addition of the Historic Walker Lake initiative, we will need
to add some bonding to pay for the anticipated infrastructure improvements. An approach to
pay the debt service on these bonds is to use the revenues created by an increase in the
franchise fees (vs. a tax levy). If this approach were used, an additional $.50 increase per
month per utility would be required to cover the debt service on the bonds bringing the overall
change for 2019 to $1.50 increase per month per utility.
The latest estimates from CenterPoint and Xcel show that if we increased franchise fees by
$1.50 ($1.00 overall plan and $.50 bonds) per utility per month it would generate
approximately $808,182 in additional revenue. If we adjusted franchise fees $2.00 ($1.50
overall plan and $.50 bonds) per utility per month it would generate approximately $1,077,576
in additional revenue. These amounts appear acceptable to the utility companies. If council is
ok with increasing the franchise fees we will need to start the ordinance changes and approvals
in November to be effective around March of next year.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
A few of the 2019 projects include:
Local street rehab (Area 7)
Commercial street rehab – Walker Lake Historical District
Sealcoating and alley construction projects
Municipal State Aid (MSA)
The city receives an annual allocation from the state (Gas tax) in the form of Municipal
Construction funds for our state aid eligible roads. The amount for 2018 was $1,411,370. In
the LRFMP we have more costs than the allocation in the near future. For 2019, we are
anticipating to advance fund a few years of allocation to complete the Cedar Lake Road state
aid project. We have been working with state aid finance on the funding beyond 2019. This
may take the form of state aid bonds as we don’t anticipate the state aid allocation going up
more than 3 percent annually. Over the winter we will continue to work with state aid finance
on the future project funding.
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. The last major construction project is planned for 2023 and none thereafter, other
than some 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
included in this fund. Staff has been working diligently to ensure this fund remains financially
viable over the next 10 years.
A few of the 2019 projects include:
Various ongoing software licenses and maintenance
Ongoing hardware and network replacements
Office 365 implementation and training
Police body and dash cameras
Police dispatch and kitchen remodel
MSC solar panel addition
Fire Station 1&2 alerting system
Annual fleet vehicle replacements
Westwood Nature Center Project (GO Bonding)
Utility Funds: The rate plans for water, sewer, and solid waste were presented to the city
council by Ehlers and Associates at the September 24, 2018 Council worksession. Council
subsequently adopted 2019 utility rates on October 15th. A brief summary of the funds is as
follows:
• Water: For 2019, Ehlers review consisted of assuring proper usage tiers and charges to
promote conservation. Assuring that fixed costs are covered by fixed (base) rates
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
implemented over the next 2 years. In addition, assure operations and capital are
funded, with appropriate cash balance.
Significant expenses for this fund are capital, staffing, the Reilly Superfund site and debt
service. In 2018, staff planned to upgrade the SCADA control system at all sites, with the
cost split 1/3 each to water, sewer and storm. This project will carryover to 2019.
Another project is recoating reservoir 2 at water treatment plant #6 ($1,320,000). Other
projects include the water main for Cedar Lake Road and pavement management area 7
in 2019. Staff anticipates issuing bonds in the amount of $5,000,000 in 2019 and none
in 2020. These bonds will be repaid with utility revenues.
• Sewer: For 2019, Ehlers reviewed the long term plan similar to water and solid waste.
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 $2,800,000 in 2019 and none in 2020. These bonds will be
repaid with utility revenues. Sewer costs are mainly to support the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services charge (MCES), staffing and capital costs.
• Storm Water: With the updated 10-year plan, staff is recommending the rate increase
by 3 percent for 2019. This increase will help meet the increased capital needs and debt
service obligations. Significant expenses for this fund are capital and maintenance of the
system. Staff plans to issue $2,000,000 in bonds in 2019, which will be repaid with
utility revenues.
• Solid Waste: For 2019, the Ehlers review consisted of trying to further achieve “pay as
you throw” by encouraging less waste and more recycling. For example, customers
getting rid of larger cans and 20 gallon cans and going to every other week on smaller
cans (30 for long-term). In addition, assure operations and capital are funded, with
appropriate cash balance.
Uninsured Loss Fund - This fund covers self-insured workers comp claims and property and
liability claim deductibles. Insurance coverage is 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 for employees,
unemployment claims, flex leave payouts, and tuition reimbursement. Revenue sources are
from property tax dollars or transfers from the general fund.
Tech Utility Fund (2020) - An idea staff has been considering, due to the various Smart City and
technology needs city-wide, is a tech utility type fee after 2019. This would be similar to our
other enterprise funds. It would fund various initiatives such as “smart city” projects as well as
the fiber, sensors, and wireless radios that form the necessary communications network. That
communications network is a basic ingredient for smart city connections. As you recall from our
presentation, “smart city” projects can consist of anything from intelligent buildings that better
manage energy use to bus arrival times posted ahead of arrival to support for smart homes,
where drivers can get real-time routing to minimize trip times. Currently, annual fiber projects
are funded by both the development fund and with part of our G.O. bond issue, at an annual
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
average of $500,000. We would propose removing the portion out of the development fund
($250,000) and moving it to a tech utility fund. We have run some preliminary numbers to
generate around $450,000 per year. It would be $1.67 per month residential and $10-$40 per
month for the larger meter sizes that are not residential. We are working with our software
provider to see if this could be added to the utility bill in the future.
It should also be noted that many changes are afoot at the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) that could soon adversely affect Cable TV franchise fee revenues that
support internal audio-visual services and video productions that support both social media and
public / educational / government programming channels. These are the funds that support
cablecasting of events such as city council and commission meetings, school board meetings,
parades, and high school girls and boys sports. Possible FCC changes and declining cable TV
franchise revenues suggest alternative revenue sources may be needed to help support any
continued video services in the future. A tech utility concept may be a partial answer to
consider.
Other Item – Proposed Non Profit Funding Policy
The item below was prepared for the August 13th budget worksession. Does council require any
additional information on this item?
Council Guidelines
Funding for Non-Profit Organizations
• The organization must be a non-profit as governed by MN. Stat. 317A.
• The organization must be located within the City of St. Louis Park, unless recommended
by the city manager and approved by the city council.
• The organization provides services that are not provided by the city and county and
benefit the residents of the city.
• The funding must comply with public purpose expenditures
• Budget implications are considered by the city council for all requests
XYXY
3Q
169
169
169
LYNNAVESLOUISIANAAVESMINNETONKA BLVD
29TH ST W
TEXASAVESMORNINGSIDE RD
EXCELSIOR BLVD
3 6TH ST W
L A K E S T WM
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
16TH ST W
PARK PLACE BLVD42ND ST W VERNONAVESKIPLINGAVES2 5 T H ST WHAMPSHIREAVES
BELTLINEBLVDUTICAAVESC E D A R LA K E R D
32ND ST W
WOODDALE AVEALABAMAAVESS E R V I C E D R HIGHW AY7WAYZATA BLVD
HIGHWAY 169FRANCEAVESLOUISIANAAVES28TH ST W
33RD ST W
YOSEMITEAVESMONTEREYAVESTEXASAVESHIGHWAY 7
34TH ST W HIGHWAY100SZARTHANAVES4 1 S T S T WZARTHANAVES C
E
D
A
R
LAKE RD
WEBSTERAVESC E D A R LA K E R D
BROOKAVESMACKEYAVESFOREST RD
UTICAAVESWA LKER STVIRGINIAAVES
JOPPAAVESGLENHURSTAVESLAKE ST W INGLEWOODAVESWALKER ST
INTERSTATE394 SBHWY100STOEBI394GEORGIAAVESTOLEDOAVESHIGHWAY100S22ND S T W
26TH S T W
CLUB RD
HIGHWAY169GOODRICH AVE
14TH ST W
XENWOODAVESDAKOTAAVESLOUISIANAAVES36TH ST W
WA LKERSTPENNSYLVANIAAVESSHELARDPKWYFRANCEAVES2NDSTNWGLENHURSTAVESC O U N T Y R O A D 2 5
VIRGINIA CIR N
XENWOODAVESOXFOR
D
S
T
26TH ST W
RHODEISLANDAVESEXCEL
SI
O
R
B
L
V
DAQUILAAVESEBI394TOSBHWY100S
YOSEMITE AVE SCOLORADOAVESFORD RD28TH ST W
GORHAMAVEHIGHWAY 100 SIDAHOAVESFLAGAVES36TH ST W
35TH ST W
BARRY
STBRUNSWICKAVESOTTAWAAVESBROOKSIDEAVESUTAHD R
35TH ST W KENTUCKYAVESWESTWOODHI
LLSDR
27TH ST W27TH ST W
UTICAAVESFLAGAVES33RD ST W
26TH ST W
31ST ST W
VALLAC
H
E
R
A
V
E
32ND ST W
1ST ST NW40TH ST W
16TH ST W
NATCHEZAVES22ND ST W
HAMILTON ST
DIVISION ST
24TH ST
W
34TH ST W
INTERSTATE 394
25 1/2 ST W
XENWOOD AVE S
C O U N T Y R O A D 2 5
S ER V I C E D R HIGHWAY 7
3 7 T H S T W36 1/2 ST WEDGEWOODAVES BASSWOOD RD
EDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
31ST ST W394HOVLN
DAKOTAAVES2 6 T H S T W
W A Y Z A T A BLVD
1 8 T H STWE LIO TV IE W R D
ALABAMAAVESOXFORD STCOLORADOAVES
ZARTHANAVES3 7 T H ST WUTAHAVESSBHWY100STO WB I394
INGLEWOODAVESKIPLINGAVESSUMTERAVESAQUILALNSJOPPAAVESF O R D RDBRUNSWICKAVESJERSEYAVESHUNTINGTON AVE S
2 3 R D S T W
KENTUCKYAVESALLEYUTICAAVESWEBSTERAVESWB
I3
9
4
TONBHWY100
S
31ST ST WAQUILAAVES
ZINRANAVESMARYLANDAVESNEVADAAVESOREGONAVESVERNONAVESNEVADAAVESVIRGINIA CIR S
EDGEWOODAVESHAMPSHIREAVESJERSEYAVESBLACKSTONEAVESFLORIDAAVESPENNSYLVANIAAVESMARYLANDAVESDAKOTAAVESSALEMAVESRALEIGHAVESQUENTINAVESHUNTINGTONAVESTOLEDOAVESSALEMAVESNORTH
S
TMELROSEAVE
S
394 HOV LN
WEBSTERAVES35T H S T WDUKE DR40TH L
N
W
22ND ST W
STA NLEN RDXYLO N AVESP A R K GLENR D
POWELLRD
28TH S
T
W
2 3 R D STW
H O S P I T A L
SERVICEDRRIDGEDR7
394
394
100
394
100
25
5
3
100
3
7
5
5
17
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
´
2019 Projects
Legend
Historic Walker/Lake Street Rehab (Heiser)
Street Rehab (Wiesen)
Historic Walker/Lake Alley Rehab (Heiser)
Alley Rehab (Elkin)
MSA Street Rehab (Shamla)
Proposed Sidewalks
Proposed Bikeways
Potential Alternate Sidewalk
3Q Water Treatment Plan #6 (Recoat Reservoir)
(Wiesen)
XY Sumter Pond Rehab (Elkin)
XY Oregon Pond Rehab (Elkin)
!@ Gorham Parking Lot Rehab (Elkin)
!@ Lake and Walker Parking Lot Rehab (Heiser)
"Dakota Park Bridge Construction (Sullivan)
Dakota Park Bridge Reconstruction (Sullivan)
$+Wolfe Park Pickleball Court Construction
(Walsh)
89:|Cedar Manor School Playground Equipment
Replacement (Walsh)
89:|Sunshine Park Playground Equipment
Replacement (Walsh)
89:|Willow Park Playground Equipment
Replacement (Walsh)
!>Carpenter Park Tennis Court Reconstruction
(Walsh)
²³Westwood Hills Nature Center New Building
(Walsh)
City Limits
Date: 10/18/2018
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 9
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2019 2028thru
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
Basset Creek Watershed Management
405,500405,500Westwood Hills Nature Center
Stormwater Plan
36180002 1
Basset Creek Watershed Management Comm. Total 405,500405,500
Cable TV
20,00020,000Closed Captioning 11191010 3
7,5007,500ParkTV Production Van Exterior
Wrap
11191011 3
140,000140,000Van Cameras 11201001 3
Cable TV Total 167,50027,500 140,000
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment
20,00020,000Van Camera Cases 11151002 3
13,00013,000Van Camera Cables 11151003 3
10,00010,000Tripods for On Location 11151007 3
11,00011,000Server Upgrade for 15/96 11151010 1
40,00040,000Council Chambers HD pan/tilt
cameras
11172007 1
7,5007,500Camcorders111810051
28,00028,000Webstreaming Computer
Replacement
11181008 n/a
500500DVD Recorders 11191001 1
30,00030,000Slow-motion replay 11191002 1
70070012-channel audio mixer 11191003 1
9,0009,000NLE stations for Community TV users 11191006 1
900900Microphones111910071
1,5001,500Tripods111910081
35,00035,000Replacement edit systems 11191009 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 12019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 10
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
20,00020,000Van Camera Cases 11201002 3
13,00013,000Van Camera Cables 11201003 3
15,00015,000LCD monitors 11201004 3
2,5002,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder 11201008 1
12,00012,000Tripods for On Location 11201010 1
4,2004,200SD/HD converter 11201011 1
16,50016,500Video Switcher 11201012 1
1,5001,500DVD recorder 11201013 1
28,20028,200Playback systems 11201014 1
7,0007,000Production switcher 11201015 1
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant Total 327,000104,100 51,400 1,500 7,000 33,000 130,000
Capital Replacement Fund
50,00025,000 25,000IR: PCI Re-Assessment / Training /
Security
13125001 1
920,00092,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000IR: Hosted / Managed Services / DR
/ BC
13135001 3
20,00020,000OR: AVL / GPS 13135004 3
425,00065,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000Admin Serv:Document Mgmt System
Maintenance
13155006 3
18,50018,500IR: MyStLouisPark CRM 13155007 1
150,000150,000IR: City Hall Council Chambers AV
Upgrade
13155008 1
15,00015,000Eng: Survey GPS 13155016 3
100,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000IR: Website Maintenance 13165004 1
48,00016,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000Admin Serv: HR Time Management
System
13165007 3
252,00022,000 54,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000Insp / Comm Dev: Electronic Plans
Review Software
13165009 3
25,00025,000Eng: GPS Base Station 13175001 3
8,0008,000Eng: Trimble R2 GPS Receiver 13175004 3
60,00030,000 30,000IR: Wireless Controller Expansion 13175006 1
150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Admin Serv: Agenda Management
System
13175007 3
200,000200,000Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll
App Replacement
13185001 1
50,00050,000Fire: Zuercher / Patient Contact
Mobile Solution
13185002 3
35,00010,000 15,000 10,000Fire: Station Cameras / EOC in 2025 13185003 3
100,000100,000IR: Office 365 Project
Implementation & Training
13185004 3
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 22019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 11
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
95,00095,000Insp: PIMS / PDS Upgrades 13185005 1
20,00020,000IR: Network Equipment Battery
(UPS) Backup
13185009 1
50,00050,000Fire: 800 MHz Paging Upgrade 13205001 3
2,800,000280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000IR: On-going Software Licenses,
Mtce, Development
13995001 1
1,250,000125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000IR: On-going Network Adds &
Replacement
13995002 1
1,075,000125,000 100,000 110,000 100,000 100,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 100,000 110,000IR: On-going Hardware Adds &
Replacement
13995003 1
35,00035,000Eng: Engineering Total Station 13995010 1
55,00010,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Police: EOC Computer / Phone
Equipment Replacement
13995013 3
2,432,647215,378 220,763 226,282 231,939 237,737 243,681 249,773 256,017 268,818 282,259IR: Tablet / Smartphone Hardware
and Services
13995015 1
38,00019,000 19,000Facilities: City Hall Cameras 13995016 3
250,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000Admin Serv - Hubble Budgeting
Annual Maintenance
13995017 3
75,00025,000 50,000OR: Nature Center Surveillance
Cameras
13995019 3
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000IR: Surveillance Camera and S2
Locks Maintenance
13995026 3
68,0006,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800IR: Central City Hall Plotter 13995029 3
100,000100,000IR: Telephone Handset / Handless
Upgrades
13995035 3
71,6005,700 5,700 13,000 5,700 13,000 5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700IR: Remote Building Large Scanner /
Plotter
13995036 3
100,00040,000 60,000Fire: Stations A/V and EOC
Presentation Equipment
13995037 3
50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000IR: Wireless Hotspot Additions /
Replacements
13995041 3
70,00035,000 35,000IR: UHL Camera Servers
Replacement - City Hall
13995057 3
150,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000IR: Adobe Software Products
Licensing
13995058 1
80,00080,000IR: On-Going Monitor Replacements 13995059 1
485,00040,000 45,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000IR: Fiber Locates 13995065 1
220,00040,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000IR: Fiber Asset Management 13995066 3
1,000,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000Police: Body and Squad Dash
Cameras
13995067 3
120,00012,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000Admin Serv: Tungsten Elec
Accounts Payable
13995068 3
20,00010,000 10,000SWAT Rifle replacement 20180001 1
16,50016,500SWAT Robot 20180002 3
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 32019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 12
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
14,0007,000 7,000SWAT Ballistic Shields 20180003 1
30,00030,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 31150001 1
80,00080,000City Hall Floor 3 Roof Top AC Unit 31170003 1
25,00025,000City Hall Electric Vehicle Charger 31190001 1
8,0008,000City Hall W indow Replacement 31190002 5
10,00010,000City Hall CD Cubicle Rearraigment 31190003 3
8,0008,000City Hall Planning/Inspections
Monitors
31190004 5
18,00018,000City Hall/Police Generator Transfer
Switch Service
31190005 1
80,00080,000City Hall Timber Retaining Walls 31200001 1
85,00085,000City Hall Bridge 31200003 3
32,00015,000 17,000City Hall/Police Campus Landscaping 31210001 1
35,00035,000City Hall 2nd Floor Celing Tile
Replacement
31210002 5
25,00025,000City Hall ITE & Gould Elect Panel
Replacement
31230001 3
35,00035,000City Hall Generator Head Gasket 31240001 1
8,0008,000City Hall Stair Carpet Replacement 31240002 5
200,000200,000CH Windows, Ext. Coatings and
Caulking Replacement
31250001 n/a
15,00015,000City Hall Window Blinds 31250002 5
35,00035,000City Hall First Floor Carpet
Replacement
31260001 3
100,000100,000CH Access Control System
Replacement, City Wide
31260002 3
15,00015,000CH Update HVAC Controls 31270002 3
20,00020,000Police Parking and Training
Feasability Study
32180004 3
55,00055,000Police StationShooting Range
Exhaust
32190002 1
10,00010,000Police Lobby Furniture 32190003 1
30,00030,000Police- Replace Ceiling Tiles 32210002 3
50,00050,000Police Station Replace Light Fixtures 32210003 1
140,000140,000PD Indivdual Office & Conf Room
Remodel
32210004 1
200,000200,000Police Dispatch and Kitchen Remodel 32220001 1
25,00025,000Police Report Writing Room Remodel 32220002 3
75,00075,000Police Station Remodel Restrooms 32220003 1
50,00050,000Police Parking Gate 32230001 3
25,00025,000Police Station Blind Replacement 32240002 3
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 42019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 13
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
65,00065,000Police Station Exterior Masonry
Maintenance
32270001 3
18,00018,000Police Station Water Heaters 32270002 1
12,00012,000PD Replace HVAC Controls 32270003 3
90,00090,000Police Locker Replacement 32280001 3
75,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000MSC & Fire Stations CO Nox Sensor
Replacement
33140002 1
15,00015,000MSC Air Compressor Replacement 33190001 1
200,000200,000MSC Car Wash Unit Replace with
Automatic
33190003 1
5,0005,000MSC Office LED Bulb Replacement 33190004 3
120,000120,000MSC Solar Panel Addition 33190005 3
20,00020,000MSC Convert Exterior HID to LED 33200001 3
50,00050,000MSC 2nd Bay-Sealant 33200003 1
85,00085,000MSC Fuel Station Replacement 33200004 n/a
25,00025,000MSC Paint Booth Maintenance 33210002 3
12,00012,000MSC Replace HVAC Controls 33210003 3
40,00040,000MSC Exterior Fence 33210004 3
20,00020,000MSC Traffic Shop Floor Coating 33210005 5
50,00050,000MSC 3rd Bay Sealant and Stripping 33210006 1
400,000400,000MSC Bays 1, 2 & 3 Roofing 33220001 3
21,00010,000 11,000MSC Campus Landscaping 33220002 1
75,00075,000MSC Access Control/Fobs 33220004 5
180,000180,000MSC Solar Panels 33230001 3
250,000250,000MSC Heat Exchanger Ventilation 33230002 3
110,000110,000MSC Hoist Replacement 33230003 3
100,000100,000MSC Boiler Replacement 33240002 3
18,00018,000MSC Carpet Replacement 33250001 3
100,000100,000MSC Interior Light Fixtures
Replacment
33250002 1
250,000250,000MSC Office Remodel 33280001 3
100,000100,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Apparatus bay
floor coating
34160002 1
50,00050,000Fire Station #1 Training Tower
modifications
34190001 1
275,000275,000Fire Station 1 &2 Alerting System 34190002 1
25,00025,000Fire Station # 1 Entry Canopy 34190003 3
15,00015,000Fire Station 1&2 Mattress
replacement
34190005 1
110,000110,000Fire Station 1 Decontamination
Laundry
34190006 3
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 52019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 14
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
35,00035,000Fire Stations Replace Exercise
Equipment
34200001 5
12,00012,000Fire Stations Replace HVAC Controls 34200003 3
15,00015,000Fire Station #1 and #2 Landscaping 34240001 1
18,00018,000Fire 1&2 Water Heaters 34240002 3
35,00035,000FS #1 and #2 Carpet Replacement 3424001 1
60,00060,000Fire Station #1 light fixture
replacements
34260001 1
100,000100,000Fire Station Office Furniture 34270001 3
80,00080,000Fire 1&2 Boilers 34280001 3
45,00045,000Fire Station #2 Replace light fixtures 35250001 1
32,0008,000 8,000 8,000 8,000Thermal Imagers 65990001 1
84,00021,000 21,000 21,000 21,000Outside Warning Sirens 65990002 1
373,283373,283SCBA659900031
30,00030,000Hydraulic Rescue Tool 65990004 5
105,00050,000 55,000Auto-CPR Device 65990005 1
150,000150,000Turnouts659900061
35,00035,000Helmets/Boots 65990007 3
18,0005,500 6,000 6,500Air Monitors 65990008 3
19,073,3991,672,865 2,102,036 1,818,407 2,262,828 1,615,735 1,431,992 942,733 2,256,431 3,121,990 1,848,382Annual Equipment Replacement
Program
E - XX01 1
75,50011,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 29,500Laser/Radar and Message Board PD - 1 3
Capital Replacement Fund Total 38,408,4293,867,743 4,057,799 3,742,989 4,430,767 4,313,055 3,006,173 2,912,506 3,887,948 4,618,308 3,571,141
E-911 Funds
165,00080,000 85,000Fire / Police: Dispatch Voice
Recorders
13995007 1
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000IR / Communications: Reverse 911 -
ParkAlert
13995009 3
326,02925,921 27,217 28,578 30,007 31,507 33,082 34,736 36,473 38,297 40,211Police: Zuercher CAD Module
Annual Fees
13995042 1
150,000150,000911 Server Replacement PD - 2 1
E-911 Funds Total 801,02941,921 43,217 44,578 46,007 277,507 49,082 50,736 52,473 54,297 141,211
EDA Development Fund
250,000250,000IR: Fiber - Sidewalks / Streets /
Citywide
13155002 3
400,000200,000 200,000SWLRT: Stations Technology 13995051 3
1,333,333666,667 666,666SWLRT- Base Design 40199000 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 62019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 15
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
593,683148,422 445,261SWLRT- LRCI 32 - CSAH 25 @
Beltline Blvd.
40199003 1
74,75074,750Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
EDA Development Fund Total 2,651,7661,265,089 1,386,677
G.O. Bonds
2,650,000750,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IR: Fiber - Sidewalks / Streets /
Citywide
13155002 3
12,500,00012,500,000Westwood Naturce Center new
building
36190002 1
416,946416,946Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
1,764,1001,764,100Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
730,250730,250Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
1,532,0131,532,013Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
4,181,6004,181,600CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40192000 1
1,000,0001,000,000SWLRT- Base Design 40199000 1
623,23864,556 558,682SWLRT- Regional Trail Bridge
Upgrades
40199004 1
100,000100,000SWLRT- Whistle Quiet @ Wooddale
and Beltline
40199005 1
721,625721,625Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
1,124,1251,124,125Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
2,652,5002,652,500CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40202000 1
787,750787,750Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
2,364,0002,364,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40212000 1
796,375796,375Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
1,587,5001,587,500CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40222000 1
483,000483,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
6,240,0006,240,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40232000 1
3,490,000250,000 510,000 930,000 1,800,000County - Mtka Blvd (Hwy 100 to
France)
40237000 1
710,125710,125Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
287,500287,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
845,250845,250Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
350,750350,750Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
968,875968,875Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 72019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 16
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
710,125710,125Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
G.O. Bonds Total 49,617,64721,175,365 7,221,032 3,801,750 3,393,875 7,753,000 2,997,625 945,250 450,750 1,068,875 810,125
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds
2,338,2672,338,267SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at
Beltline Station
40199006 1
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds Total 2,338,2672,338,267
Hennepin County
45,00045,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
Hennepin County Total 45,00045,000
Hockey Association
800,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Rink 24145019 5
Hockey Association Total 800,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Met Council Grant
2,700,0002,700,000SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at
Beltline Station
40199006 1
Met Council Grant Total 2,700,0002,700,000
Municipal State Aid
2,962,5002,962,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Louisiana Ave)
40171100 1
3,875,1503,875,150Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
4,838,7694,838,769Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
2,262,5002,262,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas
@ Mtka)
40201100 3
2,650,1752,650,175Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
1,575,0001,575,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
Texas to Kentucky)
40211100 1
2,312,5002,312,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
TH169 to Texas)
40221100 1
100,000100,000Railroad - Whistle Quiet Zones 40221300 5
2,537,5002,537,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard
Pkwy)
40231100 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 82019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 17
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
4,087,5004,087,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
1,162,5001,162,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th
St)
40251100 1
1,380,0001,380,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)40261100 1
1,380,0001,380,000Street - MSA street Rehab (TBD)40271100 1
1,380,0001,380,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)40281100 1
Municipal State Aid Total 32,504,0944,838,769 8,787,825 4,537,500 2,412,500 2,537,500 4,087,500 1,162,500 1,380,000 1,380,000 1,380,000
Park Improvement Fund
37,20037,200OR: Activities Registration/Facilities
Mgmt System
13185008 3
80,0008,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software 13995011 3
210,00043,000 62,000 43,000 62,000OR: Rec Center / ROC / Lot Camera
Replacements
13995025 1
60,0005,000 25,000 5,000 25,000OR: Oak Hill Camera/Security/Wi-Fi
Replacements
13995052 3
34,00011,000 12,000 11,000OR: Park Shelter (Smaller) Camera
Replacements
13995053 3
5,0005,000OR: Wolfe Park / Amphitheatre /
Pool Wi-Fi Replace
13995054 3
30,00030,000OR: Birchwood Cameras / S2
Security
13995060 3
15,00015,000OR: Wolfe Park Pavilion S2 /
Amphitheatre Cameras
13995061 3
40,00040,000OR: Rec Center East Arena Area
Sound System / PA
13995063 1
65,00065,000OR: Rec Banquet Room & Gallery
A/V System Replace.
13995064 1
20,00020,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Aquila Park 21190304 3
10,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Birchwood Park 21190613 1
20,00020,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Dakota Park 21191805 3
86,25086,250Dakota Bridge 21191806 1
75,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Dakota Park 21191815 1
45,00045,000Trail Reconstruction - Fern Hill Park 21192116 1
50,00050,00040th & France Fencing & Parking Lot 21193202 3
10,00010,000Floor Upgrade - Wolfe Park Building 21196403 1
20,00020,000ADA Connections to Picnic
Shelter/Playgrounds
21199901 1
15,00015,000Adult Fitness in Parks 21199902 5
30,00030,000Trail Sealcoat - Various Trails 21199917 1
15,00015,000Trail Reconstruction - Bronx Park 21200912 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 92019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 18
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
275,000275,000Dakota Park LED Baseball Field
Light Replacement
21201801 3
60,00060,000ADA Trail Compliance 21202401 1
20,00020,000Trail Reconstruction - Keystone Park 21203013 1
10,00010,000Louisiana Oaks Park & Hwy 7
Interchange Landscape
21203603 1
20,00020,000Trail Reconstruction - Northside Park 21204314 1
15,00015,000ADA Compliant - Picnic Tables 21209901 1
113,500113,500Trail Reconstruction - Bass Lake Park 21210411 3
165,000165,000Carpenter Park LED Ballfield
Replacement
21211101 3
145,000145,000Tennis Court Renovation, Carpenter
Park
21211119 3
20,00020,000Batting Cages - Cedar Knoll Park /
Carlson Field
21211303 1
65,00065,000Trail Reconstruction - Louisiana
Oaks Park
21213614 3
75,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Oak Hill Park 21214415 3
85,00085,000Trail Reconstruction - Wolfe Park 21216416 3
45,00045,000Trail Reconstruction - Franklin 21219912 3
45,00045,000Trail Reconstruction - Jordan 21219913 3
50,00050,000Trail Reconstruction - Minnehaha
Creek
21224109 3
30,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Otten Pond 21234611 3
10,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Roxbury Park 21235112 3
10,00010,000Trail Reconstruction - Twin Lakes
Park
21235813 3
2,0002,000Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll
Park
21240130 1
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park 21240306 1
75,00075,000Trail Reconstruction - Aquila Park 21240317 3
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Birchwood
Park
21240607 1
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Browndale
Park
21241008 1
6,0006,000Repaint Park Building - Carpenter
Park
21241109 1
50,00050,000Trail Reconstruction - Carpenter Park 21241118 3
4,0004,000Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park 21241811 1
5,0005,000Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park 21242112 1
30,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Jersey Park 21242719 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 102019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 19
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Louisiana
Oaks Park
21243613 1
7,0007,000Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park 21244214 1
6,0006,000Repaint Park Building - Northside
Park
21244315 1
9,0009,000Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park 21244416 1
40,00040,000Trail Reconstruction - Lamplighter
Park
21253401 3
30,00030,000Trail Reconstruction - Westwood
Hills NC
21256202 3
100,000100,000Wolfe Park Amphitheater Pavers 21256403 3
100,000100,000Trail Reconstruction 21259903 3
150,000150,000Park Shelter Replacement 21259905 3
100,000100,000Trail Lighting 21259906 3
130,000130,000Trail from Hampshire Park to Otten
Pond
21269903 n/a
100,000100,000Court Resurface - Wolfe Park (Pklbll
& Bsktbll)
21276403 3
200,000200,000Park Building Upgrades 21279903 n/a
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Ainsworth
Park
21990101 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Aquila Park 21990301 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Bronx Park 21990902 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Browndale
Park
21991002 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Carpenter
Park
21991102 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedar Manor
Park
21991403 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedarhurst
Park
21991503 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Center Park 21991604 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Parkview
Park
21991712 1
67,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Dakota Park 21991801 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Edgebrook
Park
21991918 1
85,00085,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Fern Hill Park 21992110 1
67,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Hampshire
Park
21992401 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jackley Park 21992611 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Jorvig Park 21992801 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 112019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 20
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Knollwood
Green
21993217 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Louisiana
Oaks Park
21993601 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl -
Meadowbrook Manor Park
21993801 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Minikahda
Vista Park
21994002 1
67,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oak Hill Park
(Tot)
21994402 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oak Hill Park
(Big)
21994403 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oregon Park 21994502 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl -
Pennsylvania Park
21994803 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunset Park 21995403 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunshine
Park
21995406 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Texa-Tonka
Park
21995607 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Webster Park 21996112 1
100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Westwood
Hills NC
21996204 1
65,00065,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Willow Park 21996308 1
95,50095,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park
EVOS
21996402 1
67,00067,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park
(tot)
21996403 1
140,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Playground Woodchips 21999902 1
60,00060,000Trail Repayment - Minnehaha Creek 21999903 1
200,000200,000Playground Equipment Replacement 21999904 1
60,00010,000 25,000 25,000Climate Action Plan 21999906 3
205,00080,000 125,000Trail Restoration 21999907 3
475,000175,000 300,000Pickleball Court Addition/Court
Repairs-2023
21999908 n/a
15,00015,000Community Garden - Site TBD 22191035 1
10,00010,000Trail Access Rebuild for Louisiana
Canoe Landing
22193603 1
15,00015,000Minnehaha Creek Restoration 22204110 1
550,00075,000 75,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000Tree Replacement 22999901 3
100,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Buckthorn Management 22999903 3
30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck
Repl, Phase 2
23196218 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 122019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 21
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
80,00080,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House
ADA Compliance
23196219 1
40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Rotary Deck
Rebuild
23206201 1
25,00025,000Westwood Hills NC Trail Bench
Replacement
23206214 1
40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Staircase Rebuild 23216216 1
75,00075,000Westwood Hills NC Water Garden,
Phase 2
23226210 5
50,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck
Repl, Phase 3
23246220 1
100,000100,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck
Repl, Phase 1
23256203 3
50,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Waterfall 23256204 5
30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Trail Sign
Replacement
23266202 1
10,00010,000Westwood Hills NC Waterfall Deck
Redecking
23286203 1
55,00020,000 20,000 15,000Westwood Hillls NC Master
Revegetation Plan
23996227 3
15,00015,000Rec Center Banquet Room & Gallery
Chair Repl.
24195010 3
50,00050,000Rec Center East Arena Locker
Room Remodel
24195011 1
75,00075,000Rec Center Front Office AC
Replacement
24195012 1
30,00030,000Rec Center East Arena Score Boards 24195013 1
110,000110,000Rec Center Banquet Room AC
Replacement
24205003 1
200,000200,000Rec Center Signage 24205008 3
75,00075,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Sun
Shelter Repl
24205010 1
10,00010,000Rec Center Rental Skate
Replacement (Ph 1)
24205011 1
32,50032,500Rec Center Scoreboard Replacement 24205012 3
20,00020,000Rec Center Electric Vehicle Station
Addition
24215003 1
50,00050,000Rec Center Parking Lot Light
Replacement
24215004 1
530,000530,000Rec Center Parking Lot Replacement 24215005 1
250,000250,000Rec Center Arena Rubber Floor 24215007 1
10,00010,000Rec Center Rental Skate
Replacement (Ph 2)
242150110 1
50,00050,000Rec Center Lighting Upgrade 24215018 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 132019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 22
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
60,00060,000Rec Center East Arena Painting 24225006 1
25,00025,000Rec Center Skate Sharpener 24225010 1
75,00075,000Rec Center Arena Water Treatment
Repl
24235008 1
75,00075,000Rec Center West Arena Painting 24235009 1
400,000400,000Rec Center East Arena
Dehumidification
24245003 1
500,000500,000Rec Center Generator Replacement 24245004 1
25,00025,000Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet
Replacement
24255003 3
800,000800,000Rec Center West Arena Roof
Replacement
24255010 1
100,000100,000Rec Center West Arena Locker
Room Remodel
24265003 3
1,000,0001,000,000Rec Center Boiler Replacement 24265004 1
150,000150,000Rec Center Cooling Tower
Replacement
24275003 1
450,000150,000 150,000 150,000Rec Center Dasher Board
Replacement
24995003 1
30,00015,000 15,000Rec Center Arena Compressor
Rebuild
24995006 1
150,00025,000 50,000 75,000Rec Center Dasher Board Repair 24995008 3
170,00015,000 20,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 25,000Rec Center Landscaping (woodchips)24995017 3
25,00025,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Main Drain
Replacement
25200217 1
200,000200,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Amenity
Replacement
25205005 3
10,00010,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Feasibility
Study
25210203 3
100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Locker
Room Remodel
25220205 3
100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park
Rehabilitation
25235003 1
100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Slide
Recoating
25240203 1
75,00075,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Umbrella &
Sun Shltr Rplcm
25270203 3
100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Feature(s)25270204 3
60,00010,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck
Furniture
25990212 1
15,0005,000 5,000 5,000Rec Center Aquatic Park
Concession Eqpt. Rplcmt
25990215 3
75,00075,000ROC Sport Court Addition 27236603 3
30,00010,000 10,000 10,000ROC Roof Assessment 27996603 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 142019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 23
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
175,00080,000 95,000ROC Turf Replacement 27996604 1
Park Improvement Fund Total 14,648,9501,733,950 1,436,000 2,227,500 1,205,500 1,060,000 1,250,000 1,996,000 1,587,000 1,202,000 951,000
Pavement Management Fund
2,627,6962,147,696 480,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
92,00092,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40190003 1
2,921,0002,921,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
427,790427,790Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 4)
40191200 1
460,200460,200Alley Construction 40191500 3
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40200003 1
2,886,5002,886,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
275,920275,920Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 6)
40201200 1
552,500552,500Alley Construction 40201500 3
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40210003 1
3,151,0003,151,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
471,250471,250Alley Construction 40211500 3
38,58838,588Parking Lot - City Hall Lower 40211600 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40220003 1
3,185,5003,185,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
1,541,0001,541,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40221050 1
408,965408,965Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 8)
40221200 1
573,950573,950Alley Construction 40221500 3
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40230003 1
1,932,0001,932,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
736,000736,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40231050 1
342,790342,790Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 7)
40231200 1
420,550420,550Alley Construction 40231500 3
461,500461,500Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha
Creek
40231700 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40240003 1
2,840,5002,840,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
966,000966,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40241050 1
381,100381,100Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 1)
40241200 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 152019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 24
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
286,000286,000Alley Construction 40241500 3
70,62070,620Parking Lot - MSC 40241600 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40250003 1
3,381,0003,381,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
416,928416,928Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 2)
40251200 1
288,600288,600Alley Construction 40251500 3
17,85017,850Parking Lot - Fire Stn #1 40251601 1
12,60012,600Parking Lot - Fire Stn #2 40251602 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40260003 1
1,403,0001,403,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
632,500632,500Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40261050 1
299,596299,596Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 3)
40261200 1
206,050206,050Alley Construction 40261500 3
105,919105,919Parking Lot - Louisiana Park & Ride
(N&S)
40261600 1
873,750873,750Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40270003 1
3,875,5003,875,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
489,590489,590Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 4)
40271200 1
82,50082,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40280003 1
2,840,5002,840,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
380,335380,335Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 5)
40281200 1
Pavement Management Fund Total 44,099,6376,039,186 4,369,420 3,755,938 5,791,915 3,975,340 4,732,639 4,186,878 3,497,396 4,447,590 3,303,335
Police & Fire Pension
400,000400,000Police: New CAD/RMS/Mobile Suite 13145010 3
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000Police: ZuercherTech Crime Analysis
Add-On Module
13155020 3
50,00050,000Fire: Patient Contact / Records
Solution
13175009 3
100,000100,000Police: 800 MHz Mobile Police
Radios
13995004 1
490,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 145,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 145,000Police: Squad Computers / Cellular
Service
13995006 1
50,00025,000 25,000Police: Jail Cameras (17)13995021 1
40,00020,000 20,000Police: Non-Jail Cameras 13995022 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 162019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 25
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
110,00055,000 55,000Police: Dispatch Camera Viewing
Workstations
13995024 1
13,0006,500 6,500Police: Interview Room Cameras 13995040 1
260,000140,000 120,000Police: Comm Van Upgrades / EOC
Presentation Equip
13995043 3
78,00078,000Fire: 800 MHz Mobile Fire Radios 13995050 1
86,50010,000 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500Police: Specialized Dictation System 13995056 1
Police & Fire Pension Total 1,837,500285,500 209,500 49,500 49,500 249,500 456,000 189,500 49,500 49,500 249,500
Police Budget
18,00018,000SWAT Robot 20180002 3
120,00060,000 60,000Police-ALPR replacement 61990001 3
Police Budget Total 138,00060,000 18,000 60,000
PW Operations Budget
46,50046,500Traffic Signal - Repl Control Cabinets 40161300 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40190003 1
4,8104,810Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 4)
40191200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40200003 1
12,48012,480Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 6)
40201200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40210003 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40220003 1
3,0353,035Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 8)
40221200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40230003 1
28,01028,010Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 7)
40231200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40240003 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40250003 1
5,3725,372Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 2)
40251200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40260003 1
30,00430,004Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 3)
40261200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40270003 1
4,8104,810Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 4)
40271200 1
95,00095,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40280003 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 172019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 26
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
11,06511,065Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets
(Area 5)
40281200 1
170,000170,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2019)
50194101 1
16,00016,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2019)50194301 3
175,000175,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2020)
50204101 1
16,50016,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2020)50204301 3
180,000180,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2021)
50214101 1
17,00017,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2021)50214301 3
14,00014,000Replace Salt Brine Maker 50214401 3
185,000185,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2022)
50224101 1
17,50017,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2022)50224301 3
190,000190,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2023)
50234101 1
18,00018,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2023)50234301 3
195,000195,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2024)
50244101 1
18,50018,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2024)50244301 3
200,000200,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2025)
50254101 1
19,00019,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2025)50254301 3
205,000205,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2026)
50264101 3
19,50019,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2026)50264301 3
210,000210,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2027)
50274101 3
20,00020,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2027)50274301 3
215,000215,000Street Light Annual Replacement
(2028)
50284101 3
20,50020,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2028)50284301 3
PW Operations Budget Total 3,217,586332,310 298,980 306,000 300,535 331,010 308,500 319,372 349,504 329,810 341,565
Sanitary Sewer Utility
6,670667667667667667667667667667667Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI
Service
13155014 3
51,00051,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App
Replacement
13195001 1
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software 13995011 3
15,00010,000 5,000OR: MSC Cameras 13995031 3
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 182019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 27
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Louisiana Ave)
40171100 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
53,57153,571Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
480,000480,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40193000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas
@ Mtka)
40201100 3
264,000264,000Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
500,000500,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40203000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
74,05274,052Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
Texas to Kentucky)
40211100 1
520,000520,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40213000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40221050 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
TH169 to Texas)
40221100 1
540,000540,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40223000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40231050 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard
Pkwy)
40231100 1
560,000560,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40233000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40241050 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
580,000580,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40243000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
49,50049,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th
St)
40251100 1
600,000600,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40253000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
55,00055,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40261050 1
49,50049,500Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
620,000620,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40263000 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 192019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 28
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
630,000630,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40273000 1
275,000275,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
630,000630,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab 40283000 1
600,000600,000Upgrade SCADA Control System
(2018,2019)
53185006 3
38,00038,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #7)53195101 3
58,00058,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #19)53205101 3
41,00041,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #5)53215101 3
35,00035,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #15)53225101 3
77,50077,500Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #23)53225102 3
65,00065,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #21)53235101 3
65,00065,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #22)53235102 3
67,50067,500Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #13)53245101 3
70,00070,000Sanitary Lift Station: Replace MCC
(LS-19)
53255104 3
80,00080,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #14)53265101 3
50,00050,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #15)53275101 3
Sanitary Sewer Utility Total 10,902,7931,528,238 1,214,167 976,219 1,048,667 1,086,167 1,048,667 1,011,167 1,096,167 971,667 921,667
Solid Waste Utility
50,00050,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App
Replacement
13195001 1
80,0008,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software 13995011 3
10,0005,000 5,000OR: MSC Cameras 13995031 3
Solid Waste Utility Total 140,00013,000 58,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 13,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
Special Assessments
312,487312,487Parking Lot - Gorham 40171600 1
108,749108,749Parking Lot - Lake St & Walker 40191600 1
397,058397,058Parking Lot - Lake and Wooddale
(NW corner)
40201600 1
71,02671,026Parking Lot - 27th St & Louisiana 40221600 1
129,953129,953Parking Lot - Alabama & Excelsior
Blvd
40231600 1
Special Assessments Total 1,019,273421,236 397,058 71,026 129,953
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 202019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 29
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
State of Minnesota
1,050,0001,050,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
180,000180,000Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha
Creek
40231700 1
1,652,7501,652,750Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
State of Minnesota Total 2,882,7501,050,000 180,000 1,652,750
Stormwater Utility
6,670667667667667667667667667667667Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI
Service
13155014 3
51,00051,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App
Replacement
13195001 1
15,0005,000 10,000OR: MSC Cameras 13995031 3
86,25086,250Dakota Bridge 21191806 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Louisiana Ave)
40171100 1
550,000550,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
287,500287,500Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40190003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
526,788526,788Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
247,800247,800Alley Construction 40191500 3
312,500312,500Storm Water- Sumter Pond Rehab 40194000 1
190,000190,000Storm Water- Wetland Inventory
Update
40194100 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40194500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40200003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas
@ Mtka)
40201100 3
275,000275,000Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Monterey)
40201101 1
297,500297,500Alley Construction 40201500 3
187,500187,500Storm Water- Klodt Pond WQ
Improvements
40204000 1
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Aquila Park WQ
Improvements
40204001 3
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 212019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 30
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40204500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40210003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
Texas to Kentucky)
40211100 1
253,750253,750Alley Construction 40211500 3
93,75093,750Storm Water- Minnehaha Creek
Equalizer Pipe
40214000 3
437,500437,500Storm Water- Louisiana Oaks &
South Oak Pond Rehab
40214001 1
312,500312,500Storm Water- Westdale Sed Basin
Rehab
40214002 1
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40214500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40220003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
275,000275,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40221050 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
TH169 to Texas)
40221100 1
309,050309,050Alley Construction 40221500 3
312,500312,500Storm Water- Otten Pond Rehab 40224000 1
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40224500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40230003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
165,000165,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40231050 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard
Pkwy)
40231100 1
226,450226,450Alley Construction 40231500 3
250,000250,000Bridge - 34th Street @ Minnehaha
Creek
40231700 1
93,75093,750Storm Water- Shelard Sediment
Basin Rehab
40234000 1
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Ainsworth Park WQ
Improvements
40234001 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40234500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40240003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
165,000165,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40241050 1
154,000154,000Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
154,000154,000Alley Construction 40241500 3
250,000250,000Storm Water- Lamplighter Pond
Rehab
40244000 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 222019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 31
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Keystone Park WQ
Improvements
40244001 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40244500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40250003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
110,000110,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th
St)
40251100 1
155,400155,400Alley Construction 40251500 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40254500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40260003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
165,000165,000Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40261050 1
110,950110,950Alley Construction 40261500 3
550,000550,000Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Lake Street Basin WQ
Improvements
40264000 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40264500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40270003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
187,500187,500Storm Water- Hampshire Pond
Rehab
40274000 1
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40274500 3
110,000110,000Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB 40280003 1
385,000385,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
1,650,0001,650,000Storm Water- Webster Park WQ
Improvements
40284000 3
35,00035,000Storm Water- Rainwater Rewards 40284500 3
600,000600,000Upgrade SCADA Control System
(2018,2019)
53185006 3
41,00041,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #5)53195301 3
48,00048,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2019)53195302 3
50,00050,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2020)53205301 3
43,00043,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #1)53205302 3
52,00052,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2021)53215301 3
54,00054,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2022)53225301 3
56,00056,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2023)53235301 3
58,00058,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2024)53245301 3
29,00029,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #4)53245302 3
60,00060,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2025)53255301 3
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 232019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 32
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
40,00040,000Storm Lift Station: Replace MCC
(SLS-5)
53255305 3
62,00062,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2026)53265301 3
60,00060,000Storm Lift Station: Replace MCC
(SLS-7)
53265302 3
64,00064,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2027)53275301 3
66,00066,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2028)53285301 3
Stormwater Utility Total 23,247,6083,138,005 3,482,167 1,900,167 1,591,217 3,081,867 3,000,667 896,067 3,128,617 782,167 2,246,667
Tax Increment - Elmwood
2,039,0512,039,051Street- W 36th Street Reconstruction 40206000 3
2,000,0002,000,000Street- Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 40206001 3
Tax Increment - Elmwood Total 4,039,0514,039,051
U.S. Government
2,918,4002,918,400CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40192000 1
6,453,0546,453,054SWLRT- Park and Ride Ramp at
Beltline Station
40199006 1
560,000560,000CTP Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway 40202000 1
U.S. Government Total 9,931,4549,371,454 560,000
Unfunded
260,000260,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1A
(2019)
50194110 1
285,000285,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1B
(2020)
50204110 1
270,000270,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1C
(2021)
50214110 1
240,000240,000Street Light Replacement, SSD1D
(2022)
50224110 1
310,000310,000Street Light Replacement, SSD2A
(2023)
50234110 1
300,000300,000Street Light Replacement, SSD2B
(2024)
50244110 1
295,000295,000Street Light Replacement, SSD3A
(2025)
50254110 1
290,000290,000Street Light Replacement, SSD3B
(2026)
50264102 1
270,000270,000Street Light Replacement, E&G Area
A (2027)
50274102 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 242019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 33
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
270,000270,000Street Light Replacement, E&G Area
B (2028)
50284102 1
8,000,0008,000,000Water Project - WTP #6 Treatment
Upgrade
53245003 5
Unfunded Total 10,790,000260,000 285,000 270,000 240,000 310,000 8,300,000 295,000 290,000 270,000 270,000
Water Utility
6,660666666666666666666666666666666Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI
Service
13155014 3
51,00051,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App
Replacement
13195001 1
160,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software 13995011 3
10,0005,000 5,000OR: MSC Cameras 13995031 3
97,24097,240Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Louisiana Ave)
40171100 1
34,57534,575Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40181050 1
368,000368,000Bridge - Louisiana Ave @
Minnehaha Creek
40181700 1
1,411,9831,411,983Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40191000 1
1,656,2501,656,250Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E
of Lou)
40191100 1
1,320,0001,320,000Water - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP
#6
40195000 1
2,126,5932,126,593Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40201000 1
330,000330,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas
@ Mtka)
40201100 3
1,852,0701,852,070Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)40211000 1
61,71061,710Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
Texas to Kentucky)
40211100 1
1,540,0001,540,000Water- Recoat Elevated Water
Tower #2
40215000 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)40221000 1
174,732174,732Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40221050 1
96,66096,660Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR
TH169 to Texas)
40221100 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)40231000 1
84,48684,486Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40231050 1
119,212119,212Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard
Pkwy)
40231100 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)40241000 1
97,63397,633Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40241050 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 252019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 34
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
104,500104,500Street - MSA Street Rehab
(Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge)
40241100 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)40251000 1
49,46249,462Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th
St)
40251100 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)40261000 1
80,65380,653Street - Commercial Street Rehab 40261050 1
99,00099,000Bridge - Meadowbrook @
Minnehaha Creek
40261700 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)40271000 1
2,310,0002,310,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)40281000 1
600,000600,000Upgrade SCADA Control System
(2018,2019)
53185006 3
72,00072,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53195001 1
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP14)53195003 3
210,000210,000WTP8 - Construct Generator Building 53195004 3
76,00076,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53215002 1
80,00080,000Water Well Rehab (SLP11)53215003 3
40,00040,000Water Well Rehab (SLP15)53225001 3
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP8)53235002 3
80,00080,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53235003 1
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP16)53245001 3
600,000600,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP1 53245002 1
85,00085,000Water Well Rehab (SLP12)53255001 3
84,00084,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53255003 1
384,000384,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP6 53255004 1
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP10)53265001 3
55,00055,000Water Well Rehab (SLP4)53265002 3
126,000126,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP4 53265003 1
396,000396,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab, WTP8 53265004 1
85,00085,000Water Well Rehab (SLP13)53275001 3
88,00088,000Water Treatment Plant GAC
Replacement (WTP1)
53275002 1
384,000384,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab,
WTP10
53275003 1
60,00060,000Water Well Rehab (SLP14)53285001 3
432,000432,000Water Treatment Plant Rehab,
WTP16
53285002 1
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 262019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 35
Total20192020202120222023Source20242025202620272028 #Priority
Water Utility Total 32,259,4195,381,474 2,892,259 3,723,686 2,638,058 2,665,364 3,188,799 2,929,128 3,954,319 2,499,666 2,386,666
62,668,607 44,684,552 25,445,327 23,334,567 28,151,263 289,920,253GRAND TOTAL 32,826,652 17,002,104 21,484,424 17,681,880 16,640,877
Report criteria:
Active Projects
All Address data
All Categories
All Departments
All Contacts
All From Street data
All Priority Levels
All Projects
All Source Types
All Street Name data
Tuesday, October 16, 2018Page 272019-2028 DRAFT Capital Improvement Plan
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 36
10/17/2018
Property Tax Inflation 3.00%4.00%4.50%4.50%4.50%4.50%4.50%4.50%4.50%4.50%4.50%3.00%
Revenue Inflation 3.00%3.00%4.00%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.00%
Interest Earnings 1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%1.50%
Personal Services 2.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.75%3.75%3.75%3.75%4.00%3.00%3.00%
Non-personnel Inflation 3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Actual Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Franchise Agreement Ends in 2021
Cable TV Fund - Produces and broadcasts all cable tv programming for cable channels 14, 15, 16, 17 & 96
Total Revenues 840,078$ 697,569$ 682,950$ 641,561$ 639,422$ 638,658$ 638,306$ 637,510$ 635,944$ 630,418$ 628,463$ 626,047$ 641,833$
Total Expenditures 810,236 685,811 860,562 786,430 692,757 664,606 693,893 744,540 1,007,078 763,539 792,462 816,235 840,722
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 29,842$ 11,758$ (177,612)$ (144,869)$ (53,335)$ (25,948)$ (55,588)$ (107,030)$ (371,134)$ (133,122)$ (163,998)$ (190,188)$ (198,889)$
Fund Balance - Ending 1,647,680$ 1,659,438$ 1,481,826$ 1,336,957$ 1,283,623$ 1,257,674$ 1,202,086$ 1,095,056$ 723,922$ 590,800$ 426,802$ 236,614$ 37,724$
Fund Balance Percentage 240.25%192.83%188.42%192.99%193.14%181.25%161.45%108.74%94.81%74.55%52.29%28.14%4.36%
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 Revenues 18,291$ 15,208$ 27,052$ 23,290$ 19,120$ 16,021$ 15,268$ 14,495$ 10,704$ 3,750$ 681$ (342)$ (1,390)$
Total Expenditures 1,023,703 39,963 277,822 301,281 225,755 66,242 66,745 267,262 474,295 208,344 68,909 69,491 270,091
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance (1,005,412)$ (24,755)$ (250,770)$ (277,991)$ (206,634)$ (50,222)$ (51,477)$ (252,767)$ (463,591)$ (204,594)$ (68,228)$ (69,834)$ (271,481)$
Fund Balance - Ending 1,832,248$ 1,807,493$ 1,556,723$ 1,278,732$ 1,072,098$ 1,021,876$ 970,399$ 717,632$ 254,041$ 49,448$ (18,780)$ (88,614)$ (360,095)$
Fund Balance Percentage 4584.82%650.59%516.70%566.43%1618.45%1531.02%363.09%151.31%121.93%71.76%-27.03%-32.81%-1697.86%
Housing Rehabilitation Fund - Primarily covers costs for programs related to maintaining quality and diverse housing stock within the City.
Total Revenues 1,600,543$ 1,714,237$ 1,507,091$ 1,492,107$ 1,483,786$ 1,469,937$ 1,464,976$ 1,359,117$ 1,107,086$ 1,085,467$ 1,062,813$ 1,025,552$ 952,534$
Total Expenditures 2,170,590 1,796,222 1,234,724 1,379,826 1,390,955 1,411,798 1,423,093 1,434,267 1,455,248 1,466,033 1,482,629 1,497,778 1,507,248
Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance (570,047)$ (81,985)$ 272,367$ 112,281$ 92,830$ 58,139$ 41,882$ (75,150)$ (348,162)$ (380,566)$ (419,816)$ (472,226)$ (554,714)$
Cash Available at Year End 960,346$ 1,175,269$ 1,427,684$ 1,539,964$ 1,632,794$ 1,690,933$ 1,732,816$ 1,657,666$ 1,309,504$ 928,938$ 509,122$ 36,896$ (517,818)$
Cash Available Percentage 53.46%95.18%103.47%110.71%115.65%118.82%120.82%113.91%89.32%62.65%33.99%2.45%232.07%
Development Fund - This fund is to be used for EDA projects.
Total Revenues 2,728,804$ 3,825,815$ 9,468,985$ 5,374,085$ 1,540,449$ 1,566,910$ 1,512,342$ 1,460,350$ 1,404,879$ 1,336,973$ 1,322,760$ 1,311,208$ 1,152,607$
Total Expenditures 3,033,930 6,115,923 3,928,700 6,660,113 2,760,709 2,116,935 2,157,320 2,199,107 2,242,345 2,287,085 2,335,341 2,377,201 2,280,317
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance (305,125)$ (2,290,107)$ 5,540,285$ (1,286,028)$ (1,220,260)$ (550,025)$ (644,978)$ (738,757)$ (837,466)$ (950,112)$ (1,012,581)$ (1,065,993)$ (1,127,711)$
Cash Available at Year End 12,554,513$ 12,187,073$ 18,646,722$ 18,307,897$ 15,745,968$ 16,357,134$ 16,879,044$ 17,353,849$ 17,998,347$ 17,057,113$ 16,126,069$ 15,060,076$ 13,932,365$
Cash Available Percentage 205.28%310.21%279.98%663.16%743.81%758.22%767.54%773.92%786.96%730.39%678.36%660.44%599.00%
HRA Levy - This fund is to be used for infrastructure construction in redevelopment areas and qualifying housing programs.
Total Revenues 1,011,663$ 1,056,125$ 1,172,786$ 1,234,601$ 1,271,639$ 1,309,788$ 1,349,082$ 1,389,554$ 1,431,241$ 1,474,178$ 1,518,404$ 1,563,956$ 1,610,874$
Total Expenditures 1,942,669 1,015,156 1,209,513 1,206,113 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance (931,006)$ 40,969$ (36,727)$ 28,488$ 1,256,639$ 1,294,788$ 1,334,082$ 1,374,554$ 1,416,241$ 1,459,178$ 1,503,404$ 1,548,956$ 1,595,874$
Fund Balance - Ending (3,057,388)$ (2,103,105)$ (1,145,610)$ 37,182$ 1,293,821$ 2,588,609$ 3,922,691$ 5,297,246$ 6,713,486$ 8,172,665$ 9,676,068$ 11,225,024$ 12,820,898$
Fund Balance Percentage -301.17%-173.88%-94.98%247.88%8625.47%17257.40%26151.28%35314.97%44756.58%54484.43%64507.12%74833.49%82983.16%
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund - Provides cash flow for project construction and is repaid through reimbursements from Municipal State Aid (MSA), or special assessments.
Total Revenues 265,472$ 371,132$ 119,670$ 106,544$ 96,793$ 94,096$ 96,101$ 93,439$ 90,350$ 93,297$ 88,528$ 91,264$ 50,198$
Total Expenditures 25,687 83,071 1,084,031 85,997 88,021 90,107 92,255 94,468 96,747 99,094 101,512 104,003 88,068
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 239,785$ 288,061$ (964,361)$ 20,547$ 8,772$ 3,989$ 3,845$ (1,029)$ (6,397)$ (5,797)$ (12,984)$ (12,738)$ (37,870)$
Fund Balance - Ending 2,577,727$ 2,865,788$ 1,901,428$ 1,921,975$ 1,930,747$ 1,934,735$ 1,938,581$ 1,937,551$ 1,931,154$ 1,925,357$ 1,912,373$ 1,899,634$ 1,861,765$
Fund Balance Percentage 3103.04%264.36%2211.05%2183.53%2142.72%2097.15%2052.10%2002.70%1948.80%1896.67%1838.77%2157.02%2052.44%
Park Improvement Fund - This fund is responsible for financing capital expenditures within City parks and improvement of park facilities
Total Revenues 13,197,897$ 1,162,510$ 1,625,646$ 1,928,337$ 1,223,452$ 2,172,540$ 1,324,071$ 1,378,288$ 1,435,586$ 1,490,981$ 1,536,109$ 1,488,143$ 1,644,918$
Total Expenditures 11,859,230 4,779,093 3,385,330 1,733,950 1,436,000 2,227,500 1,205,500 1,060,000 1,250,000 1,996,000 1,587,000 1,202,000 -
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 1,338,667$ (3,616,583)$ (1,759,684)$ 194,387$ (212,548)$ (54,960)$ 118,571$ 318,288$ 185,586$ (505,019)$ (50,891)$ 286,143$ 1,644,918$
Cash Available at Year End 6,261,031$ 1,877,539$ 117,855$ 312,242$ 99,694$ 44,734$ 163,305$ 481,593$ 667,179$ 162,160$ 111,269$ 397,412$ 689,559$
Cash Available Percentage 131.01%55.46%6.80%21.74%4.48%3.71%15.41%38.53%33.43%10.22%9.26%33.06%#DIV/0!
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 37
10/17/2018
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Actual Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Pavement Management Fund - Funds expenditures are used for pavement rehabilitation within the City.
Total Revenues 2,863,788$ 3,503,084$ 4,771,335$ 6,998,667$ 4,925,827$ 5,867,507$ 5,976,117$ 5,735,831$ 6,066,590$ 6,297,798$ 5,911,363$ 6,651,839$ 6,505,449$
Total Expenditures 2,731,581 4,494,316 4,222,092 6,931,554 5,524,473 4,978,465 7,024,456 4,895,937 5,881,835 5,469,717 4,290,299 5,860,229 4,458,883
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 132,207$ (991,232)$ 549,243$ 67,113$ (598,646)$ 889,042$ (1,048,340)$ 839,894$ 184,755$ 828,080$ 1,621,064$ 791,610$ 2,046,567$
Fund Balance - Ending 2,171,385$ 1,180,154$ 1,729,396$ 1,796,509$ 1,197,863$ 2,086,906$ 1,038,566$ 1,878,460$ 2,063,215$ 2,891,296$ 4,512,360$ 5,303,970$ 7,350,537$
Fund Balance Percentage 48.31%27.95%24.95%32.52%24.06%29.71%21.21%31.94%37.72%67.39%77.00%118.95%2236.48%
Sidewalks and Trails- This fund accounts for revenues and expenditures related to the the enhancement of the City's sidewalks and trails system.
Total Revenues 643,754$ 2,696,537$ 1,320,496$ 7,430,054$ 4,618,640$ 3,890,445$ 4,797,475$ 8,249,747$ 3,266,089$ 3,488,852$ 3,098,776$ 3,760,214$ 3,500,475$
Total Expenditures 2,212,802 2,452,938 1,792,165 7,887,604 4,547,335 4,197,774 3,743,843 8,521,825 3,321,728 3,547,899 3,161,557 3,826,157 3,569,694
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance (1,569,048)$ 243,599$ (471,669)$ (457,550)$ 71,304$ (307,329)$ 1,053,632$ (272,079)$ (55,640)$ (59,047)$ (62,780)$ (65,943)$ (69,220)$
Fund Balance - Ending 1,011,967$ 1,255,566$ 783,897$ 326,347$ 397,651$ 90,322$ 1,143,955$ 871,876$ 816,237$ 757,189$ 694,409$ 628,466$ 559,246$
Fund Balance Percentage 41.26%70.06%9.94%7.18%9.47%2.41%13.42%26.25%23.01%23.95%18.15%17.61%19.60%
Capital Replacement Fund - Funds technology, buildings, and equipment capital expenditures.
Total Revenues 4,810,609$ 4,755,884$ 4,056,591$ 3,819,673$ 3,758,319$ 3,973,086$ 4,209,219$ 4,409,537$ 4,624,605$ 4,872,975$ 5,012,120$ 5,143,985$ 5,271,098$
Total Expenditures 4,083,132 3,403,508 4,849,443 3,867,743 4,057,799 3,742,989 4,430,767 4,313,055 3,006,173 2,912,506 3,887,948 4,618,308 3,571,141
Incr/(Decr) in Net Position 727,477$ 1,352,376$ (792,852)$ (48,070)$ (299,480)$ 230,097$ (221,548)$ 96,482$ 1,618,432$ 1,960,469$ 1,124,172$ 525,677$ 1,699,957$
Cash Available at Year End 1,011,102$ 949,342$ 156,490$ 108,420$ (191,060)$ 39,037$ (182,512)$ (86,030)$ 1,532,403$ 3,492,871$ 4,617,044$ 5,142,721$ 6,842,678$
Cash Available Percentage 29.71%19.58%4.05%2.67%-5.10%0.88%-4.23%-2.86%52.61%89.84%99.97%144.01%#DIV/0!
Benefits Administration Fund - This fund covers the cost of insurance, unemployment, flex leave payouts, and tuition reimbursement.
Total Revenues 864,933$ 700,350$ 411,046$ 364,814$ 417,827$ 471,572$ 526,062$ 581,306$ 637,318$ 694,107$ 751,687$ 810,068$ 688,452$
Total Cash Outflows 756,793 551,223 554,012 570,165 586,683 603,576 620,856 638,535 656,624 675,136 694,082 713,478 733,335
Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance 108,139$ 149,127$ (142,966)$ (205,351)$ (168,856)$ (132,004)$ (94,795)$ (57,229)$ (19,306)$ 18,972$ 57,604$ 96,590$ (44,883)$
Cash Available at Year End 952,469$ 1,101,596$ 958,630$ 753,279$ 584,422$ 452,418$ 357,623$ 300,395$ 281,089$ 300,060$ 357,665$ 454,254$ 409,371$
Cash Available Percentage 172.79%198.84%168.13%128.40%96.83%72.87%56.01%45.75%41.63%43.23%50.13%61.94%54.32%
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 Revenues 248,379$ 371,179$ 229,000$ 204,000$ 215,372$ 222,262$ 229,398$ 236,790$ 244,446$ 252,375$ 260,589$ 269,096$ 276,596$
Total Expenditures 244,241 452,912 232,562 231,932 239,050 246,386 254,034 261,922 270,055 278,444 287,193 295,809 304,683
Incr/(Decr) in Net Position 4,137$ (81,733)$ (3,562)$ (27,932)$ (23,678)$ (24,125)$ (24,636)$ (25,132)$ (25,610)$ (26,069)$ (26,604)$ (26,713)$ (28,087)$
Net Position - Ending 742,811$ 661,078$ 657,516$ 629,584$ 605,906$ 581,781$ 557,145$ 532,013$ 506,403$ 480,335$ 453,730$ 427,017$ 398,929$
Net Position Percentage 164.01%284.26%283.49%263.37%245.92%229.02%212.71%197.00%181.87%167.25%153.39%140.15%127.12%
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 38
Financial Management Plan
Cable TV Fund - Produces and broadcasts all cable tv programming for cable channels 14, 15, 16, 17 & 96
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Actual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
Charges for Services 686,289 684,128 670,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 620,000 638,600
Interest Income 11,799 12,579 12,000 20,578 18,405 17,605 17,215 16,382 14,776 9,209 7,212 4,752 1,900
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue 141,990 862 950 983 1,018 1,053 1,090 1,128 1,168 1,209 1,251 1,295 1,334
Transfers In
Total Revenues 840,078$ 697,569$ 682,950$ 641,561$ 639,422$ 638,658$ 638,306$ 637,510$ 635,944$ 630,418$ 628,463$ 626,047$ 641,833$
Expenditures
Personal Services 410,511 416,238 449,059 484,693 501,657 519,215 538,686 558,887 579,845 601,589 625,653 644,422 663,755
Supplies 16,589 15,199 2,500 3,500 3,605 3,713 3,825 3,939 4,057 4,179 4,305 4,434 4,567
Non-Capital Equipment - - 100 100 103 106 109 113 116 119 123 127 130
Services & Other Charges 50,621 63,819 104,597 132,031 135,992 140,072 144,274 148,602 153,060 157,652 162,381 167,253 172,271
Capital Outlay 223,009 106,049 244,800 131,600 51,400 1,500 7,000 33,000 270,000 - - - -
Transfers Out 109,506 84,506 59,506 34,506 - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 810,236$ 685,811$ 860,562$ 786,430$ 692,757$ 664,606$ 693,893$ 744,540$ 1,007,078$ 763,539$ 792,462$ 816,235$ 840,722$
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 29,842$ 11,758$ (177,612)$ (144,869)$ (53,335)$ (25,948)$ (55,588)$ (107,030)$ (371,134)$ (133,122)$ (163,998)$ (190,188)$ (198,889)$
Fund Balance - Beginning 1,617,838$ 1,647,680$ 1,659,438$ 1,481,826$ 1,336,957$ 1,283,623$ 1,257,674$ 1,202,086$ 1,095,056$ 723,922$ 590,800$ 426,802$ 236,614$
Fund Balance - Ending 1,647,680$ 1,659,438$ 1,481,826$ 1,336,957$ 1,283,623$ 1,257,674$ 1,202,086$ 1,095,056$ 723,922$ 590,800$ 426,802$ 236,614$ 37,724$
Fund Balance Percentage 240.25%192.83%188.42%192.99%193.14%181.25%161.45%108.74%94.81%74.55%52.29%28.14%4.36%
Cash Available at Year End 1,482,925$ 1,549,464$ 1,371,852$ 1,226,983$ 1,173,648$ 1,147,700$ 1,092,112$ 985,082$ 613,947$ 480,826$ 316,828$ 126,639$ (72,250)$
Cash Available Percentage 216.23%180.05%174.44%177.12%176.59%165.40%146.68%97.82%80.41%60.67%38.82%15.06%-8.34%
Target Cash Balance -
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 39
Financial Management Plan
Police & 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 2027 2028
Actual Actual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
Intergovernmental - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Interest Income 18,291 15,208 27,052 23,290 19,120 16,021 15,268 14,495 10,704 3,750 681 (342) (1,390)
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers In
Total Revenues 18,291$ 15,208$ 27,052$ 23,290$ 19,120$ 16,021$ 15,268$ 14,495$ 10,704$ 3,750$ 681$ (342)$ (1,390)$
Expenditures
Non-Capital Equipment 679 11,187 11,523 11,868 12,224 12,591 12,969 13,358 13,759 14,171 14,596 15,034 15,485
Services & Other Charges 1,990 3,688 3,799 3,913 4,030 4,151 4,276 4,404 4,536 4,672 4,812 4,957 5,106
Capital Outlay 521,034 25,088 262,500 285,500 209,500 49,500 49,500 249,500 456,000 189,500 49,500 49,500 249,500
Transfers Out 500,000 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 1,023,703$ 39,963$ 277,822$ 301,281$ 225,755$ 66,242$ 66,745$ 267,262$ 474,295$ 208,344$ 68,909$ 69,491$ 270,091$
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance (1,005,412)$ (24,755)$ (250,770)$ (277,991)$ (206,634)$ (50,222)$ (51,477)$ (252,767)$ (463,591)$ (204,594)$ (68,228)$ (69,834)$ (271,481)$
Fund Balance - Beginning 2,837,660$ 1,832,248$ 1,807,493$ 1,556,723$ 1,278,732$ 1,072,098$ 1,021,876$ 970,399$ 717,632$ 254,041$ 49,448$ (18,780)$ (88,614)$
Fund Balance - Ending 1,832,248$ 1,807,493$ 1,556,723$ 1,278,732$ 1,072,098$ 1,021,876$ 970,399$ 717,632$ 254,041$ 49,448$ (18,780)$ (88,614)$ (360,095)$
Fund Balance Percentage 4584.82%650.59%516.70%566.43%1618.45%1531.02%363.09%151.31%121.93%71.76%-27.03%-32.81%-1697.86%
Cash Available at Year End 1,896,079$ 1,803,452$ 1,552,682$ 1,274,691$ 1,068,057$ 1,017,835$ 966,358$ 713,592$ 250,001$ 45,407$ (22,821)$ (92,655)$ (364,135)$
Cash Available Percentage 4744.54%649.14%515.36%564.64%1612.35%1524.97%361.58%150.45%119.99%65.89%-32.84%-34.30%-1716.91%
Target Cash Balance -
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 40
Financial Management Plan
Housing 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 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Actual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Program Revenues
General Property Taxes/HRA Levy 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 105,000 120,000 126,000 132,300 138,915 145,861 153,154 160,811
Charges for Services 7,607 4,514 3,200 200 207 214 222 230 238 246 254 263 271
Interest Income 14,011 9,521 2,000 9,500 23,099 24,492 25,364 25,992 24,865 19,643 13,934 7,637 553
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue 3,935 2,046 4,500 4,500 4,658 4,821 4,989 5,164 5,345 5,532 5,725 5,926 6,103
1/8% Bond Fee 559,041 610,651 547,093 527,609 505,524 485,112 464,103 442,433 420,041 396,834 372,740 334,275 260,496
Transfers In - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TIF Reimbursement 144,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 - - - - -
Total Revenues 828,593$ 886,732$ 816,793$ 801,809$ 793,488$ 779,639$ 774,678$ 759,819$ 582,788$ 561,169$ 538,515$ 501,254$ 428,236$
Program Expenditures
Housing Rehab
Personal Services 263,507 236,725 278,412 280,631 290,453 300,619 311,892 323,588 335,723 348,312 362,245 373,112 384,305
Supplies 37 72 - 100 103 106 109 113 116 119 123 127 130
Services & Other Charges 21,677 8,639 18,214 19,659 20,249 20,856 21,482 22,126 22,790 23,474 24,178 24,903 25,651
Transfers Out 8,185 8,185 8,431 8,684 8,944 9,213 9,489 9,774 10,067 10,369 10,680 11,000.54 11,330.56
HIA Admin 1,039 1,009 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Excess Public Land - 602 5,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Move-up Program 31,425 34,632 39,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000
Live Where You Work Prgm 2,900 5,000 55,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
Green Remodeling Program 37,404 26,582 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
Neighborhood Association Grant 35,236 31,762 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000
Step Contributions - 45,900 46,820 108,000 110,160 112,363 114,610 116,903 119,241 121,626 124,058 124,058 124,058
Senior Community Services 68 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
CES Reside Energy Conservation 8,510 5,450 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
Transformation Loan 2,200 28,326 180,000 206,000 206,000 206,000 206,000 206,000 206,000 206,000 206,000 206,000 206,000
Discount Loan Program 28,376 4,456 30,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Land Trust (WHALT)50,000 10,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Foreclosure Initiative - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Kids in the Park - 4,720 65,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Total Expenditures 490,496$ 462,128$ 902,877$ 1,049,074$ 1,061,909$ 1,075,157$ 1,089,583$ 1,104,504$ 1,119,937$ 1,135,900$ 1,153,284$ 1,165,201$ 1,177,475$
Programs Beginning Cash Balance 1,039,593 1,377,690 1,802,294 1,716,210 1,468,945 1,200,523 905,004 590,099 245,415 (291,734) (866,465) (1,481,234) (2,145,181)
Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance 338,097$ 424,604$ (86,084)$ (247,265)$ (268,422)$ (295,519)$ (314,905)$ (344,685)$ (537,149)$ (574,731)$ (614,769)$ (663,947)$ (749,239)$
Programs Ending Cash Balance 1,377,690 1,802,294 1,716,210 1,468,945 1,200,523 905,004 590,099 245,415 (291,734) (866,465) (1,481,234) (2,145,181) (2,894,420)
HIA Revenues
Special Assessments 771,950 827,505 690,298 690,298 690,298 690,298 690,298 599,298 524,298 524,298 524,298 524,298 524,298
Interfund Loans (Development Fund)
Total Revenues 771,950$ 827,505$ 690,298$ 690,298$ 690,298$ 690,298$ 690,298$ 599,298$ 524,298$ 524,298$ 524,298$ 524,298$ 524,298$
HIA Expenditures
Greensboro & Westwood Villa HIA
Debt Service Transfer 337,846 333,094 331,847 330,753 329,046 336,641 333,511 329,764 335,311 330,133 329,345 332,578 329,773
Interfund Loans Payments 1,342,248 1,001,000 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 1,680,094$ 1,334,094$ 331,847$ 330,753$ 329,046$ 336,641$ 333,511$ 329,764$ 335,311$ 330,133$ 329,345$ 332,578$ 329,773$
HIA Beginning Cash Balance 767,756 (140,389) (646,978) (288,526) 71,019 432,271 785,929 1,142,716 1,412,251 1,601,238 1,795,403 1,990,356 2,182,076
Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance (908,144)$ (506,589)$ 358,452$ 359,546$ 361,252$ 353,658$ 356,788$ 269,535$ 188,987$ 194,165$ 194,953$ 191,721$ 194,526$
HIA Ending Cash Balance (140,389) (646,978) (288,526) 71,019 432,271 785,929 1,142,716 1,412,251 1,601,238 1,795,403 1,990,356 2,182,076 2,376,602
Cash Available at Year End 960,346$ 1,175,269$ 1,427,684$ 1,539,964$ 1,632,794$ 1,690,933$ 1,732,816$ 1,657,666$ 1,309,504$ 928,938$ 509,122$ 36,896$ (517,818)$
Cash Available Percentage 53.46%95.18%103.47%110.71%115.65%118.82%120.82%113.91%89.32%62.65%33.99%2.45%-34.04%
Target Cash Balance -
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 41
Financial Management Plan
Development Fund - This fund is to be used for EDA projects.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Actual Budget Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
Intergovernmental 396,584 1,419,479 - - - - - - - - - - -
Charges for Services 6,000 - 6,000 6,210 6,427 6,652 6,885 7,126 7,376 7,634 7,901 8,138
Application fees 7,500 21,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
PILOT - Payment In Lieu of Taxes 25,772 26,054 26,104 26,230 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
Rent Revenue 185,587 182,473 186,881 189,380 196,008 202,869 209,969 217,318 224,924 232,796 240,944 249,377 256,859
Interest Income 452,993 397,223 400,000 305,400 362,231 381,614 319,721 260,147 196,828 120,801 98,182 77,930 56,610
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue 900,429 812,085 760,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 760,000
Lodging Tax- City Portion 43,022 40,042 40,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 40,000
Proceeds from Sale of Land 3,000 - 7,510,000 3,443,075 - - - - - - - - -
Transfers In/Bond proceeds 715,417 940,959 525,000 450,000 - - - - - - - 0 0
Total Revenues 2,728,804$ 3,825,815$ 9,468,985$ 5,374,085$ 1,540,449$ 1,566,910$ 1,512,342$ 1,460,350$ 1,404,879$ 1,336,973$ 1,322,760$ 1,311,208$ 1,152,607$
Expenditures
Personal Services 522,220 559,302 611,709 631,926 654,043 676,935 702,320 728,657 755,982 784,331 815,704 840,175 865,381
Supplies 407 1,834 - - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Capital Equipment - - - - - - - - - - - -
Services & Other Charges 1,025,596 1,217,696 2,066,991 3,038,187 1,166,666 500,000 515,000 530,450 546,364 562,754 579,637 597,026 614,937
Disposal Charges 1,112,624 - - - - - - - - - - -
Capital Outlay 627,578 413,943 450,000 2,050,000 - - - - - - - - -
McGarvey Site/ hennepin cty 2,025,297 -
Debt Service 83,124 24,433
Payments to CVB 775,006 760,794 800,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 760,000
Transfers Out - - 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Total Expenditures 3,033,930$ 6,115,923$ 3,928,700$ 6,660,113$ 2,760,709$ 2,116,935$ 2,157,320$ 2,199,107$ 2,242,345$ 2,287,085$ 2,335,341$ 2,377,201$ 2,280,317$
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance (305,125)$ (2,290,107)$ 5,540,285$ (1,286,028)$ (1,220,260)$ (550,025)$ (644,978)$ (738,757)$ (837,466)$ (950,112)$ (1,012,581)$ (1,065,993)$ (1,127,711)$
Fund Balance - Beginning 26,416,278$ 26,111,150$ 23,821,042$ 29,361,324$ 28,075,293$ 26,855,030$ 26,305,002$ 25,660,022$ 24,921,261$ 24,083,792$ 23,133,677$ 22,121,092$ 21,055,096$
Fund Balance - Ending 26,111,150$ 23,821,042$ 29,361,324$ 28,075,293$ 26,855,030$ 26,305,002$ 25,660,022$ 24,921,261$ 24,083,792$ 23,133,677$ 22,121,092$ 21,055,096$ 19,927,383$
Fund Balance Percentage 426.94%606.33%440.85%1016.96%1268.58%1219.34%1166.84%1111.39%1053.03%990.59%930.55%923.34%856.75%
Cash Available at Year End 12,554,513$ 12,187,073$ 18,646,722$ 18,307,897$ 15,745,968$ 16,357,134$ 16,879,044$ 17,353,849$ 17,998,347$ 17,057,113$ 16,126,069$ 15,060,076$ 13,932,365$
Cash Available Percentage 205.28%310.21%279.98%663.16%743.81%758.22%767.54%773.92%786.96%730.39%678.36%660.44%599.00%
Target Cash Balance -
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 42
Financial Management Plan
HRA 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 2027 2028
Actual Actual Revised Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
General Property Taxes / HRA Levy 1,006,866 1,056,101 1,172,786 1,234,601 1,271,639 1,309,788 1,349,082 1,389,554 1,431,241 1,474,178 1,518,404 1,563,956 1,610,874
Interest Income 4,797 24 - - - - - - - - - - -
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers In -
Total Revenues 1,011,663$ 1,056,125$ 1,172,786$ 1,234,601$ 1,271,639$ 1,309,788$ 1,349,082$ 1,389,554$ 1,431,241$ 1,474,178$ 1,518,404$ 1,563,956$ 1,610,874$
Expenditures
Services & Other Charges 15,473 15,156 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Final payment (HWY 7 & Louis.)- - 135,427 - - - - - - - - -
Transfers Out 1,927,196 1,000,000 1,059,086 1,191,113 - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 1,942,669$ 1,015,156$ 1,209,513$ 1,206,113$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance (931,006)$ 40,969$ (36,727)$ 28,488$ 1,256,639$ 1,294,788$ 1,334,082$ 1,374,554$ 1,416,241$ 1,459,178$ 1,503,404$ 1,548,956$ 1,595,874$
Fund Balance - Beginning (3,657,675)$ (3,057,388)$ (2,103,105)$ (1,145,610)$ 37,182$ 1,293,821$ 2,588,609$ 3,922,691$ 5,297,246$ 6,713,486$ 8,172,665$ 9,676,068$ 11,225,024$
Fund Balance - Ending (3,057,388)$ (2,103,105)$ (1,145,610)$ 37,182$ 1,293,821$ 2,588,609$ 3,922,691$ 5,297,246$ 6,713,486$ 8,172,665$ 9,676,068$ 11,225,024$ 12,820,898$
Fund Balance Percentage -301.17%-173.88%-94.98%247.88%8625.47%17257.40%26151.28%35314.97%44756.58%54484.43%64507.12%74833.49%82983.16%
Cash Available at Year End 6,499$ 57,020$ 20,293$ 48,781$ 1,305,420$ 2,600,208$ 3,934,290$ 5,308,844$ 6,725,085$ 8,184,263$ 9,687,667$ 11,236,622$ 12,832,497$
Cash Available Percentage 0.64%4.71%1.68%325.21%8702.80%17334.72%26228.60%35392.30%44833.90%54561.76%64584.45%74910.82%83058.23%
Target Cash Balance -
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 43
Financial Management Plan
Permanent 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 2027 2028
Actual Actual Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
Special Assessments 246,075 162,611 82,247 65,551 53,956 23,589 22,495 16,735 10,620 10,620 2,893 2,778 2,861
Park Dedication Fee 595 180 187 194 201 208 215 222 230 238 247 255 263
Interest Income 17,714 22,555 36,419 39,953 41,761 69,393 72,453 75,510 78,495 81,399 84,312 87,117 45,926
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue 1,088 786 817 846 876 906 938 971 1,005 1,040 1,076 1,114 1,148
Transfers In 185,000
Total Revenues 265,472$ 371,132$ 119,670$ 106,544$ 96,793$ 94,096$ 96,101$ 93,439$ 90,350$ 93,297$ 88,528$ 91,264$ 50,198$
Expenditures
Supplies - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Services & Other Charges 6,994 63,622 65,531 67,497 69,521 71,607 73,755 75,968 78,247 80,594 83,012 85,503 88,068
Interfund loan - - 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers Out 18,693 19,449 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500
Total Expenditures 25,687$ 83,071$ 1,084,031$ 85,997$ 88,021$ 90,107$ 92,255$ 94,468$ 96,747$ 99,094$ 101,512$ 104,003$ 88,068$
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 239,785$ 288,061$ (964,361)$ 20,547$ 8,772$ 3,989$ 3,845$ (1,029)$ (6,397)$ (5,797)$ (12,984)$ (12,738)$ (37,870)$
Fund Balance - Beginning 2,337,942$ 2,577,727$ 2,865,788$ 1,901,428$ 1,921,975$ 1,930,747$ 1,934,735$ 1,938,581$ 1,937,551$ 1,931,154$ 1,925,357$ 1,912,373$ 1,899,634$
Fund Balance - Ending 2,577,727$ 2,865,788$ 1,901,428$ 1,921,975$ 1,930,747$ 1,934,735$ 1,938,581$ 1,937,551$ 1,931,154$ 1,925,357$ 1,912,373$ 1,899,634$ 1,861,765$
Fund Balance Percentage 3103.04%264.36%2211.05%2183.53%2142.72%2097.15%2052.10%2002.70%1948.80%1896.67%1838.77%2157.02%2052.44%
Cash Available at Year End 2,570,786$ 2,427,900$ 1,463,539$ 1,584,087$ 1,692,859$ 1,896,847$ 2,100,693$ 2,299,663$ 2,493,266$ 2,687,469$ 2,874,485$ 3,061,746$ 3,223,876$
Cash Available Percentage 3094.69%223.97%1701.86%1799.66%1878.72%2056.08%2223.71%2376.99%2516.05%2647.43%2763.86%3476.58%3554.06%
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 44
Financial Management Plan
Park Improvement Fund - This fund is responsible for financing capital expenditures within City parks and improvement of park facilities
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Actual Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
General Property Taxes / HRA Levy 810,000 810,000 810,000 810,000 850,000 900,000 950,000 1,000,000 1,050,000 1,100,000 1,150,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
Intergovernmental 400,000 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hennepin County/ Operating Grant - 115,000 - - - - - - - - - - -
Hockey Association 500,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - -
School District Contributions 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702 44,702
Park Dedication Fee 508,489 - 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000
Rent Revenue 9,750 9,000 9,038 9,038 9,038 9,038 9,038 9,038 9,038 9,038 9,038 9,038 9,038
Interest Income 30,194 25,438 28,163 1,768 4,684 1,495 671 2,450 7,224 10,008 2,432 1,669 -
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue 103,745 58,370 60,705 62,829 65,028 67,304 69,660 72,098 74,622 77,233 79,937 82,734 90,406
Bond Proceeds 10,283,017 - 423,038 750,000 - 900,000 - - - - - - -
Transfers In 508,000 - -- - - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 13,197,897$ 1,162,510$ 1,625,646$ 1,928,337$ 1,223,452$ 2,172,540$ 1,324,071$ 1,378,288$ 1,435,586$ 1,490,981$ 1,536,109$ 1,488,143$ 1,494,146$
Expenditures
Supplies - 8,233 8,480 - - - - - - - - - -
Services & Other Charges 265,387 261,011 268,841 - - - - - - - - - -
Tree Replacement 88,502 72,231 75,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 - - -
Debt Service 111,922 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Capital Outlay 11,141,694 4,437,618 3,033,009 1,658,950 1,361,000 2,127,500 1,130,500 985,000 1,175,000 1,921,000 1,587,000 1,202,000 1,202,000
Transfers Out 251,726 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 11,859,230$ 4,779,093$ 3,385,330$ 1,733,950$ 1,436,000$ 2,227,500$ 1,205,500$ 1,060,000$ 1,250,000$ 1,996,000$ 1,587,000$ 1,202,000$ 1,202,000$
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 1,338,667$ (3,616,583)$ (1,759,684)$ 194,387$ (212,548)$ (54,960)$ 118,571$ 318,288$ 185,586$ (505,019)$ (50,891)$ 286,143$ 292,146$
Fund Balance - Beginning 3,691,530$ 5,030,197$ 1,413,614$ (346,070)$ (151,683)$ (364,231)$ (419,191)$ (300,620)$ 17,668$ 203,254$ (301,765)$ (352,656)$ (66,513)$
Fund Balance - Ending 5,030,197$ 1,413,614$ (346,070)$ (151,683)$ (364,231)$ (419,191)$ (300,620)$ 17,668$ 203,254$ (301,765)$ (352,656)$ (66,513)$ 225,634$
Fund Balance Percentage 105.25%41.76%-19.96%-10.56%-16.35%-34.77%-28.36%1.41%10.18%-19.01%-29.34%-5.53%#DIV/0!
Cash Available at Year End 6,261,031$ 1,877,539$ 117,855$ 312,242$ 99,694$ 44,734$ 163,305$ 481,593$ 667,179$ 162,160$ 111,269$ 397,412$ 689,559$
Cash Available Percentage 131.01%55.46%6.80%21.74%4.48%3.71%15.41%38.53%33.43%10.22%9.26%33.06%#DIV/0!
Target Cash Balance -
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 45
Financial Management Plan
Pavement Management Fund - Funds expenditures are used for pavement rehabilitation within the City.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
Franchise Fees 2,393,110 3,079,266 3,218,478 3,298,940 3,381,413 3,465,949 3,552,598 3,641,412 3,732,448 3,825,759 3,921,403 4,019,438 4,119,924
Additional Franchise Fees 808,000 808,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000
Interest Income 20,678 23,818 5,543 13,782 14,788 5,809 19,144 3,419 16,017 18,789 31,210 55,526 67,400
Bond proceeds - - - 2,147,696 - - - - - - - -
Interfund loan (PIR Fund)- 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers In 450,000 400,000 547,314 730,250 721,625 787,750 796,375 483,000 710,125 845,250 350,750 968,875 710,125
Total Revenues 2,863,788$ 3,503,084$ 4,771,335$ 6,998,667$ 4,925,827$ 5,867,507$ 5,976,117$ 5,735,831$ 6,066,590$ 6,297,798$ 5,911,363$ 6,651,839$ 6,505,449$
Expenditures
Services & Other Charges 43,929 41,147 42,381 43,652 44,962 46,311 47,700 49,131 50,605 52,123 53,687 55,298 56,957
Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Interfund loan repayments - - - 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466 118,466
Debt Service Pymts(2019 Issue-10yr)- - - - 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000
Capital Outlay (Mod Approach)2,135,842 3,402,945 3,632,397 6,039,186 4,369,420 3,755,938 5,791,915 3,975,340 4,732,639 4,186,878 3,497,396 4,447,590 3,303,335
Capital Outlay - Street Rehab (1)- - 547,314 730,250 721,625 787,750 796,375 483,000 710,125 842,250 350,750 968,875 710,125
Transfers Out 551,810 1,050,224 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 2,731,581$ 4,494,316$ 4,222,092$ 6,931,554$ 5,524,473$ 4,978,465$ 7,024,456$ 4,895,937$ 5,881,835$ 5,469,717$ 4,290,299$ 5,860,229$ 4,458,883$
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 132,207$ (991,232)$ 549,243$ 67,113$ (598,646)$ 889,042$ (1,048,340)$ 839,894$ 184,755$ 828,080$ 1,621,064$ 791,610$ 2,046,567$
Fund Balance - Beginning 2,039,178$ 2,171,385$ 1,180,154$ 1,729,396$ 1,796,509$ 1,197,863$ 2,086,906$ 1,038,566$ 1,878,460$ 2,063,215$ 2,891,296$ 4,512,360$ 5,303,970$
Fund Balance - Ending 2,171,385$ 1,180,154$ 1,729,396$ 1,796,509$ 1,197,863$ 2,086,906$ 1,038,566$ 1,878,460$ 2,063,215$ 2,891,296$ 4,512,360$ 5,303,970$ 7,350,537$
Fund Balance Percentage 48.31%27.95%24.95%32.52%24.06%29.71%21.21%31.94%37.72%67.39%77.00%118.95%2236.48%
Cash Available at Year End 1,557,682$ 369,524$ 918,767$ 985,880$ 387,234$ 1,276,276$ 227,936$ 1,067,831$ 1,252,586$ 2,080,666$ 3,701,730$ 4,493,341$ 6,539,907$
Cash Available Percentage 34.66%8.75%13.25%17.85%7.78%18.17%4.66%18.15%22.90%48.50%63.17%100.77%1989.84%
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 46
Municipal State Aid
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Beginning Balance (774,012) (774,012) (118,646) (3,503,704) (10,794,207) (13,789,465) (14,613,455) (15,514,791) (17,917,041) (17,343,734) (16,935,853) (16,474,335)
Allocation 3% increase 1,411,370 1,453,711 1,497,322 1,542,242 1,588,509 1,636,165 1,685,250 1,735,807 1,787,881 1,841,518 1,896,763
Projects
Louisiana Ave.40171100 (2,962,500)
Aquila 40181100 (503,840)
Bridge - Louisiana Ave 40181700 - (3,875,150)
CLR E of Lou.40191100 (4,838,769)
Texas @ Mtka 40201100 (2,262,500)
Monterey 40201101 (2,650,175)
CLR Texas to Kentucky 40211100 (1,575,000)
Whistle Quiet Zones 40221300 (100,000)
CLR TH169 to Texas 40221100 (2,312,500)
Shelard Pkwy 40231100 (2,537,500)
Oxford/Edgwd/Cambridge 40241100 (4,087,500)
W28th St.40251100 (1,162,500)
MSA street Rehab - TBD 40261100 (1,380,000)
MSA street Rehab - TBD 40271100 (1,380,000)
MSA street Rehab - TBD 10281100 (1,380,000)
163-285-003 pd 05/08/18 (163,617)
163-296-004 pd 05/08/18 (11,879)
Encumbrance balance various (76,668)
Ending Balance (774,012) (118,646) (3,503,704) (10,794,207) (13,789,465) (14,613,455) (15,514,791) (17,917,041) (17,343,734) (16,935,853) (16,474,335) (15,957,572)
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 47
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 2027 2028
Actual Actual Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
General Property Taxes/ HRA Levy - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tax Levy (2019 Issue- 10yr)- - - - 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849
Tax Levy (2020 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736
Tax Levy (2021 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -311,640 311,640 311,640 311,640 311,640 311,640 311,640
Tax Levy (2022 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- 436,467 436,467 436,467 436,467 436,467 436,467
Tax Levy (2023 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- - 810,298 810,298 810,298 810,298 810,298
Tax Levy (2024 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- - - 88,473 88,473 88,473 88,473
Tax Levy (2025 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- - - -105,310 105,310 105,310
Tax Levy (2026 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- - - -- 44,254 44,254
Interest Income 18,163 10,532 18,729 11,654 4,791 5,860 1,250 17,055 12,974 12,139 11,253 10,312 9,323
Miscellaneous/ Grants - - - 2,918,400 560,000 - - - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds 2,686,005 1,301,767 4,500,000 3,500,000 2,900,000 3,500,000 6,500,000 710,125 845,250 350,750 968,875 710,125
Transfers In 625,591
Total Revenues 643,754$ 2,696,537$ 1,320,496$ 7,430,054$ 4,618,640$ 3,890,445$ 4,797,475$ 8,249,747$ 3,266,089$ 3,488,852$ 3,098,776$ 3,760,214$ 3,500,475$
Expenditures
Personal Services 34,831 85,206 54,540 57,354 59,361 61,439 63,743 66,133 68,613 71,186 74,034 76,255 78,542
Services & Other Charges - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - 29,460 - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service Pymts (2019 Issue- 10yr)- - - - 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849 553,849
Debt Service Pymts (2020Issue- 10yr)- - - - - 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736 430,736
Debt Service Pymts (2021Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -311,640 311,640 311,640 311,640 311,640 311,640 311,640
Debt Service Pymts (2022 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- 436,467 436,467 436,467 436,467 436,467 436,467
Debt Service Pymts (2023 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- - 810,298 810,298 810,298 810,298 810,298
Debt Service Pymts (2024 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- - - 88,473 88,473 88,473 88,473
Debt Service Pymts (2025 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- - - -105,310 105,310 105,310
Debt Service Pymts (2026 Issue- 10yr)- - - - - -- - - -- 44,254 44,254
Capital Outlay 1,326,029 2,181,655 1,200,000 7,100,000 3,212,500 2,364,000 1,587,500 6,240,000 - - - - -
Transfers Out (gap segments)851,942 156,617 537,625 730,250 721,625 787,750 796,375 483,000 710,125 845,250 350,750 968,875 710,125
Total Expenditures 2,212,802$ 2,452,938$ 1,792,165$ 7,887,604$ 4,547,335$ 4,197,774$ 3,743,843$ 8,521,825$ 3,321,728$ 3,547,899$ 3,161,557$ 3,826,157$ 3,569,694$
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance (1,569,048)$ 243,599$ (471,669)$ (457,550)$ 71,304$ (307,329)$ 1,053,632$ (272,079)$ (55,640)$ (59,047)$ (62,780)$ (65,943)$ (69,220)$
Fund Balance - Beginning 2,581,015$ 1,011,967$ 1,255,566$ 783,897$ 326,347$ 397,651$ 90,322$ 1,143,955$ 871,876$ 816,237$ 757,189$ 694,409$ 628,466$
Fund Balance - Ending 1,011,967$ 1,255,566$ 783,897$ 326,347$ 397,651$ 90,322$ 1,143,955$ 871,876$ 816,237$ 757,189$ 694,409$ 628,466$ 559,246$
Fund Balance Percentage 41.26%70.06%9.94%7.18%9.47%2.41%13.42%26.25%23.01%23.95%18.15%17.61%19.60%
Cash Available at Year End 1,005,002$ 1,248,601$ 776,932$ 319,382$ 390,686$ 83,358$ 1,136,990$ 864,911$ 809,272$ 750,224$ 687,444$ 621,501$ 552,281$
Cash Available Percentage 40.97%69.67%9.85%7.02%9.31%2.23%13.34%26.04%22.81%23.73%17.97%17.41%19.35%16
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 48
Financial Management Plan
Capital Replacement Fund - Funds technology, buildings, and equipment capital expenditures.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Revised Budgeted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
General Property Taxes 1,767,700 1,822,992 1,767,700 1,767,700 1,891,439 2,023,840 2,165,509 2,273,784 2,387,473 2,506,847 2,506,847 2,506,847 2,506,847
Equipment Replacement Charges 1,187,590 1,310,272 1,375,785 1,439,535 1,511,512 1,587,087 1,666,442 1,749,764 1,837,252 1,929,115 2,025,570 2,126,849 2,233,191
Technology Replacement Charges 123,456 127,159 130,974 134,903 138,950 143,119 147,412 151,834 156,390 161,081 165,914 170,891 176,018
Housing Authority 11,503 12,462 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)539,434 545,474 566,617 267,271 - - - - - - - - -
Interest Income 1,582 10,344 14,240 2,347 1,626 (2,866) 586 (2,738) (1,290) 22,986 52,393 69,256 77,141
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue 196,215 182,473 189,772 196,414 203,288 210,404 217,768 225,390 233,278 241,443 249,893 258,640 266,399
Transfers In 983,129 744,708 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 4,810,609$ 4,755,884$ 4,056,591$ 3,819,673$ 3,758,319$ 3,973,086$ 4,209,219$ 4,409,537$ 4,624,605$ 4,872,975$ 5,012,120$ 5,143,985$ 5,271,098$
Expenditures
Supplies 202 28,287 - - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Capital Equipment 1,797,185 1,343,348 - - - - - - - - - - -
Services & Other Charges 1,964,261 1,807,748 - - - - - - - - - - -
Capital Outlay 230,069 224,125 - - - - - - - - - - -
Technology - - 1,465,925 1,398,378 1,302,263 1,417,082 1,185,439 1,448,537 1,292,181 1,461,273 1,404,517 1,286,318 1,280,759
Annual Equip. Repl. Program - - 2,271,818 1,672,865 2,102,036 1,818,407 2,262,828 1,615,735 1,431,992 942,733 2,256,431 3,121,990 1,848,382
Buildings - - 993,500 734,000 582,000 317,000 965,000 775,000 282,000 378,000 227,000 210,000 435,000
Fire/Police - - 118,200 62,500 71,500 190,500 17,500 473,783 - 130,500 - - 7,000
Transfers Out 91,415 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 4,083,132$ 3,403,508$ 4,849,443$ 3,867,743$ 4,057,799$ 3,742,989$ 4,430,767$ 4,313,055$ 3,006,173$ 2,912,506$ 3,887,948$ 4,618,308$ 3,571,141$
Incr/(Decr) in Net Position 727,477$ 1,352,376$ (792,852)$ (48,070)$ (299,480)$ 230,097$ (221,548)$ 96,482$ 1,618,432$ 1,960,469$ 1,124,172$ 525,677$ 1,699,957$
Net Position - Beginning 18,045,711$ 18,773,188$ 20,125,564$ 19,332,712$ 19,284,642$ 18,985,162$ 19,215,259$ 18,993,710$ 19,090,192$ 20,708,625$ 22,669,093$ 23,793,266$ 24,318,943$
Net Position - Ending 18,773,188$ 20,125,564$ 19,332,712$ 19,284,642$ 18,985,162$ 19,215,259$ 18,993,710$ 19,090,192$ 20,708,625$ 22,669,093$ 23,793,266$ 24,318,943$ 26,018,900$
Net Position Percentage 551.58%415.01%499.84%475.25%507.22%433.68%440.38%635.03%711.02%583.06%515.19%680.99%#DIV/0!
Cash Available at Year End 1,011,102$ 949,342$ 156,490$ 108,420$ (191,060)$ 39,037$ (182,512)$ (86,030)$ 1,532,403$ 3,492,871$ 4,617,044$ 5,142,721$ 6,842,678$
Cash Available Percentage 29.71%19.58%4.05%2.67%-5.10%0.88%-4.23%-2.86%52.61%89.84%99.97%144.01%#DIV/0!
Target Cash Balance - 35-50%
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 49
City of St. Louis ParkUtility Rate StudyBase ModelBudgetPreliminary2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 202120222023 2024 2025 2026 2027 20281 Rates Inflation 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%3 Investment income yield1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%4 Expense growth 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%5 Expense growth -MCES4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%610 Beginning net assets5,113,056 5,146,517 6,664,380 7,801,647 9,372,992 11,339,858 13,814,478 16,438,145 19,242,336 22,217,609 25,425,68628,860,026 32,551,702 36,487,9331112 Operating Revenues13 Water sales 4,849,826 5,268,597 5,643,016 5,901,784 6,582,253 7,127,331 7,412,424 7,708,921 8,017,278 8,378,056 8,755,068 9,149,046 9,560,753 9,990,98714 Rent 357,774 340,086 396,835 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,00015 Sewer charges16 Charges for services17 Other 54,419 50,607 49,444 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,700 43,70018 Total Operating Revenues 5,262,019 5,659,290 6,089,295 6,251,784 6,975,953 7,521,031 7,806,124 8,102,621 8,410,978 8,771,756 9,148,768 9,542,746 9,954,453 10,384,687192,405,81720 Operating Expenses21 Personnel 1,272,340 1,372,830 1,321,273 1,377,010 1,422,317 1,464,987 1,508,936 1,554,204 1,600,830 1,648,855 1,698,321 1,749,271 1,801,749 1,855,80122 Supplies 287,882 202,193 265,700 410,300 293,800 302,614 311,692 321,043 330,674 340,595 350,813 361,337 372,177 383,34223 Professional services 288,509 374,665 482,035 589,714 644,489 663,824 683,738 704,251 725,378 747,139 769,554 792,640 816,419 840,91224 Insurance 20,220 21,429 25,027 26,009 23,892 24,609 25,347 26,107 26,891 27,697 28,528 29,384 30,266 31,17425 Utilities398,652 377,267 379,715 444,000 418,500 431,055 443,987 457,306 471,025 485,156 499,711 514,702 530,143 546,04826 Repairs and maintenance 662,739 1,126,710 481,797 455,500 448,000 461,440 475,283 489,542 504,228 519,355 534,935 550,983 567,513 584,53827 Other current 564,868 469,096 517,270 233,501 263,974 271,893 280,050 288,452 297,105 306,018 315,199 324,655 334,394 344,42628 Disposal charges29 MCES30 Depreciation 718,198 707,093 887,322 707,100 735,384 757,446 780,169 803,574 827,681 852,512 878,087 904,430 931,562 959,5093132 Total Operating Expenses4,213,408 4,651,283 4,360,139 4,243,134 4,250,356 4,377,867 4,509,203 4,644,479 4,783,813 4,927,328 5,075,147 5,227,402 5,384,224 5,545,7513334 Net Operations1,048,611 1,008,007 1,729,156 2,008,650 2,725,597 3,143,164 3,296,922 3,458,143 3,627,165 3,844,4284,073,621 4,315,345 4,570,230 4,838,93735 Non operating revenues (expenses)36 Taxes37 Connections and special assessments 488,173 465,203 279,801 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,60038 Interest income 27,392 17,650 13,460 15,172 15,172 35,811 18,072 29,476 22,426 28,067 18,968 27,610 14,440 21,01939 Interest and fiscal charges expense(321,505) (231,389) (217,563) (151,842) (454,469) (366,320) (334,133) (306,500) (277,065) (246,229) (218,495) (189,316) (163,598) (141,445)40 Intergovermental 10,000 7,365 041 Miscellaneous revenue (expense) 1,042 2,168(78,698)25,750 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,00042 Capital contributions 72,40043 Transfers in 926,9860000044 Transfers out-2014A Bonds45 Transfers out-2015A Bonds46 Transfers out-PIR Bonds47 Transfers out(1,292,652) (678,127) (588,889) (601,985) (620,034) (638,635) (657,794) (677,528) (697,854) (718,789) (740,353) (762,564) (785,441) (809,004)48 Total non operating revenue (expenses)(1,015,150)509,856(591,889) (437,305) (758,731) (668,544) (673,255) (653,952) (651,892) (636,351) (639,280) (623,669) (633,999) (628,829)4950 Net increase (decrease) in resources33,461 1,517,863 1,137,267 1,571,345 1,966,866 2,474,620 2,623,667 2,804,191 2,975,273 3,208,077 3,434,341 3,691,675 3,936,231 4,210,10751Water Utility-Reduced Usage Rates-Higher Fixed Rate-Two Year Phase InActualProjectedPage 50Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
City of St. Louis ParkUtility Rate StudyBase ModelBudgetPreliminary2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 202120222023 2024 2025 2026 2027 20281 Rates Inflation 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%3 Investment income yield1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%4 Expense growth 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%5 Expense growth -MCES4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%610 Beginning net assets5,113,056 5,146,517 6,664,380 7,801,647 9,372,992 11,339,858 13,814,478 16,438,145 19,242,336 22,217,609 25,425,68628,860,026 32,551,702 36,487,933Water Utility-Reduced Usage Rates-Higher Fixed Rate-Two Year Phase InActualProjected52 Ending net assets 5,146,517 6,664,380 7,801,647 9,372,992 11,339,858 13,814,478 16,438,145 19,242,336 22,217,609 25,425,686 28,860,026 32,551,702 36,487,933 40,698,04053 CIP Funding54 Purchase of Capital Assets(2,335,774) (2,180,026) (3,373,513) (5,633,735) (5,231,681) (3,066,991) (3,723,686) (2,463,326) (2,665,364) (3,188,799) (2,929,128) (3,954,319) (2,499,666) (2,386,666)55 Bond Proceeds 5,208,945 5,635,000 5,000,000 0 3,000,000 0 1,300,000 0 1,300,000 0 056 Change in IFL balance(500,000)00000000057 Bond P&I - 2019 - 15 yrs at 3.35%(434,125) (434,125) (434,125) (434,125) (434,125) (434,125) (434,125) (434,125) (434,125)58 Bond P&I - 2020 - 15 yrs at 3.35%0000000059 Bond P&I - 2021 - 15 yrs at 4.35%(276,468) (276,468) (276,468) (276,468) (276,468) (276,468) (276,468)60 Bond P&I - 2022 - 15 yrs at 4.3500 000061 Bond P&I - 2023 - 15 yrs at 4.35%(119,803) (119,803) (119,803) (119,803) (119,803)62 Bond P&I - 2024 - 15 yrs at 4.35%000063 Bond P&I - 2025 - 15 yrs at 4.35%(119,803) (119,803) (119,803)64 Bond P&I - 2026 - 15 yrs at 4.35%0065 Bond P&I - 2027 - 15 yrs at 4.35%066 Bond P&I - 2028 - 15 yrs at 4.35%67 Bond Prin - Existing(2,083,800) (2,619,500) (2,237,200) (856,675) (1,587,440) (1,504,820) (1,105,600) (1,138,830) (1,162,910) (951,290) (988,685) (1,008,615) (760,000) (780,000)6869Beginning Cash 2,598,504 880,701 15,523 1,274,890 2,697,925 3,581,054 1,807,184 2,947,608 2,242,623 2,806,709 1,896,8122,761,030 1,444,002 2,101,93070 Add net operations1,048,611 1,008,007 1,729,156 2,008,650 2,725,597 3,143,164 3,296,922 3,458,143 3,627,165 3,844,428 4,073,621 4,315,345 4,570,230 4,838,93771 Add back depreciation718,198 707,093 887,322 707,100 735,384 757,446 780,169 803,574 827,681 852,512 878,087 904,430 931,562 959,50972 Add net non operating(1,015,150)509,856(591,889) (437,305) (758,731) (668,544) (673,255) (653,952) (651,892) (636,351) (639,280) (623,669) (633,999) (628,829)73 Add capital and bond(4,419,574) (4,799,526) (901,768) (855,410) (1,819,121) (5,005,936) (2,263,411) (4,312,750) (3,238,868) (4,970,486) (3,448,210) (5,913,133) (4,209,865) (4,116,865)74 Net change in balance sheet items524,755(156,463)136,54675 Other investments1,425,357 1,865,85576 Ending Cash 880,701 15,523 1,274,890 2,697,925 3,581,054 1,807,184 2,947,608 2,242,623 2,806,709 1,896,812 2,761,0301,444,002 2,101,930 3,154,68177 Other investments78 Ending net assets 5,146,517 6,664,380 7,801,647 9,372,992 11,339,858 13,814,478 16,438,145 19,242,336 22,217,609 25,425,686 28,860,026 32,551,702 36,487,933 40,698,040798081 Target minimum working capital 3,904,241 4,117,584 2,098,552 3,102,693 3,367,854 2,968,325 3,283,224 3,311,688 3,223,869 3,269,409 3,416,917 3,180,648 3,217,700 3,258,08282 Actual working capital-cash balance880,701 15,523 1,274,890 2,697,925 3,581,054 1,807,184 2,947,608 2,242,623 2,806,709 1,896,812 2,761,030 1,444,002 2,101,930 3,154,68183 Over (Under) target working capital(3,023,540) (4,102,061) (823,662) (404,768)213,200(1,161,141) (335,617) (1,069,065) (417,160) (1,372,596) (655,887) (1,736,646) (1,115,771) (103,401)Page 51Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
City of St. Louis ParkUtility Rate StudyBase Model1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth 5 Expense growth -MCES610 Beginning net assets1112 Operating Revenues13 Water sales14 Rent15 Sewer charges16 Charges for services17 Other 18 Total Operating Revenues1920 Operating Expenses21 Personnel22 Supplies23 Professional services24 Insurance25 Utilities26 Repairs and maintenance27 Other current28 Disposal charges29 MCES30 Depreciation3132 Total Operating Expenses3334 Net Operations35 Non operating revenues (expenses)36 Taxes37 Connections and special assessments38 Interest income39 Interest and fiscal charges expense40 Intergovermental41 Miscellaneous revenue (expense)42 Capital contributions43 Transfers in44 Transfers out-2014A Bonds45 Transfers out-2015A Bonds46 Transfers out-PIR Bonds47 Transfers out48 Total non operating revenue (expenses)4950 Net increase (decrease) in resources51Budget Preliminary2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 20285.00% 4.75% 4.75% 4.75% 4.75% 4.75% 4.75% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%6,705,575 6,527,721 5,887,027 6,285,997 7,340,867 8,191,519 9,072,703 9,993,434 10,971,441 11,990,401 13,066,198 14,294,038 15,676,342 17,202,4065,991,061 6,616,115 7,235,499 7,421,016 7,513,922 7,827,086 8,198,872 8,588,319 8,996,264 9,423,586 9,871,207 10,315,411 10,779,604 11,264,687120,937 47,590 25,515 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,0006,111,998 6,663,705 7,261,014 7,451,016 7,543,922 7,857,086 8,228,872 8,618,319 9,026,264 9,453,586 9,901,207 10,345,411 10,809,604 11,294,687562,701 778,069 868,578 689,225 728,829 750,694 773,215 796,411 820,303 844,913 870,260 896,368 923,259 950,95718,363 36,410 35,005 26,050 27,100 27,913 28,750 29,613 30,501 31,416 32,359 33,330 34,329 35,35918,648 89,674 41,647 59,535 59,779 61,572 63,420 65,322 67,282 69,300 71,379 73,521 75,726 77,99864,526 66,044 65,982 70,872 58,373 60,124 61,928 63,786 65,699 67,670 69,700 71,791 73,945 76,16443,459 41,129 47,927 48,500 50,500 52,015 53,575 55,183 56,838 58,543 60,300 62,109 63,972 65,891179,138 187,484 302,970 116,500 124,500 128,235 132,082 136,045 140,126 144,330 148,660 153,119 157,713 162,444226,671 205,837 216,896 271,719 311,353 311,353 311,353 311,353 311,353 311,353 311,353 311,353 311,353 311,3533,692,347 4,177,255 4,265,237 4,100,000 4,260,500 4,516,130 4,787,098 5,074,324 5,378,783 5,701,510 5,929,570 6,166,753 6,413,423 6,669,960129,701 114,295 112,386 112,386 115,758 119,230 122,807 126,491 130,286 134,195 138,221 142,367 146,638 151,0374,935,554 5,696,197 5,956,628 5,494,787 5,736,692 6,027,267 6,334,228 6,658,527 7,001,172 7,363,230 7,631,802 7,910,711 8,200,359 8,501,1641,176,444 967,508 1,304,386 1,956,229 1,807,230 1,829,819 1,894,644 1,959,791 2,025,092 2,090,356 2,269,405 2,434,700 2,609,245 2,793,5230 000000 00000005,283 8,144 3,167 2,391 7,184 24,680 14,636 23,760 16,819 26,291 18,563 27,595 20,929 34,753(5,626) (5,274) (17,715) (80,113) (115,428) (99,530) (88,550) (78,545) (68,141) (57,397) (47,172) (36,645) (29,466) (25,588)3,359(9,468) (5,642) (21,466)75,254(1,344,487) (1,680,684) (872,761) (823,637) (848,335) (873,785) (899,999) (926,999) (954,809) (983,453) (1,012,956) (1,043,345) (1,074,645) (1,106,885)(1,354,298) (1,608,202) (905,416) (901,359) (956,579) (948,635) (973,913) (981,784) (1,006,131) (1,014,559) (1,041,565) (1,052,396) (1,083,182) (1,097,719)(177,854) (640,694)398,970 1,054,870 850,651 881,184 920,731 978,007 1,018,960 1,075,797 1,227,839 1,382,304 1,526,063 1,695,804Sewer Utility-With Winter Quarter AveragingActualProjectedPage 52Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
City of St. Louis ParkUtility Rate StudyBase Model1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth 5 Expense growth -MCES610 Beginning net assets52 Ending net assets53 CIP Funding54 Purchase of Capital Assets55 Bond Proceeds56 Change in IFL balance57 Bond P&I - 2019 - 15 yrs at 3.35%58 Bond P&I - 2020 - 15 yrs at 3.35%59 Bond P&I - 2021 - 15 yrs at 4.35%60 Bond P&I - 2022 - 15 yrs at 4.3561 Bond P&I - 2023 - 15 yrs at 4.35%62 Bond P&I - 2024 - 15 yrs at 4.35%63 Bond P&I - 2025 - 15 yrs at 4.35%64 Bond P&I - 2026 - 15 yrs at 4.35%65 Bond P&I - 2027 - 15 yrs at 4.35%66 Bond P&I - 2028 - 15 yrs at 4.35%67 Bond Prin - Existing6869Beginning Cash70 Add net operations71 Add back depreciation72 Add net non operating73 Add capital and bond74 Net change in balance sheet items75 Other investments76 Ending Cash77 Other investments78 Ending net assets798081 Target minimum working capital 82 Actual working capital-cash balance83 Over (Under) target working capitalBudget Preliminary2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 20285.00% 4.75% 4.75% 4.75% 4.75% 4.75% 4.75% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%6,705,575 6,527,721 5,887,027 6,285,997 7,340,867 8,191,519 9,072,703 9,993,434 10,971,441 11,990,401 13,066,198 14,294,038 15,676,342 17,202,406Sewer Utility-With Winter Quarter AveragingActualProjected6,527,721 5,887,027 6,285,997 7,340,867 8,191,519 9,072,703 9,993,434 10,971,441 11,990,401 13,066,198 14,294,038 15,676,342 17,202,406 18,898,209(438,695) (692,628) (1,286,794) (1,524,167) (1,269,167) (976,219) (993,667) (1,086,167) (1,048,667) (1,011,167) (1,096,167) (971,667) (921,667)0 0 1,151,829 0 2,800,000 0 1,500,000 0 1,700,000 0 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 00 0000000(240,524) (240,524) (240,524) (240,524) (240,524) (240,524) (240,524) (240,524) (240,524)0(138,234) (138,234) (138,234) (138,234) (138,234) (138,234) (138,234)000000(156,665) (156,665) (156,665) (156,665) (156,665)0000(138,234) (138,234) (138,234)00(138,234)(16,000) (16,500) (172,500) (492,560) (495,180) (414,400) (426,170) (437,090) (398,710) (416,315) (421,385) (145,000) (150,000)1,415,372 1,253,942 272,392 837,894 718,356 2,468,038 1,463,582 2,375,977 1,681,880 2,629,112 1,856,303 2,759,457 2,092,919 3,475,2961,176,444 967,508 1,304,386 1,956,229 1,807,230 1,829,819 1,894,644 1,959,791 2,025,092 2,090,356 2,269,405 2,434,700 2,609,245 2,793,523129,701 114,295 112,386 112,386 115,758 119,230 122,807 126,491 130,286 134,195 138,221 142,367 146,638 151,037(1,354,298) (1,608,202) (905,416) (901,359) (956,579) (948,635) (973,913) (981,784) (1,006,131) (1,014,559) (1,041,565) (1,052,396) (1,083,182) (1,097,719)(16,000) (455,195)286,701(1,286,794)783,273(2,004,871) (131,143) (1,798,595) (202,015) (1,982,801) (462,906) (2,191,210) (290,325) (1,883,559)(97,277)44(232,555)1,253,942 272,392 837,894 718,356 2,468,038 1,463,582 2,375,977 1,681,880 2,629,112 1,856,303 2,759,457 2,092,919 3,475,296 3,438,5786,527,721 5,887,027 6,285,997 7,340,867 8,191,519 9,072,703 9,993,434 10,971,441 11,990,401 13,066,198 14,294,038 15,676,342 17,202,406 18,898,2091,255,663 1,614,264 1,569,270 1,981,684 2,269,407 2,250,291 2,467,031 2,548,621 2,741,824 2,839,718 3,039,638 2,825,801 3,037,569 3,112,7701,253,942 272,392 837,894 718,356 2,468,038 1,463,582 2,375,977 1,681,880 2,629,112 1,856,303 2,759,457 2,092,919 3,475,296 3,438,578(1,721) (1,341,872) (731,376) (1,263,328)198,631(786,709) (91,054) (866,741) (112,712) (983,415) (280,181) (732,882)437,727 325,808Page 53Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
City of St. Louis Park
Utility Rate Study
Base Model
Revised Proposed
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
1 Rates Inflation 3.00% 5.00% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50%
2
3 Investment income yield 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
4 Expense growth 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
5
6
10 Beginning net assets 15,067,791 16,312,010 17,215,120 17,797,608 18,645,252 19,579,513 20,628,047 21,782,403 23,054,820 24,471,081 26,008,103 27,706,945 29,545,797
11
12 Operating Revenues
13 Charges for services 2,642,383 2,816,349 2,816,349 2,900,839 3,045,881 3,213,405 3,390,142 3,576,600 3,773,313 3,980,845 4,199,792 4,430,780 4,674,473
14
15
16
17 Other
18 Total Operating Revenues 2,642,383 2,816,349 2,816,349 2,900,839 3,045,881 3,213,405 3,390,142 3,576,600 3,773,313 3,980,845 4,199,792 4,430,780 4,674,473
19
20 Operating Expenses
21 Personnel 542,193 542,301 796,527 807,793 832,027 856,988 882,697 909,178 936,453 964,547 993,483 1,023,288 1,053,987
22 Supplies 3,783 4,617 28,600 9,500 9,785 10,079 10,381 10,692 11,013 11,343 11,684 12,034 12,395
23 Professional services 49,711 155,776 432,584 325,903 335,680 345,750 356,123 366,807 377,811 389,145 400,820 412,844 425,229
24 Insurance 14,923 8,463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 Utilities 43,275 33,834 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 Repairs and maintenance 25,728 2,454 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 Other current 122,855 122,494 26,500 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,478 3,582 3,690 3,800 3,914
28 Disposal charges
29
30 Depreciation 565,262 569,779 569,779 569,779 586,872 604,479 622,613 641,291 660,530 680,346 700,756 721,779 743,432
31
32 Total Operating Expenses 1,367,730 1,439,718 1,853,990 1,715,975 1,767,454 1,820,478 1,875,092 1,931,345 1,989,285 2,048,964 2,110,433 2,173,746 2,238,958
33
34 Net Operations 1,274,653 1,376,631 962,359 1,184,864 1,278,427 1,392,927 1,515,050 1,645,255 1,784,028 1,931,881 2,089,359 2,257,034 2,435,515
35 Non operating revenues (expenses)
36 Taxes
37 Connections and special assessments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 Interest income 25,119 32,071 32,617 32,617 9,348 16,288 8,620 5,253 19,317 2,440 18,004 2,594 22,259
39 Interest and fiscal charges expense (21,190) (19,418) (17,397) (14,172) (11,385) (8,287) (6,348) (4,237) (2,013)(677)0 0 0
40 Intergovermental
41 Miscellaneous revenue (expense)(54,785) (99,311)3,378 (23,500)
42 Capital contributions 334,691
43 Transfers in 0 0 0 0 0
44 Transfers out-2014A Bonds
45 Transfers out-2015A Bonds
46 Transfers out-PIR Bonds
47 Transfers out (314,269) (386,863) (398,469) (332,165) (342,130) (352,394) (362,966) (373,855) (385,070) (396,622) (408,521) (420,777) (433,400)
48 Total non operating revenue (expenses)(30,434) (473,521) (379,871) (337,220) (344,167) (344,393) (360,694) (372,839) (367,766) (394,859) (390,517) (418,183) (411,141)
49
50 Net increase (decrease) in resources 1,244,219 903,110 582,488 847,644 934,260 1,048,534 1,154,356 1,272,417 1,416,261 1,537,022 1,698,842 1,838,852 2,024,374
51
Storm Water Utility
Actual Projected
Page 54
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
City of St. Louis Park
Utility Rate Study
Base Model
Revised Proposed
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
1 Rates Inflation 3.00% 5.00% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50%
2
3 Investment income yield 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
4 Expense growth 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
5
6
10 Beginning net assets 15,067,791 16,312,010 17,215,120 17,797,608 18,645,252 19,579,513 20,628,047 21,782,403 23,054,820 24,471,081 26,008,103 27,706,945 29,545,797
Storm Water Utility
Actual Projected
52 Ending net assets 16,312,010 17,215,120 17,797,608 18,645,252 19,579,513 20,628,047 21,782,403 23,054,820 24,471,081 26,008,103 27,706,945 29,545,797 31,570,171
53 CIP Funding
54 Purchase of Capital Assets (533,463) (2,499,503) (2,338,376) (3,139,505) (3,482,167) (1,900,167) (1,591,217) (3,081,867) (3,000,667) (896,067) (3,128,617) (782,167) (2,246,667)
55 Bond Proceeds 343,073 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 3,100,000 0 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 0
56 Change in IFL balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57 Bond P&I - 2019 - 15 yrs at 3.35%(173,650) (173,650) (173,650) (173,650) (173,650) (173,650) (173,650) (173,650) (173,650)
58 Bond P&I - 2020 - 15 yrs at 3.35%(260,475) (260,475) (260,475) (260,475) (260,475) (260,475) (260,475) (260,475)
59 Bond P&I - 2021 - 15 yrs at 4.35%0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 Bond P&I - 2022 - 15 yrs at 4.35 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 Bond P&I - 2023 - 15 yrs at 4.35%(285,684) (285,684) (285,684) (285,684) (285,684)
62 Bond P&I - 2024 - 15 yrs at 4.35%0 0 0 0
63 Bond P&I - 2025 - 15 yrs at 4.35%(92,156) (92,156) (92,156)
64 Bond P&I - 2026 - 15 yrs at 4.35%0 0
65 Bond P&I - 2027 - 15 yrs at 4.35%(92,156)
66 Bond P&I - 2028 - 15 yrs at 4.35%
67 Bond Prin - Existing (359,000)(505,300)(163,800)(167,700)(171,350)(85,500)(88,300)(91,350)(44,000)(45,100)0 0 0
68
69 Beginning Cash 2,649,006 3,245,258 2,174,495 824,586 934,804 1,628,770 861,990 525,317 1,931,683 243,998 1,800,390 259,405 2,225,904
70 Add net operations 1,274,653 1,376,631 962,359 1,184,864 1,278,427 1,392,927 1,515,050 1,645,255 1,784,028 1,931,881 2,089,359 2,257,034 2,435,515
71 Add back depreciation 565,262 569,779 569,779 569,779 586,872 604,479 622,613 641,291 660,530 680,346 700,756 721,779 743,432
72 Add net non operating (365,125) (473,521) (379,871) (337,220) (344,167) (344,393) (360,694) (372,839) (367,766) (394,859) (390,517) (418,183) (411,141)
73 Add capital and bond (892,463) (2,661,730) (2,502,176) (1,307,205) (827,167) (2,419,792) (2,113,642) (507,342) (3,764,476) (660,976) (3,940,582) (594,132) (3,150,788)
74 Net change in balance sheet items 13,925 118,078
75 Other investments
76 Ending Cash 3,245,258 2,174,495 824,586 934,804 1,628,770 861,990 525,317 1,931,683 243,998 1,800,390 259,405 2,225,904 1,842,922
77 Other investments
78 Ending net assets 16,312,010 17,215,120 17,797,608 18,645,252 19,579,513 20,628,047 21,782,403 23,054,820 24,471,081 26,008,103 27,706,945 29,545,797 31,570,171
79
80
81 Target minimum working capital 866,651 541,127 645,370 785,379 969,776 983,893 998,485 1,248,658 1,262,907 1,324,206 1,339,574 1,447,558 1,463,861
82 Actual working capital-cash balance 3,245,258 2,174,495 824,586 934,804 1,628,770 861,990 525,317 1,931,683 243,998 1,800,390 259,405 2,225,904 1,842,922
83 Over (Under) target working capital 2,378,608 1,633,369 179,217 149,425 658,994 (121,902) (473,168)683,024 (1,018,909)476,183 (1,080,168)778,346 379,061
Page 55
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
City of St. Louis ParkUtility Rate StudyBase Model1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth 5 Expense growth -MCES610 Beginning net assets1112 Operating Revenues13 Water sales14 Rent15 Sewer charges16 Charges for services17 Other 18 Total Operating Revenues1920 Operating Expenses21 Personnel22 Supplies23 Professional services24 Insurance25 Utilities26 Repairs and maintenance27 Other current28 Disposal charges29 MCES30 Depreciation3132 Total Operating Expenses3334 Net Operations35 Non operating revenues (expenses)36 Taxes37 Connections and special assessments38 Interest income39 Interest and fiscal charges expense40 Intergovermental41 Miscellaneous revenue (expense)42 Capital contributions43 Transfers in44 Transfers out-2014A Bonds45 Transfers out-2015A Bonds46 Transfers out-PIR Bonds47 Transfers out48 Total non operating revenue (expenses)4950 Net increase (decrease) in resources51Budget Preliminary2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 20284.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%2.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2,401,631 2,597,847 2,564,317 2,375,103 2,030,570 1,694,740 1,454,502 1,316,653 1,224,135 1,182,094 1,202,927 1,278,312 1,413,217 1,612,9183,159,426 3,180,075 3,116,087 3,465,000 3,290,783 3,442,815 3,602,281 3,769,604 3,945,239 4,136,494 4,322,636 4,517,154 4,720,426 4,932,84530,140 60,515 121,419 125,500 118,500 118,500 118,500 118,500 118,500 118,500 118,500 118,500 118,500 118,5003,189,566 3,240,590 3,237,506 3,590,500 3,409,283 3,561,315 3,720,781 3,888,104 4,063,739 4,254,994 4,441,136 4,635,654 4,838,926 5,051,345386,831 482,774 536,021 631,295 594,329 547,859 499,995 514,994 530,444 546,358 562,748 579,631 597,020 614,93071,424 180,422 203,064 184,750 222,550 229,227 236,103 243,186 250,482 257,996 265,736 273,708 281,920 290,37715,987 11,783 29,142 44,126 39,446 40,629 41,848 43,104 44,397 45,729 47,101 48,514 49,969 51,4683,770 3,810 3,916 3,882 4,116 4,239 4,367 4,498 4,633 4,772 4,915 5,062 5,214 5,37030,88462,391 81,989 92,767 96,934 111,223 114,560 117,996 121,536 125,182 128,938 132,806 136,790 140,894 145,1212,367,972 2,450,485 2,507,800 2,895,000 2,700,000 2,781,000 2,864,430 2,950,363 3,038,874 3,130,040 3,223,941 3,320,659 3,420,279 3,522,888000 0000000000 000000000 00000002,908,375 3,242,147 3,372,710 3,855,987 3,671,664 3,717,514 3,764,739 3,877,682 3,994,012 4,113,832 4,237,247 4,364,365 4,495,296 4,630,155281,191(1,557) (135,204) (265,487) (262,381) (156,199) (43,958)10,422 69,727 141,161 203,888 271,290 343,631 421,1910 000000000000010,601 14,478 17,202 15,000 18,108 14,750 12,347 10,969 10,044 9,623 9,831 10,585 11,934 13,931118,610 174,160 156,017 140,000 149,500 149,500 149,500 149,500 149,500 149,500 149,500 149,500 149,500 149,500(214,186) (220,611) (227,229) (234,046) (241,057) (248,289) (255,737) (263,409) (271,312) (279,451) (287,835) (296,470) (305,364) (314,525)(84,975) (31,973) (54,010) (79,046) (73,449) (84,039) (93,890) (102,941) (111,768) (120,328) (128,503) (136,384) (143,929) (151,093)196,216(33,530) (189,214) (344,533) (335,830) (240,238) (137,848) (92,519) (42,041)20,833 75,385 134,905 199,701 270,098ProjectedSolid Waste-Option II-Phase Out 20 Gallon CartActualPage 56Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
City of St. Louis ParkUtility Rate StudyBase Model1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth 5 Expense growth -MCES610 Beginning net assets52 Ending net assets53 CIP Funding54 Purchase of Capital Assets55 Bond Proceeds56 Change in IFL balance57 Bond P&I - 2019 - 15 yrs at 3.35%58 Bond P&I - 2020 - 15 yrs at 3.35%59 Bond P&I - 2021 - 15 yrs at 4.35%60 Bond P&I - 2022 - 15 yrs at 4.3561 Bond P&I - 2023 - 15 yrs at 4.35%62 Bond P&I - 2024 - 15 yrs at 4.35%63 Bond P&I - 2025 - 15 yrs at 4.35%64 Bond P&I - 2026 - 15 yrs at 4.35%65 Bond P&I - 2027 - 15 yrs at 4.35%66 Bond P&I - 2028 - 15 yrs at 4.35%67 Bond Prin - Existing6869Beginning Cash70 Add net operations71 Add back depreciation72 Add net non operating73 Add capital and bond74 Net change in balance sheet items75 Other investments76 Ending Cash77 Other investments78 Ending net assets798081 Target minimum working capital 82 Actual working capital-cash balance83 Over (Under) target working capitalBudget Preliminary2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 20284.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%2.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2,401,631 2,597,847 2,564,317 2,375,103 2,030,570 1,694,740 1,454,502 1,316,653 1,224,135 1,182,094 1,202,927 1,278,312 1,413,217 1,612,918ProjectedSolid Waste-Option II-Phase Out 20 Gallon CartActual2,597,847 2,564,317 2,375,103 2,030,570 1,694,740 1,454,502 1,316,653 1,224,135 1,182,094 1,202,927 1,278,312 1,413,217 1,612,918 1,883,0160 00000000000 0(500,000)500,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000002,105,838 2,161,295 1,708,616 2,155,321 1,810,788 1,474,958 1,234,720 1,096,871 1,004,353 962,312 983,145 1,058,530 1,193,435 1,393,136281,191(1,557) (135,204) (265,487) (262,381) (156,199) (43,958)10,422 69,727 141,161 203,888 271,290 343,631 421,1910 0000000000000(84,975) (31,973) (54,010) (79,046) (73,449) (84,039) (93,890) (102,941) (111,768) (120,328) (128,503) (136,384) (143,929) (151,093)0(500,000)500,00000000000000(140,759)80,851 135,9192,161,295 1,708,616 2,155,321 1,810,788 1,474,958 1,234,720 1,096,871 1,004,353 962,312 983,145 1,058,530 1,193,435 1,393,136 1,663,2342,597,847 2,564,317 2,375,103 2,030,570 1,694,740 1,454,502 1,316,653 1,224,135 1,182,094 1,202,927 1,278,312 1,413,217 1,612,918 1,883,0161,227,094 310,537 843,178 963,997 917,916 929,378 941,185 969,420 998,503 1,028,458 1,059,312 1,091,091 1,123,824 1,157,5392,161,295 1,708,616 2,155,321 1,810,788 1,474,958 1,234,720 1,096,871 1,004,353 962,312 983,145 1,058,530 1,193,435 1,393,136 1,663,234934,201 1,398,079 1,312,144 846,791 557,042 305,341 155,686 34,932(36,191) (45,313) (782)102,344 269,312 505,695Page 57Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP
Financial Management Plan
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.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
Interest Income 4,689 4,975 4,000 4,000 8,372 8,017 7,655 7,285 6,908 6,524 6,133 5,734 5,333
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue 243,690 266,204 225,000 200,000 207,000 214,245 221,744 229,505 237,537 245,851 254,456 263,362 271,263
Transfers In 100,000 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 248,379$ 371,179$ 229,000$ 204,000$ 215,372$ 222,262$ 229,398$ 236,790$ 244,446$ 252,375$ 260,589$ 269,096$ 276,596$
Expenditures
Personal Services 29,784 30,456 32,562 31,932 33,050 34,206 35,489 36,820 38,201 39,633 41,219 42,455 43,729
Supplies - - - - - - - - - - - -
Services & Other Charges 214,457 422,456 200,000 200,000 206,000 212,180 218,545 225,102 231,855 238,810 245,975 253,354 260,955
Transfers Out - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 244,241$ 452,912$ 232,562$ 231,932$ 239,050$ 246,386$ 254,034$ 261,922$ 270,055$ 278,444$ 287,193$ 295,809$ 304,683$
Incr/(Decr) in Net Position 4,137$ (81,733)$ (3,562)$ (27,932)$ (23,678)$ (24,125)$ (24,636)$ (25,132)$ (25,610)$ (26,069)$ (26,604)$ (26,713)$ (28,087)$
Net Position - Beginning 738,674$ 742,811$ 661,078$ 657,516$ 629,584$ 605,906$ 581,781$ 557,145$ 532,013$ 506,403$ 480,335$ 453,730$ 427,017$
Net Position - Ending 742,811$ 661,078$ 657,516$ 629,584$ 605,906$ 581,781$ 557,145$ 532,013$ 506,403$ 480,335$ 453,730$ 427,017$ 398,929$
Net Position Percentage 164.01%284.26%283.49%263.37%245.92%229.02%212.71%197.00%181.87%167.25%153.39%140.15%127.12%
Cash Available at Year End 677,468$ 589,614$ 586,052$ 558,120$ 534,442$ 510,318$ 485,681$ 460,550$ 434,940$ 408,871$ 382,267$ 355,553$ 327,466$
Cash Available Percentage 149.58%253.53%252.68%233.47%216.91%200.89%185.43%170.54%156.20%142.37%129.23%116.70%104.35%
Target Cash Balance -
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 58
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 2027 2028
Actual Actual Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
General Property Taxes / HRA Levy 200,000 200,000 200,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000 600,000
Intergovernmental 280,809 308,526 15,414 15,953 16,512 17,090 17,688 18,307 18,948 19,611 20,297 21,008 21,638
Interest Income 14,803 19,045 16,524 14,379 11,299 8,766 6,786 5,364 4,506 4,216 4,501 5,365 6,814
Miscellaneous/ Other Revenue 169,321 172,779 179,108 184,481 190,016 195,716 201,587 207,635 213,864 220,280 226,888 233,695 60,000
Transfers In 200,000 - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 864,933$ 700,350$ 411,046$ 364,814$ 417,827$ 471,572$ 526,062$ 581,306$ 637,318$ 694,107$ 751,687$ 810,068$ 688,452$
Cash Outflows
Public Safety Disabilitant Ins - - - - - - - - - - - -
Self Insurance costs - Sedg 12,645 8,160 24,000 24,720 25,462 26,225 27,012 27,823 28,657 29,517 30,402 31,315 32,254
HOM claims 35,944 39,632 36,000 37,080 38,192 39,338 40,518 41,734 42,986 44,275 45,604 46,972 48,381
Unemployment 31,212 21,293 40,000 41,200 42,436 43,709 45,020 46,371 47,762 49,195 50,671 52,191 53,757
General Professional Services 68,589 77,201 66,000 67,980 70,019 72,120 74,284 76,512 78,807 81,172 83,607 86,115 88,698
Tuition 42,243 40,010 60,000 61,800 63,654 65,564 67,531 69,556 71,643 73,792 76,006 78,286 80,635
Estimated Cash Outflows
Flex Payout to VEBA/Employee 392,619 144,904 148,904 152,904 156,904 160,904 164,904 168,904 172,904 176,904 180,904 184,904 188,904
Retiree Payouts Insurance Prem.173,542 220,023 179,108 184,481 190,016 195,716 201,587 207,635 213,864 220,280 226,888 233,695 240,706
Total Cash Outflows 756,793$ 551,223$ 554,012$ 570,165$ 586,683$ 603,576$ 620,856$ 638,535$ 656,624$ 675,136$ 694,082$ 713,478$ 733,335$
Incr/(Decr) in Cash Balance 108,139$ 149,127$ (142,966)$ (205,351)$ (168,856)$ (132,004)$ (94,795)$ (57,229)$ (19,306)$ 18,972$ 57,604$ 96,590$ (44,883)$
Cash Available at Year End 952,469$ 1,101,596$ 958,630$ 753,279$ 584,422$ 452,418$ 357,623$ 300,395$ 281,089$ 300,060$ 357,665$ 454,254$ 409,371$
Cash Available Percentage 172.79% 198.84% 168.13% 128.40% 96.83% 72.87% 56.01% 45.75% 41.63% 43.23% 50.13% 61.94% 54.32%
Target Cash Balance -
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 59
2020 Ongoing Ongoing 2020 2020 Ongoing Ongoing 2020
Fund EDA Levy Development Fund HRA Levy Housing Trust Housing Rehab Capital Replacement Fund G.O. Bonds Tech Utility
Funding Sources-estimates EDA levy Interest earnings HRA levy HRA levy - $964,602 bond fees - $600,000 Tax levy $300K - 10 year bonds Utility Fee
$1,209,910 Max amount Land sales $1,234,602 Max amount Donation/contributions tax levy - eliminate sale of assets $500,000 (in place of
% of housing TIF ??Park center TIF development fund)
$160,000
Expenditures
estimates only Salaries - $650,000 Land acquisition Housing Salaries Housing programs Housing programs City wide tech.PMP - Fiber $300,000 Smart cities projects
Land acquisition small business loans 20% = $270,000 current programs $875,000 facilities (average amount)Fiber
Loan programs 80% - Housing trust and/or $305,000 Move housing salaries vechicles replacements Sensors
CAP loans/grants infrastructure NOAH housing rehab loan/grant in 2020 to HRA levy fund
BR&E $600,000
Strategic Priorities 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,3,4,5 1,3,5 1,3,5 1, 2, 4,5 1, 2, 4,5 1, 2, 4,5
Trust Fund Rehab Fund
Discount Rehab loans 40,000$
Emergency Repair Grant 25,000$
Move-up
Rehab advisor 19,000$
Design Services 8,000$
Remodel Tour 10,000$
Prog. Marketing 5,000$
Transformation Loan 206,000$
Land Trust 60,000$
Foreclosure Incentive 10,000$
Deferred loan 60,000$
Admin 5,000$
CES Energy Visits 8,000$
Rebates 35,000$
On-bill financing for energy 60,000$
NAGP - grants/seed money 52,000$
Shallow Rent Program 100,000$
STEP rental assist.60,000$
STEP annual Contrib.47,760$
Senior Services 10,000$
SF acquisition/rehab demo.350,000$
4D pilot 10,000$
Total 305,000$ 875,760$
Strategic Priorities
(1) = SLP is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
(2) = SLP is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
(3) = SLP is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development.
(4) = SLP is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and realiably.
(5) = SLP is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of proposed 2019 CIP and LRFMP Page 60
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: October 22, 2018
Discussion item: 4
Executive summary
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities
Recommended action: The purpose of this discussion is to provide council with the draft list of
legislative issues and priorities. Staff asks for council feedback on the attached draft document.
Policy consideration:
•Does the council agree with the issues included in the draft document?
•Would the council like to pursue other legislative issues?
•Of all of the legislative issues identified, what are the council’s highest priorities?
•Does the council wish to continue retaining legislative consulting assistance to help
promote the city’s legislative agenda?
Summary: The state legislature will be convening the 91st session on Tuesday, January 8, 2019.
Similar to previous years, staff has prepared a draft list of legislative issues for the councils
review. Staff will make changes based on the council discussion and a final draft will be
reviewed at the study session on November 26, 2018. As the 2019 legislative session
progresses, additional issues may arise that can be addressed as necessary. The final version
will be presented at a special study session in December with the city’s legislators, county
commissioner and Met Council representatives in attendance.
The city has a practice of retaining lobbying services to assist with legislative and regulatory
issues. Administrative Services has used Doug Franzen and Vic Moore of Franzen & Associates,
and Emily Tranter of Lockridge, Grindal, and Nauen. Would the council like to continue these
services for 2019?
Financial or budget considerations: Funding for lobbyists is included in the budget.
Strategic priority consideration:
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to
create a more just and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood
oriented development.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their
way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities (redline version)
Top 2018 legislative priorities
Prepared by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant
Reviewed by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities
Discussion
Background: The state legislature will be convening on Tuesday, January 8, 2019. Similar to
previous years, staff has prepared a draft list of legislative issues for the councils review. Staff
asks for council feedback on the attached draft document.
Additional Resources:
League of Minnesota Cities
LMC Legislative Action Center
LMC 2018 Policies
Policy Committees
Metro Cities
Metro Cities Legislative Policies
Policy committees
Timeline:
•Monday, October 22- Council review draft 2019 legislative issues and priorities
•Monday, November 26- Council review updated draft 2019 legislative issues and
priorities
•TBD, December- Council will meet with Senator Ron Latz, Representative Cheryl
Youakim, Representative Peggy Flanagan, Hennepin County Commissioner Marion
Greene and Metropolitan Council representative Gail Dorfman.
[1]
City of St. Louis Park
20198 Legislative Issues
Community Development Issues
Affordable Housing Financing Bonding Authority: (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: In the 2017 legislative session, the legislature provided $77 million in bonding authority
to construct and preserve affordable housing, improve existing public housing and to expand
support for homeless programs. Although the 2017 bonding authority amount is significant,
the continued demand for affordable housing warrants the need for additional Housing
Infrastructure (HIB) and General Obligation (GO) Bonds for affordable housing. GO bonds can
be used to rehabilitate or construct new public housing. HIB bonds can be used to finance
several types of projects including new construction or rehabilitation of supportive and
affordable housing and preservation of existing federally subsidized rental housing.
Position: The city supports an effective bonding bill that provides Housing Infrastructure (HIB)
and General Obligation (GO) Bonds to fund affordable housing to serve low income households.
Establish a TOD Affordable Housing Fund (Request directed to State Leg./Hennepin Co)
Issue: Efforts are being made to develop a corridor-wide housing strategy for the SWLRT
Corridor for providing a full range of housing options specifically within a half-mile of the
station areas. The fundamental issue with respect to the traditional approaches to
infill/redevelopment and mixed-income housing production/preservation, is an absence of
funds.
Position: The city supports the creation of a TOD Affordable Housing Fund and requests that
Hennepin County and the State provide a financial resource to be used to support the
preservation and creation of affordable housing along the SWLRT corridor.
Local Housing Trust Funds (LHTF) (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: In the 2017 session, the legislature passed language that enables cities, counties or
regions to set up and resource LHTFs. In 2018, local affordable housing agencies will be
working to identify a consistent funding source and incentivize communities to take advantage
of this locally controlled tool.
Position: The city supports legislation that establishes a dedicated revenue source for LHTFs,
encourages local jurisdictions, creates a state match and provides technical assistance dollars to
communities to set up their LHTF.
Reduce 4D Tax Classification Tax Rate and Expand Eligibility to Participation in the Housing
Choice Voucher Program (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Increasing property taxes are impacting multi-family residential rental properties. These
increasing costs are being passed on to the renterstenants as owners increase rents. At the
same time, the need for affordable housing continues to increase. Existing rent-restricted
buildings are also struggling with increased taxes and limited ability to increase rents to cover
the cost. Reducing the 4D tax classification rate would provide an incentive for market-rate
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 3
[2]
properties to designate a portion of their units as rent-restricted and provide tax relief to
existing rent-restricted properties. Expanding eligibility to include properties committing to
accepting a minimum (20%) number of Housing Choice Voucher participants would provide an
incentive for more rental owners to accept tenants receiving housing subsidy, which provides
greater housing opportunities for program participants.
Position: The city supports any legislation that would reduce the 4D tax classification rate to
encourage more rent-restricted units in market-rate buildings and/or expand eligibility
requirements to encourage more rental owner participation in the Housing Choice Voucher
Program.
Amend State Statute 471.9996 Rent Control Prohibited to Allow for a 90 Day Tenant
Protection Period Following the Transfer of (NOAH) Property Ownership (Request directed to
State Legislature)
Issue: Currently state statute prohibits any local adoption of an ordinance to control rents on
private residential properties unless the ordinance is approved in a general election.
Investment buyers have been purchasing NOAH multi-family residential properties, rehabbing
properties and increasing rents. In some cases, new owners have non-renewed the leases of
existing tenants with minimal notice and/or implemented substantial rent increases with
minimal notice. A 90-day period that would prohibit rent increases and non-renewals would
allow time for existing residents in these situations to seek alternative housing.
Position: The city supports legislation that would allow for a 90-day tenant protection period
following ownership transfer of a NOAH multi-family residential property.
Establish revenue resource for Inclusionary Housing Fund (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: The Met Council partnered with the Family Housing Fund and the Urban Land Institute of
MN to support mixed-income (inclusionary) housing efforts in the region. Together they
developed a number of tools including the mixed-income calculator and the establishment of
an Inclusionary Housing Fund to assist in financing mixed income projects. A number of
communities in the metro region have adopted policies to ensure the inclusion of affordable
housing in new multi-family residential market-rate developments. To date, a funding source
for the Inclusionary Housing Fund has not been established.
Position: The City supports establishment of a financing resource to fund the Inclusionary
Housing Fund to facilitate mixed-income projects. An Inclusionary Housing Fund would support
local efforts to finance inclusionary housing projects, providing a financial resource for local
communities that adopt Inclusionary housing policies for new multi-family residential
development.
Tax Credit Contribution Fund (Request directed to State legislature)
Issue: The private market is not supplying housing that is affordable to Minnesota’s low income
households. A public private partnership could help ensure an adequate supply of housing. The
Minnesota Tax Credit Contribution Fund incentivizes private investment and promotes
community and economic development. This fund is being modeled after North Dakota’s
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 4
[3]
Housing Incentive Fund. Since its inception in 2011, North Dakota's HIF has leveraged roughly
$5 for every $1 invested, creating more than 2,500 units across the state. Minnesota
communities of all sizes would benefit from this simple, effective tool.
The program is capitalized by contributions from taxpayers that have state income or corporate
/ insurance premium tax liabilities. In exchange for contributions to affordable housing,
participating taxpayers receive credit against their state income tax liability equal to their
contribution to a specific development or the general loan pool. Participation in the program is
simple, and the credit is flexible, easy to use statewide, leverages significant private equity, and
boosts local businesses.
Position: St. Louis Park strongly supports and encourages affordable housing. The city supports
the establishment of a tool to incentivize private investment and promote community and
economic development. The Minnesota Tax Credit Contribution Fund is about neighbors
helping neighbors create housing opportunities and helping businesses and communities thrive.
Rental Rehab Loan Program for small to medium size developments in seven county
metropolitan area (Request directed at the State Legislature)
Issue: Naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) is the largest resource of affordable
housing in the metro area. These multi-family residential rental developments which typically
have limited amenities are at risk of losing their affordability as investors purchase the
properties, renovate and add amenities and increase rents. As an incentive for current NOAH
properties owners to retain the affordability of their properties, a multi-family rehab loan fund
should be established to provide funding for rehab and capital investment in the development
in exchange for establishing rent restrictions.
Position: St. Louis Park strongly supports and encourages affordable housing. The city supports
the establishment of a housing rehab loan program to facilitate the preservation of NOAH
multi-family residential rental properties and encourage owners to retain the affordability of
their developments.
Affordable Housing construction - Limiting Local Regulatory Authority (Request directed to
State Legislature)
Issue: Recent discussions on affordable housing solutions includes agencies advocating for
housing programs for primarily multiple family developments, and local home builders pursuing
reduced regulatory authority by the state and cities. Last year, the Builders Association of the
Twin Cities working though a newly created branch organization called Housing First MN,
worked toward a bill that was defeated. Requiring new construction codes which could increase
cost to receive legislative committee approval before being adopted, potentially halting
progress in public safety and energy conservation standards. Additionally these groups
proposed restricting or eliminating local land use standards developed by communities for
livability.
Position: Although St. Louis Park strongly supports and encourages affordable housing,
minimum code requirements for energy conservation and building safety should not be
compromised on the concept of reducing construction costs to builders. In addition, local land
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 5
[4]
use and zoning standards for establishing quality of life standards in each community should
not be limited by legislative action
Maintain Local establishment of appropriate fee-for-service programs (Request directed to
State Legislature)
Issue: Call for affordable housing by construction industry is mistaking codes and fees to be the
cause of raising home values - not the rapidly increasing price of building materials and
construction labor in a free market economy.
Position: Maintain a consistent minimum standard for building safety, longevity, and energy
conservation, and allow local government units to continue with fee-for-service programs as
currently outlined in statute (i.e. reasonable and justifiable).
Safe guard public code administration employees (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: As public safety regulators, inspectors often face hostility from a few public members. A
no tolerance position for abusive behavior should be adopted. Assaults and murder have
occurred on code officials in the normal course of performing their duties for a local
government unit.
Position: Support Minnesota League of Cities SD-29, Assaults on Code Enforcement Officials.
The change would move assault charges from the current fifth degree, or misdemeanor, to a
more stringent fourth degree, a gross misdemeanor, by expanding the public employees with
mandated duties statute to include code enforcement officials.
Other Community Development Issues
TIF District Statutory Modifications (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) remains the most viable tool for local economic
development and community reinvestment efforts. TIF is a method local governments use to
pay for the costs of qualifying improvements necessary to create new investment,
redevelopment, or publicly-assisted housing. The financing of the qualifying improvements is
paid from the increased property taxes generated from the new development, redevelopment,
or housing that would not occur “but for” such assistance. There are steps that the sState could
take that would enhance the effectiveness of TIF, leverage additional private investment and
create more jobs and tax base in communities. The current types of State-authorized TIF
districts lack flexibility and do not adequately address the varied and unique redevelopment
situations found in urban communities.
Currently, the Minnesota TIF Act requires more than 50% of the buildings in a project area be
found to be substandard to qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District. In redevelopment
situations involving only a small number of parcels, this can be an insurmountable standard to
meet thus preventing new investment from occurring.
Position: The City supports greater flexibility and the inclusion of additional uses within current
TIF districts.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 6
[5]
•In particular, the city supports a minor modification of the Redevelopment TIF District
statute requiring 50% or more of buildings within project areas be found to be
substandard.
•The city supports the elimination of the 5-year rule for districts that take longer to
develop.
•To spur additional development, the city supports lengthening the duration of Economic
Development TIF Districts to a full 10 years, or nine years from first tax increment
collection. In addition, the city supports expanding authority to allow for the
establishment of Economic Development TIF Districts for assisting with commercial
project development for the purpose of retention and expansion of existing businesses
and the attraction of new business to the state to create and retain jobs.
•The city further supports the establishment of Transit Oriented TIF Districts within one-
half mile of light rail corridors and one mile from light rail corridor train stations for the
purposes of promoting economic development, redeveloping blighted areas, and the
development of housing near light rail corridors. Eligible expenditures within the district
include but are not limited to (1) the city's or authority’s share of the costs necessary to
provide for the construction of any southwest light rail transit station and related
infrastructure, including but not limited to parking facilities, including structured parking,
pedestrian overpasses, pedestrian connections, and walkways or trails; (2) infrastructure
and roadway improvements, including but not limited to sanitary sewer, water, storm
sewer and utility improvements; (3) land acquisition costs; (4) costs related to
environmental remediation, soil correction, demolition, and relocation; (5) site
improvement costs; (6) costs incurred with respect to the development of or
rehabilitation of housing; and (7) related administrative costs. Additionally, if two or more
cities or authorities propose a joint development or adjacent developments, the cities or
authorities would be allowed to expend up to 25% of the total revenue derived from tax
increments generated from such a tax increment district to pay for the eligible
expenditures of another tax increment district located outside the city’s corporate limits
DEED Program Funding (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Department of Employment & Economic Development (DEED) is critically important
in the support of communities and local economic development initiatives. DEED manages
several programs utilized by the city that have positively impacted St. Louis Park.
Position: St. Louis Park supports the continued annual funding of DEED programs at stable and
sustainable levels. The City believes that continued funding of DEED programs at the same, or
an increased level is vital to economic growth across Minnesota. The city supports legislative
initiatives that strengthen funding levels for economic development programs administered by
DEED and other state agencies such as Small Business Development Centers, the Minnesota
Investment Fund, the Job Creation Fund, Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment Grant
Program, Transportation Economic Development Program and proposed new financing tools
that support development along transit corridors. Minnesota communities rely on these
programs to remain competitive with neighboring states in their efforts to bring jobs and tax
base back to Minnesota.
Special Service Districts Statutory Authority (Request directed to State Legislature)
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 7
[6]
Issue: In 1988, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. § 428A.01 to § 428A.101
to establish Special Service Districts. As currently written, only commercial properties can
financially participate within Special Service Districts. This is challenging for funding additional
services within mixed-use project areas. The City of St. Louis Park has established six Special
Service Districts, including multiple sections of Excelsior Boulevard. Providing infrastructure
improvements and on-going maintenance at the LRT station areas will also be a need
Position: The city supports the inclusion of multi-family housing developments as financial
participants within Special Service Districts and the establishment of Special Service Districts
around transit and LRT station areas.
Perspectives Bonding Request
Issue: Perspectives, Inc. is an organization in St. Louis Park that addresses homelessness,
poverty, addiction, mental illness, poor nutrition, and lack of access to services. Perspectives,
Inc. is seeking $4,000,000 in Capital Grant funding for an expansion and renovation of their
existing facilities. The funds would cover the predesign, design, construct, furnish, and equip
the expansion and renovation of the existing Perspectives Family Center facility in St.
Louis Park. The expanded and renovated facility will be used to promote the following
programs and services:
(1) Supportive housing programs for homeless women and their children;
(2) Mental and chemical health programs;
(3)Employment services;
(4) Academic, social skills, and nutritional programs for homeless and at-risk children;
(5) An all-day therapeutic early childhood development program for homeless and at-risk
children;
(6) A culturally sensitive safe and nurturing environment for at-risk children to meet with their
nonresidential parents.
Position: The city supports a bill for an act relating to capital investment; appropriating money
for expansion and renovation of the Perspectives Family Center facility in St. Louis Park
including HF 475.
Transportation Issues
Redesign and Reconstruction of CSAH 25 (Request directed to Hennepin County)
Issue: The city and county are working together to prepare a long term vision to transform the
CSAH 25 Corridor from the rural design through-route it is today to a multimodal urban
boulevard with well-designed landscape architecture and place-making features. The goal is to
transform this Hennepin County Road into an amenity rich, pedestrian and transit oriented,
development friendly Boulevard, between Trunk Highway 100 and France Avenue. A clear long-
term vision for CSAH 25 will serve as a guide for both public and private investment in this
corridor. Already, the SWLRT Beltline station, park & ride and proposed Beltline Blvd Station
redevelopment Joint Development project is beginning to transform the west end of this
corridor. The Shoreham mixed-use project is beginning transformation at the east end and the
Parkway 25 project will continue the redevelopment pattern. The new concept for CSAH 25,
when finalized, will support this change to a more urban place and provide good, attractive
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 8
[7]
access to the Beltline LRT station in St. Louis Park and the neighboring W. Lake LRT station in
Minneapolis.
Analysis: To transform CSAH 25 into an urban boulevard will require the following actions and
considerations:
•A commitment from Hennepin County, with involvement from Minneapolis, to changing
the vision for the corridor.
•Integration into concept plans of both the planned improvements associated with SWLRT
between Beltline Boulevard and Lynn Avenue and the West Lake Street multi-modal
transportation plan into the vision for the corridor.
•Inclusion in concept plans of strong connections to existing and planned bicycle routes,
filling the existing gap in access to the Cedar Lake Trail from the north.
•Consideration in concept plans of the MCES interceptor along the south side, the lack of
width on north-south streets, the frontage roadway geometry, circulation/access needs,
future land use assumptions, rail/LRT, Beltline Station area plan and design guidelines.
•Addressing storm water treatment, landscape and pedestrians amenities as well as
opportunities for remnant right-of-way to be used for future additional bike and
pedestrian facilities development.
•Consideration of the east end “triangle,” where Minnetonka Blvd, CSAH 25, France
Avenue and West Lake Street meet. This area presents both opportunities for gateway
treatments for both Minneapolis and St Louis Park as well as operational challenges for
the movement of traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists and local businesses.
•Analysis of traffic operations analysis, crash/safety, 2040 forecasts (possibly interim year
related to SWLRT improvements), including review of all pedestrian- or bicycle-related
crashes. Limits of operations analysis should be the Hwy. 100 west ramp terminal to
France Avenue.
•Inclusion of multimodal improvements, future intersection locations, and lane
arrangement and circulation.
•Consideration of a new name for the roadway that provides a positive identity while
eliminating the currently existing address confusion. Just as CSAH 5 is also named
Minnetonka Boulevard, CSAH 25 needs a street name around which an image and
identity can be built. In the case of CSAH 25, there is added confusion because of its
history of being originally part of MN Highway 7, a name that continues to be used by
many.
•CSAH 25 serves many important functions and is home to a surprising number of
businesses, residents and property owners. All stakeholders should be informed and
involved in the design processes from the beginning.
•Development of a funding and phasing plan will be necessary. Transforming CSAH 25 will
be a large project and will take time and significant resources to implement. New
development in the corridor may be able to play a significant role in funding the
transformation, but timing will be critical for that to happen.
Position: We thank Hennepin County for their participation in the redesign process and request
the County’s support and funding for the actual rehabilitation/ reconstruction of CSAH 25 as
once the project moves forward schedule is determined.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 9
[8]
Rehabilitation/ Reconstruction ofTexas Avenue/ Minnetonka Blvd. intersection
reconstruction (Request directed to Hennepin Co.)
Issue: Minnetonka Boulevard Texas Avenue between Trunk Highway (TH) 169Lake Street and
France Avenue is a Hennepin County road and Wayzata Boulevard is one of the few continuous
westnorth-to-eastsouth roadway connections in the City of St. Louis Park. The city has
reconstructed the section of Texas Avenue from Lake Street to 400 feet south of Minnetonka
Boulevard bridge over TH 100 was reconstructed in 20152017 and 2018. The new roadway
includes bicycle, pedestrian and intersection improvements that have greatly increased the
efficiency and safety in this segment of the corridor. The road to the west and to the east of the
new bridge is in need of rehabilitation reconstruction to ensure that it accommodates the best
facility for bicycles, pedestrians and motoristsThe road project stopped short of the
Minnetonka boulevard intersection. In 2016 and 2018 a bikeway was installed along Texas
Avenue north of Minnetonka Boulevard.
Recently, the city was informed that the portion of Minnetonka Blvd. between France Ave. and
Hwy 100 has been placed in the County’s CIP for reconstruction in 2022 at an estimated cost of
$14 million.
In 2020 CenterPoint Energy has plans to reconstruct their 24-inch transmission gas main
through the intersection along Texas Avenue as part of their CIP program. To leverage this work
and complete the upgrade of the Texas Avenue corridor, we would like to partner with
Hennepin County on the reconstruction of the intersection. The new intersection would include
separate bicycle facilities, sidewalk improvements, better sightlines for drivers, signal
replacement, and ADA upgrades. All things that are much needed at this location.
Analysis: In order to extend the bicycle, pedestrian and roadway enhancements that were
completed atto the south and to the north of the Minnetonka Boulevard bridgeintersection the
following items would need to be addressed for the entire corridor.
Curb height: Between TH 169 and France Avenue the road is concrete with a bituminous
overlay. While the overlay improves the ride for motorists, it also reduced the curb height
which places the roadway at nearly the same level as the sidewalk in various locations along
the corridor.
•Sidewalks/Landscaping: The sidewalks require updating to meet ADA requirements for
pedestrian ramps, width, and clearance from obstructions. To increase safety and provide
a more pedestrian-friendly environment the city would like the County to move the
sidewalks away from the street and plant trees in the boulevard.
Pedestrian crosswalks: A number of pedestrian crossings should be considered for
enhancements. The addition of pedestrian refuge median or bump outs should be
considered to make the crossings safer on this four-lane road
•Bike lanes: The city andIn 2018, the county bike plan include enhanced the bike lanes on
this road which could be accomplished by creating a three-lane cross section for the
corridor since currently a number of segments are not wide enough to accommodate bike
lanes.Minnetonka Boulevard. However, at the intersection, these lanes do not have
adequate space. The same is true for the bikeway on Texas Avenue. Most bicycle related
crashes occur at intersections, it is important to maintain the bikeway through the
intersection to eliminate confusion for all users of the road.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 10
[9]
•Intersection modifications: Signal systemsthe city has developed a layout for this
intersection that will greatly improve the way it operates for all users. Eliminating
sightlines issues, creating space for bicycles and pedestrians.
•Replace signal system: The new signal system and intersection geometrics in the corridor
should be studied and updated to include flashing yellow arrows and turn lanes as needed
to improve traffic flow (see below re: the intersection of Texas Ave an Minnetonka Blvd)..
The signal should be able to detect bicycles. Finally, the pedestrian push buttons will be
replaced to meet ADA requirements.
Position: The city is requesting that Hennepin County partner with the City for the
reconstruction of the Texas Avenue/ Minnetonka Blvd intersection in 2020.
Louisiana Bridge reconstruction (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Louisiana Bridge over Minnehaha Creek was constructed in 1963 is exhibiting
accelerated deterioration of the bridge deck and superstructure. The city inspects the
condition of the bridge annually and has determined that it needs to be reconstructed by 2020.
Analysis: The Louisiana Avenue corridor between Highway 7 and Excelsior Boulevard is a major
employment center with a growing medical/healthcare facility, attractive open spaces, regional
trail connection, and proximity to regional roadways. Due to its location, the replacement of
the Minnehaha Creek Bridge needs to take into consideration the larger effort to develop
transit-oriented development around the SWLRT Louisiana Station Area. The city has
undergone a corridor design that will meet the needs of the community now and into the
future. The cost to reconstruct Louisiana Avenue is $7.2 million. In order to complete this
project by 2020, additional funding is needed.
Position: The city is seeking state bonding money to replace the Louisiana Bridge over
Minnehaha Creek.
Southwest LRT (Directed to State Legislature, Met Council & Hennepin County)
Position: The City continues to strongly support the Southwest LRT Project.
Transportation funding (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: A comprehensive transportation system is a vital component in planning for and meeting
the physical, social and economic needs of our state and metropolitan region. Adequate and
stable sources of funding are necessary to ensure the development and maintenance of a high
quality, efficient and safe transportation system that meets these needs and that will position
the state and region to be economically competitive in the years ahead.
Analysis: Under current transportation financing structures, transportation needs in the
metropolitan region continue to be inadequate and underfunded. Our transportation funding
system relies primarily on local property taxes and fees and the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST)
for transit. Automobiles are becoming more fuel efficient and MVST receipts continue to lag
behind projections, resulting in funding levels that continually fail to meet demand.
Transportation funding and planning must be a high priority for state, regional and local
policymakers so that the transportation system can sufficiently meet the needs of the state’s
residents and businesses and its projected population growth. Funding and planning for our
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 11
[10]
regional and statewide systems must be coordinated at the federal, state, regional and local
levels to optimally achieve long term needs and goals. In addition, cities lack adequate tools
and state resources for the maintenance and improvement of municipal systems, with
resources restricted to property taxes and special assessments. Cost participation requirements
have overburdened city budgets. It is imperative that alternative revenue generating authority
be granted to municipalities and state resources be made available for this purpose to relieve
the burden on the property tax system.
Position: The city:
•Supports stable and sufficient statewide transportation funding and local tools to meet
the long-term transportation system needs of the region and local municipal systems;
•Supports funding to assist cities overburdened by cost participation responsibilities;
•Supports state funding for state highway projects, including congestion and safety
improvements; and
•Supports state financial assistance, as well as innovations in design and construction.
Transit financing (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is expanding
to include rail transit and dedicated busways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this
system should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of
individual cities and counties should not be required to fund the operation of specific transit
lines or routes of service within this regional system.
Analysis: MVST revenue projections have not been reliable and the Legislature has repeatedly
reduced general fund support for Metropolitan Transit. As a result, the regional transit
providers continue to operate at a funding deficit. Shifting demographics in the metropolitan
region will mean increased demand for transit in areas with and without current transit service.
Position: The city supports stable and growing revenue sources to fund the operating budget
for all regional transit providers at a level sufficient to meet the growing operational and capital
transit needs of the region and to expand the system to areas that currently have little or no
transit options. The city also supports an increase in the regional sales tax to fund the
expansion of regular route service, the continuing capital expenses and expanded operational
needs of the metropolitan transit system, if the increase is accompanied by sufficient local
controls over the collection and expenditure of the new revenue and geographic balance is
maintained in the expansion of service to allow cities to appropriately plan for growth in
population and service needs along new and expanded transit service. The city opposes
diversions of the uses of this tax for any other purposes.
Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Minnesota’s general sales tax applies to long- term motor vehicle leases, called the motor
vehicle lease sales tax (MVLST). Voters supported a constitutional amendment to dedicate the
money collected by the motor vehicle sales tax to transportation in 2006. The legislative action
that dedicates the MVLST to transportation, excludes Hennepin and Ramsey counties from
receiving any of this funding. The basis for this exclusion was that these two counties would be
receiving funding for transportation through the newly created Counties Transit Improvement
Board (CTIB).
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 12
[11]
Analysis: CTIB dissolved in 2017, eliminating this transportation funding source. The basis for
the exclusion of Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving MVLST formula funds ceased to
exists. The economic strength and competitiveness of our state, region and county depend
upon an effective, efficient and well-maintained transportation system. The state, county and
local street system are critical to the transportation system. The voters supported the use of
MVLST for transportation and no county should be excluded from this key revenue source.
Position: The city supports the use of Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax (MVLST) by all counties.
Xcel Energy Utility Relocation (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Xcel Energy has utility infrastructure in the public right-of-way. It’s often necessary for
Xcel to relocate their infrastructure in order for the city to complete construction projects.
When it’s not done in a timely manner it delays the completion of city projects, which in turn
generates downtime charges that the contractor passes on to the city.
Analysis: During the design of city infrastructure projects, the city tries to avoid requiring Xcel to
relocate their facilities, however many times it is necessary. Understanding that Xcel needs time
to plan for this work, Xcel is notified of the annual Capital Improvement Plan in the fall of the
year preceding construction. In January of the year of construction, staff has a meeting with all
utilities to review impacts. Also, plans are sent to all utilities indicating areas where there is a
potential conflict with their facilities. Staff will meet individually with Xcel during the design to
discuss the conflicts and their schedule. Even with these efforts, Xcel’s utility relocations have
delayed a number of projects in the city. In 2015, a sidewalk project on Texas was supposed to
be completed by Labor Day but Xcel did not complete their work until mid-October. Due to the
warm weather that fall, the contractor was able to complete the project the week of
Thanksgiving. However, weather is not always on our side. Additionally, the contractor asked
for $22,000 in downtime charges due to the delays incurred on this project. The city does not
have the same experiences with other private utility providers.
Position: The city supports legislation that requires Xcel Energy to complete their relocation
work in a timely manner to avoid delays and additional cost on city-led infrastructure projects,
with remedies in place if they do not meet their commitments.
Automated Vehicles (Request directed to the Met Council)
Issue: Automated vehicles are those in which at least some aspect of a safety-critical control
function (e.g., steering, throttle, or braking) occurs without direct driver input. Automated
vehicles may be autonomous (i.e., use only vehicle sensors) or may be connected (i.e., use
communications systems such as connected vehicle technology, in which cars and roadside
infrastructure communicate wirelessly).
Automated vehicles have the potential to bring about transformative safety, mobility, energy,
and environmental benefits to the surface transportation system. These benefits could include
crash avoidance, reduced infrastructure needs, energy consumption and vehicle emissions,
reduced travel times, improved travel time reliability and multi-modal connectivity, and
improved transportation system efficiency and accessibility, particularly for persons with
disabilities and the growing aging population. Automated vehicles could also transform the
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 13
[12]
private use of land in terms of reducing parking needs – surface or structured parking.
Automated vehicle technologies are becoming some of the most heavily researched
automotive innovations. Currently, some automated vehicle technologies are available, but are
only a fraction of what will be available in the future.
Position: MnDOT is undertaking research and planning related to automated/autonomous
vehicles. The Met Council is asked to work with MnDOT as a part of planning for the impact
these types of vehicles will have on the region, particularly from a transportation and land use
perspective.
Public Safety Issues
Police Trainee/Non-traditional Pathway to Policing Program (Directed to State Legislature)
Issue: In recent years tThe candidate pool for police officers in Minnesota has been
shrinkingcontinues to shrink in numbers and diversity. There is a narrowing in the
representation of a candidate’s diversity using several descriptors including but not limited to
race and ethnicity, age and life experience, and academic and career development in other
disciplines. During the 2017 legislative session $400,000 was appropriated for communities
participating in this new program on a 50/50 cost split. The City of St. Louis Park and other cities
Thus far just a handful of cities have used this approach as a tool for diversifying their
departments, including St. Louis Park. In 2017, one two candidates successfully completed went
through this program successfully and is are now a St. Louis Park police officerers for St. Louis
Park. The city currently has one candidate in this program with an anticipated promotion to
Police officer in early 2019 . However, tThe need to create a wider and deeper candidate pool
will continue to be a long term challenge for all police departments in the state.
Position: The cCity applauds the state funding which has been applied to this new approach
thus far and requests that this funding not only be maintained but increased in future
bienniums.
Railway Safety of Hazardous Materials and Oil Train Operations (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: The current situation within St Louis Park suggests that there will be the continued
shipment of hazardous material commodities through the community including but not limited
to crude oil and ethanol at current or increased levels in the future. In the interest of public
safety, the fire service and emergency managers’ commonly work together to secure various
types of information for emergency planning and response. Railroad companies are reluctant if
not unwilling to provide information about hazardous materials moving through communities
due to security concerns, which makes it difficult to undertake proper emergency planning.
Analysis: Detailed and local railroad planning information would assist emergency managers in
assessing rail hazards, finding local vulnerabilities, gauging response capabilities, and identifying
specific gaps. Examples of information which should be provided under a non-disclosure
agreement (to insure the informatin is secure) includes:
•A disclosure of the railroad company’s response capability
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 14
[13]
•Information that is available on-scene and response-oriented (i.e. identity and quantity of
HAZMAT carried aboard rail cars involved in an incident). This information should be
provided in a manner that is useable by responders at the scene in a web based format as
well as the Ask Rail phone app.
The demand for these commodities and the proximity of Minneapolis to our city points to St
Louis Park as an alternative for managing heavy traffic and staging within the system. The
potential risk exists across all of the system including the BNSF, CP and TCW lines. Track
improvements that result from the SWLRT will allow for higher speeds and safer options for the
rail companies to consider through St Louis Park.
In addition to the above information, railroad companies should be required to partner with
local jurisdictions, emergency planners and responders on training for responding to an
incident.
Position: The City supports legislation that requires railroads to address the concerns noted
above including accountability, safety, and funding of accident prevention, responder training
and information sharing. Rail companies need to be required to share the information
necessary for response and mitigation. This includes the reinstatement of fees on railroads and
pipelines as outlined in (2018-HF3775/SF3527).
Oppose statutory prohibition on residential fire sprinklers (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: The Appellate Court struck down the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) adoption
of the latest International Residential Code (IRC). The IRC is for building new single-family and
duplex homes, which had a provision requiring for residential fire sprinklers in newly
constructed one- and two-family homes that were 4,500 sq. feet and larger.
Analysis: The sprinkler provision was challenged on whether it was done legally and
appropriately. Therefore the requirement to build these homes safer using sprinklers is no
longer in effect. This is a concern because, in terms of fire safety, the most dangerous place to
be is at home. And In addition, most often the victims of a fire are the younger and elderly
among us, who have a more difficult time getting out in an emergency situation.
Residential fire sprinklers save lives and are cost-effective. Recent studies in Minnesota show
the cost of installing residential fire sprinkler systems averages $1.15 per sprinkled square foot,
or approximately 1% of new home construction.
Position: The city opposes efforts that prohibit future adoption of the residential fire sprinkler
code.
Oppose expansion of legal fireworks (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: There is a continued effort to expand the sale and use of a wider variety of fireworks. In
the past, bills have been introduced that would expand the definition of legal fireworks to
include “aerial and audible”. These bills also proposed disallowing cities from banning the sale
of fireworks, but would allow cities to pass ordinances banning people from using fireworks.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 15
[14]
Analysis: There is an inherent danger in aerial fireworks which cause a number of injuries and
pose a serious fire risk. Fireworks start an average of 18,500 fires per year, including 1,300
structure fires, 300 vehicle fires, and 16,900 outside and other fires. These fires caused an
average of three deaths, 40 civilian injuries, and an average of $43 million in direct property
damage. In 2017, U.S. hospital emergency rooms treated an estimated 12,900 people for
fireworks related injuries; 54% of those injuries were to the extremities and 36% were to the
head. Children younger than 15 years of age accounted for more than one-third (36%) of the
estimated 2017 injuries. These injury estimates were obtained or derived from the Consumer
Product Safety Commission’s 2015 Fireworks Annual Report.
Position: They city opposes the expansion of legal fireworks in Minnesota to include “aerial and
audible”.
Continued Health Insurance Coverage for Disabled Public Safety Officers (Request directed to
State Legislature)
Issue: MS299A.465 states that the employer is responsible for continued payment of their
contribution for health insurance coverage for police officers, firefighters, and dependents, if
applicable, that were disabled in the line of duty. The determination of disability in the line of
duty is made by the executive director of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA).
On October 1, 2013, the Minnesota Worker’s Compensation Act (MS 176.011) was amended to
include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a compensable work comp injury if it arises
out of employment. This has resulted in a drastic increase in the number of employees who
qualify for this benefit. Although cities may request a reimbursement of the health insurance
payments, only a fraction is reimbursed from the Department of Public Safety, resulting in
increasing costs due to this unfunded mandate.
Position: The city has only been partially reimbursed for the cost of this mandate, and requests
that this program be fully funded by the state.
The City of St. Louis Park does not have issues with this type of program. The questions come
with the interpretation of “in the line of duty” and also with funding of this unfunded mandate.
•The city has six former public safety employees who qualify for continued payment of
health insurance. In some cases, there were questions about the intent of this language as
it relates to the term “injury in the line of duty.” For example, should a slip and fall in the
office be considered “in the line of duty?”
•The city has only been partially reimbursed for the cost of this mandate, and requests that
this program be fully funded by the state.
Permit to Purchase Firearms/Permit to Carry (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Currently the Permits to Purchase Firearms statute (MN Stat. 624.7131; 624.7132)
requires local law enforcement agencies to complete required background checks within 7 days
and the Permit to Carry (MN Stat. 624.714) statute requires the County Sheriff’s Department to
complete the required background checks within 30 days.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 16
[15]
Analysis: The St. Louis Park Police Department completes approximately 300 permits to
purchase background checks per year. Aligning the two statutes to require the background
checks to be done in 30 days would allow local law enforcement agencies more time to
complete thorough background checks and also reduce the number of applicants who act on
impulse for a permit to purchase a firearm.
Position: St. Louis Park supports aligning the Permits to Purchase Firearms statutes (MN Stat.
624.7131; 624.7132) with the Permit to Carry (MN Stat. 624.714) statute in terms of the time
required for conducting background checks (from 7 to 30 days).
Protecting the Privacy and Safety of Public Officials and Peace Officers (Request directed to
State Legislature)
Issue: Only five states (FL, CO, CA, ID, TX) have a law prohibiting the publishing, posting,
promotion of peace officers' and other public officials' home addresses, phones, spouse's
addresses, other contact information, etc., with intent to cause harm or harassment. Minnesota
has no such law, presenting an opportunity to join other states showing a commitment to
protecting public officials and peace officers from having their personal information, spousal
information, and other info published and/or shared on social media, with the intention of
causing harassment or harm.
Analysis: This is increasingly a concern for public officials and law enforcement when those
seeking to cause harm recklessly share or publish emails or other correspondence that includes
personal information. Any measure that reduces the threat of reporters or demonstrators
showing up at public officials homes or those of relatives is a great option for addition to our
statutes. Statutes that include the component requiring the publication or posting to be done
WITH INTENT to cause harassment or harm seem likely to be more useful and defensible in the
courts. Colorado's law can be found here:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/44EE4D5921D1B7248725757400
783E91?open&file=1316_enr.pdf. With the proliferation of social media, there have been
several instances where public officials personal information was disseminated to cause
harm. For example, after the unfortunate death of Eric Garner in New York, the decedent’s
daughter tweeted the home address of one of the involved officers to 5,000 Twitter followers
who, in turn, re-tweeted this 500+ times.
Position: This issue can affect any public official and Police Officers, when opposing sides of a
discourse attract an element that wants to cause harm or harassment. The City supports an
effort in Minnesota to add this protection to public officials’ privacy and the safety of their
families.
Criminal Background Checks (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Every day in Minnesota guns are sold by unlicensed sellers without first conducting a
criminal background check to ensure that the buyer is not a prohibited purchaser. This proposal
would close the online, gun show and individual sale loopholes by requiring all sales to at least
have a criminal background check at the point of sale at an Federal Firearms License (FFL)
before a transaction is legally allowed to occur.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 17
[16]
Analysis: The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 stipulates that individuals “engaged in the
business” of selling firearms must possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Holders of FFLs are
required to conduct background checks and maintain a record of all their firearm sales. Certain
gun sales and transfers between private individuals, however, are exempt from this
requirement. Those who would fail a background check can access firearms through these
sources. Unlike an FFL, the seller is not required to conduct a background check to determine
whether the purchaser is prohibited from purchasing and possessing a gun. Federal, state, local
and tribal laws should be enacted to close these loopholes. If all gun sales proceed through an
FFL, a single, consistent system for conducting gun sales, including background checks, will be
established. The laws we have in place to ensure gun purchasers go through FFLs are
undermined by oversights in the law that allow individuals prohibited from owning firearms to
obtain weapons at events such as gun shows without undergoing a background check.
Position: The City supports preventing individuals who are not legally able to purchase a gun
from doing so without background checks at gun shows, online or in private transactions.
First Responder Protection Act (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: First responders are particularly vulnerable when carrying out their duties during
protests, rallies, demonstrations and marches. Many of our first responders are required to
maintain stationary positions to redirect crowds and traffic while keeping all involved parties
safe. There are many examples of event participants attempting to assault responders by
throwing dangerous items. In previous MN events, responders have been injured by these
protestors. The city support new legislation that clearly makes an attempted assault on first
responders a gross misdemeanor during protests, rallies, demonstrations and marches
Analysis: Impacts on public safety or law enforcement: Aggregating the fourth degree assault
statute to include attempted assault on first responders during these events would help deter
assailants from committing these acts. The new legislation would allow investigators greater
latitude when attempting to identify and charge these individuals. Additionally, prosecutors
and judges would have a specific statute to reference when determining the charging and
sentencing of prosecuted persons.
Position: The City supports protecting the safety and well-being of police officers, firefighters
and medical personnel during demonstrations and rallies by increasing the penalties for
attempted assaults on these individuals to a gross misdemeanor. This is recommended by
adding the following language to Subd. 2b Attempted Assault during Protests, Demonstrations,
Rallies and Marches. Whoever attempts to assault first responders (police officers, firefighters,
and ambulance personnel) while they are executing their duty during protests, demonstrations,
rallies and marches are guilty of a gross misdemeanor to 609.2231 ASSAULT IN THE FOURTH
DEGREE.
State wide data collection on race and/or ethnicity for stopped motorist’s (Request directed to
State Legislature)
Issue: There is not a state wide method of collecting a motorist’s race or ethnicity for traffic
stops. Some police departments ask officers to report a person’s race and/or ethnicity. This
option results in officers making assumptions on the motorist’s race and/or ethnicity and can
lead to inaccurate data.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 18
[17]
Analysis: A state wide system would allow for agencies to submit and most importantly review
accurate data to determine whether racial profiling is a problem in cities across the state. This
information allows for greater police transparency and accountability.
Position: The city supports a state wide system that accurately tracks information on traffic
stops, including race and ethnicity, of stopped motorists.
General Issues
Local Control (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Cities are often laboratories for determining public policy approaches to the challenges
that face citizens. Success in providing for the basic needs of a functional society is rooted in
local control to determine how best to respond to the ever-changing needs of a citizenry.
Because city government most directly impacts the lives of people, and representative
democracy ensures that locally elected officials are held accountable for their decisions through
local elections, local governments must have sufficient authority and flexibility to meet the
challenges of governing and providing citizens with public services.
Position: Individual communities should be allowed to tailor their services to meet the unique
needs of their citizens without mandates and policy restrictions imposed by state and federal
policy makers. The state should recognize that local governments, of all sizes, are often the first
to identify problems and inventive solutions to solve them, and should encourage further
innovation by increasing local control. The state should not enact initiatives that erode the
fundamental principle of local control in cities across Minnesota.
Levy Limits (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: During the 2008 legislative session, levy limits were imposed for three years (2009-2011)
on cities over 2,500 in population.
A one-time levy limit was applied to taxes levied in 2013, payable in 2014, only. This was in
effect for all counties with a population of 5,000 and over and cities with a population of 2,500
and over. All cities with a population less than 2,500, all towns and all special taxing districts
were exempt from the limits.
Levy limits replace local accountability with a state judgment about the appropriate level of
local taxation and local services. Additionally, state restrictions on local budgets can have a
negative effect on a city’s bond rating due to the restriction on revenue flexibility.
Position: St. Louis Park opposes efforts to establish a levy limit or other proposed restrictions
for local government budgets. Based on our legislative policies that strongly support local
budgetary decision making, St. Louis Park opposes levy limits of any type.
Local Government Aid (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: St. Louis Park supports the LGA program as a means of ensuring all cities are able to
provide basic services without over-burdening the property tax system. In 2003 St. Louis Park
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 19
[18]
had its entire LGA allocation cut – approximately $2 million/yr. Several years ago a portion of
this cut was restored – approximately $500,000/yr and based on house research estimates it
will drop in 2019 to $267,271. This funding has been extremely helpful, particularly related to
replacing aging infrastructure and equipment.
Position: St. Louis Park strongly opposes reductions of LGA.
Legal Notices: Eliminate Requirement for Paid Publication (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: Current law requires print ads for “proceedings, official notices, and summaries” in local
newspapers. In the 2011 Session, House File 162 called for allowing political subdivisions (cities,
counties, school boards, etc.) to replace the print ads with a single annual notice stating that all
such notices would appear on the political subdivision’s website (i.e. the city website).
Position: The city continues to support the elimination of this requirement, which would save
cities thousands of dollars in annual publishing costs. Publishing legal notices on the city
website instead allows the potential to reach a much greater audience in St. Louis Park than via
the local newspaper, which only reaches about half of the community. Additionally, businesses
working with the city or bidding on city projects find it cumbersome to monitor many different
publications. The city is currently publishing its legal notices at www.stlouispark.org in addition
to publishing them in the official newspaper.
Emerald Ash Borer (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is the most destructive and economically costly forest pest ever
to invade North America. Ash trees killed by EAB become brittle very quickly and will begin to
fall apart and threaten overhead cables and power lines, vehicles, buildings and people. Few
cities are prepared and no city can easily afford the costs and the liability threats resulting from
EAB. Peer-reviewed studies have confirmed that a coordinated, landscape-based strategy is
more cost effective than fighting EAB city by city.
Position: St. Louis Park supports state funding to provide technical assistance and matching
grants to communities for EAB management/removal costs and related practices.
Records Retention Related to Correspondence (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: HF 1185 was introduced during the 2017 legislative session relating to data practices that
included changing the definition of “correspondence” in government record retention law to
include social media and text messaging and requiring a minimum three-year retention period
for correspondence.
Analysis: The proposed bill was designed to provide a statewide standard retention period for
correspondence. Concerns with the bill include an unfunded mandate on cities (especially small
ones) to meet the new requirements, and the burden of including social media and text
messaging in the definition of correspondence. Social media and text messaging capture
typically requires separate capture software / hardware than email, and thus contributes to
increased costs.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 20
[19]
Position: The city opposes the bill in its current form. State provided funding and restricting the
definition of correspondence to email at this point would be helpful. Delaying full inclusion of
social media and text messaging to future years so the State can include funding options (and
possibly some standards) would also be helpful. The city does support a standard
correspondence retention period and feels the proposed 3 year minimum is reasonable. That
said, not every city is funded or technically ready to do this. As a result, the city currently
endorses the LMC position on the role that should be fulfilled by existing records retention
requirements. The current LMC position is to oppose HF 1185.
Telecommunications and Information Technology (Request directed to State and Federal
Legislature)
Issue: Telecommunications and information technology is essential public infrastructure for the
efficient, equitable, and affordable delivery of local government services to residents and
businesses. Telecommunications includes voice, video, data, and services delivered over cable,
telephone, fiber-optic, wireless, and all other platforms.
Analysis: The city and League of Minnesota Cities supports a balanced approach to
telecommunications policy that allows new technologies to flourish while preserving local
regulatory authority. Regulations and oversight of telecommunications services are important
prerogatives for local government to advance community interests, including the provision of
high quality basic services that meet local needs, spur economic development, and are available
at affordable rates to all consumers. For the City of St. Louis Park, this is also consistent with its
priority efforts to advance racial equity and to be a technology connected community.
Supportive policies should also not diminish local authority to work cooperatively with other
public agencies, non-profit organizations, and the private sector to broaden choice and
competition of telecommunications services to meet local needs.
Position: The city opposes the adoption of state and federal policies that restrict cities’ ability to
finance, construct, or operate telecommunications networks.
Competitive Cable Franchising Authority (Request directed to State and Federal Legislature)
Issue: In September 2018, the FCC released a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) proposing new rules regarding how local franchising authorities (LFAs) may regulate
cable operators and cable television services. The franchise fee revenue received by the City of
St. Louis Park from Comcast and CenturyLink could be reduced by as much as 20 percent as a
direct result of the proposed rule changes. In the FNPRM, the FCC tentatively concludes that:
1.Cable-related, in-kind contributions required by a franchise agreement shall be treated
as franchise fees subject to the statutory five percent cap on franchise fees set forth in
Section 622 of the Communications Act of 1934. This would allow cable operators to
unilaterally offset from cable franchise fee payments the value of certain franchise
requirements such as free service to schools and public buildings, PEG channel capacity,
connections to PEG origination points and even existing institutional network
obligations.
2.That LFAs are prohibited from using their video franchising authority to regulate the
provision of most non-cable services, such as broadband Internet access service, offered
over a cable system by a cable operator.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 21
[20]
The FNPRM also proposes that cable operators be allowed to construct and install facilities and
equipment for non-cable services in the rights-of-way without any local regulation or
compensation.
Analysis: The City of St. Louis Park filed comments with the FCC August 30 stating its opposition
to these measures, and plans to submit further information during the comment period
following publication of the FNPRM in the federal register. The Legislature, Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), and Congress should also continue to recognize, support
and maintain the exercise of local franchising authority to encourage increased competition
between incumbent cable system operators and new wireline competitive video service
providers including: maintaining provisions in Minn. Stat. ch. 238 that establish and uphold local
franchising authority, including the authority to receive a gross revenues based franchise fee
and local authority over areas including: control and access to public rights-of-way by all video
and cable service providers; fees on providers to ensure the provision of public, educational,
and governmental (PEG) programming; video channels and video streaming for PEG
programming equivalent to that of the local broadcast stations; ensuring programming is
accessible and searchable through detailed Electronic Programming Guide listings that are
equivalent to that of local broadcast stations; access to capacity on institutional networks (I-
Nets) provided by local cable system operators for public safety communications, libraries,
schools, and other public institutions; and strengthening local authority to enforce customer
service standards and transparency in pricing.
Issue: Despite claims made by some in the cable industry, studies and evidence to date do not
support that state franchising is the solution for competition, lower consumer rates, and
improved customer service. Unlike the exercise of local franchising authority, state franchising
models frequently make no provision for staffing at the state level or for effective resolution of
consumer complaints. The transmission of video signals, regardless of how they are
transported, remains subject to local franchising authority. Maintaining local franchising most
effectively creates and preserves agreements that guarantee broad access to services
throughout the community, ensuring there is no digital divide for access to video programming
services.
Analysis: State policy should maintain local cable franchise authority and oversight of the rights-
of-way, as well as ensure franchise agreements reflect new technology, and are reasonably
tailored to the technical and operational differences among providers and communities.
Independent studies clearly demonstrate that statewide franchising does not increase direct
competition to incumbent cable franchisees. In Minnesota, there are markets throughout the
state with two franchised cable service providers, which is further proof that state cable
franchising is neither necessary nor warranted in Minnesota. The Legislature, Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), and Congress should also continue to recognize, support
and maintain the exercise of local franchising authority to encourage increased competition
between incumbent cable system operators and new wireline competitive video service
providers including: maintaining provisions in Minn. Stat. ch. 238 that establish and uphold local
franchising authority, including the authority to receive a gross revenues based franchise fee
and local authority over areas including: control and access to public rights-of-way by all video
and cable service providers; fees on providers to ensure the provision of public, educational,
and governmental (PEG) programming; video channels and video streaming for PEG
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 22
[21]
programming equivalent to that of the local broadcast stations; ensuring programming is
accessible and searchable through detailed Electronic Programming Guide listings that are
equivalent to that of local broadcast stations; access to capacity on institutional networks (I-
Nets) provided by local cable system operators for public safety communications, libraries,
schools, and other public institutions; and strengthening local authority to enforce customer
service standards and transparency in pricing.
Position: Given the depth and breadth of cable TV PEG operations and subscribership in St.
Louis Park, and the fact that franchise negotiations will likely begin in early 2019, the city
intends to continue working with its telecommunications attorneys and with trade
organizations (Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Advisors and
National Association of Telecommunications Advisors and Officers) to closely track and respond
to assaults on local franchising authority.
this League of Minnesota Cities policy position.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 23
City of St. Louis Park
Top 2018 Legislative Priorities
There are thirty issues identified in the attached 2018 Legislative Issues and Priorities document
broken out into four subject areas. Of all of the issues identified, what follows are the highest
priorities of the City Council:
Community Development/Housing (pages 1 – 3)
The issue of affordable housing is of significant importance to the City Council and is a clear
reflection of the concerns of the community. In the attached document, starting on the first page,
is a menu of seven different measures the City Council feels should be pursued as follows:
•Bonding Authority (Request directed to State Legislature)
•Establish a TOD Affordable Housing Fund (Request directed to State Leg./Hennepin Co)
•Local Housing Trust Funds (Request directed to State Legislature)
•Reduce 4D Tax Classification Tax Rate and Expand Eligibility to Participation in the
Housing Choice Voucher Program (Request directed to State Legislature)
•Amend State Statute 471.9996 Rent Control Prohibited to Allow for a 90 Day Tenant
Protection Period Following the Transfer of (NOAH) Property Ownership (Request
directed to State Legislature)
•Establish revenue resource for Inclusionary Housing Fund (Request directed to State
Legislature)
•Affordable Housing – Not limiting Local Authority (Request directed to State Legislature)
Transportation (pages 4-7)
•The Redesign and Reconstruction of CSAH 25 by Hennepin County (Request directed to
Hennepin County)
•Funding from Hennepin County for the rehabilitation/reconstruction of the portion of
Minnetonka Blvd between TH 100 and TH 169 (Request directed to Hennepin County)
•Partnership between Hennepin County and the City on the complete reconstruction of the
Minnetonka Blvd/Texas Ave. intersection in 2020. (Request directed to Hennepin County)
•SWLRT (Request directed to Hennepin County and Met Council)
•Transportation and Transit Financing (Request directed to State Legislature)
Public Safety (page 7)
•Not only maintain but increase funding for the Police Trainee/Non-traditional Pathway to
Policing Program (Request directed to State Legislature)
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 4)
Title: Review draft of 2019 legislative issues and priorities Page 24
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: October 22, 2018
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Draft ordinance amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 10 related to the rules of
conduct for municipal elections
Recommended action: None at this time. The proposed ordinance is being presented in draft
form for council review prior to the first reading of the ordinance in November.
Policy consideration: Does the council want any additional information or changes to the draft
ordinance prior to the first reading?
Summary: On May 7, 2018 the city council approved an ordinance amending the city charter to
allow for the use of ranked-choice voting for municipal (mayor and city council) elections. Once
a city makes the decision to use an alternative voting method, its required to provide the rules
that will govern the administration of municipal elections. State law does not currently speak to
the rules for the administration of elections using a ranked-choice method. The city is obligated
to ensure that rules for conduct of municipal elections continue to meet all state and federal
election laws where applicable.
In June, 2018 the city council started a series of discussions related to the development of rules
of conduct for municipal elections. Over the course of four (4) discussions, numerous topics
were discussed including: ballot format, number of rankings, tabulation of votes, write-ins,
method of resolving ties, counting procedures, voting systems, testing, reporting results, post-
election review, and recounts.
Staff has incorporated the direction provided by council during these discussions into the
proposed ordinance. The first reading of the ordinance is scheduled for November 19.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. The 2019 budget includes funds for
implementation of the rules and procedures for the administration of municipal elections.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Draft ordinance
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Draft ordinance amending city code chapter 10 related to the rules of conduct for municipal elections
Ordinance No. ___-18
Ordinance amending the St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 10 by adding
Article I, Sections 10-3 to 10- related to the conduct of municipal elections
PREAMBLE
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter has been amended to allow voters to elect
the city’s elected officials by single-transferable voting (also known as ranked-choice voting or
instant runoff voting); and
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter states that the city council must provide
by ordinance the method of counting votes and of breaking a tie
The City of St. Louis Park does hereby ordain:
Section 1. Chapter 10 of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended by adding Article 1,
Sections 10-3 to 10 -16 to provide the rules of conduct for municipal elections.
Article I. Rules of conduct for municipal elections.
10-3. Applicability.
This article applies to all municipal elections. All provisions of the St. Louis Park Home Rule
Charter and Minnesota Statutes pertaining to elections also apply, to the extent they are not
inconsistent with this chapter.
10-4. Definitions.
The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them in this section:
Batch elimination means a simultaneous defeat of multiple continuing candidates for whom
it is mathematically impossible to be elected.
Chief election official means the city clerk and includes the city clerk’s designee(s).
Continuing candidate means a candidate who has been neither elected nor defeated.
Declared write-in candidate(s) means a candidate(s) who has filed a written request to have
write-in votes for the candidate(s) counted with the chief election official no later than
seven (7) days before the general or special election.
Exhausted ballot means a ballot that cannot be advanced under any rule.
Highest continuing ranking means the ranking on a voter’s ballot with the lowest numerical
value for a continuing candidate.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Draft ordinance amending city code chapter 10 related to the rules of conduct for municipal elections
Mathematically eliminated means either:
1. The candidate could never win because his or her current vote total plus all votes that
could possibly be transferred to him or her in future rounds (from candidates with fewer
votes, tied candidates, surplus votes, and from undeclared write-in candidates) would
not be enough to equal or surpass the candidate with the next higher current vote total;
or
2. The candidate has a lower current vote total than a candidate who is described by (1).
Mathematically impossible to be elected means mathematically eliminated by the next
higher current vote total comparison.
Maximum possible threshold means the number of votes sufficient for a candidate to be
elected under a first ranked choice tabulation. In any given election, the maximum possible
threshold equals the total ballots cast that include votes, undervotes, skipped rankings, and
overvotes for the office, divided by the sum of one (1) plus the number of offices to be
filled, then adding one (1).
Maximum Possible Threshold = ((Total ballots cast that include votes, undervotes,
skipped rankings, and overvotes for the office)/(Seats to be elected + 1)) + 1
An overvote occurs when a voter ranks more than one (1) candidate at the same ranking.
Partially defective ballot means a ballot that is defective to the extent that the election
judges are unable to determine the voter’s intent with respect to the office being counted.
Ranked-choice voting means an election method in which voters rank candidates for an
office in order of their preference and ballots are counted in rounds where votes are
distributed to candidates according to the preferences marked on each ballot until one (1)
candidate meets the threshold, or until two (2) candidates remain and the candidate with
the greater number of votes is declared elected.
Ranked-choice voting tabulation center means the location selected by the chief election
official for the tabulation of votes.
Ranking means the number assigned by a voter to a candidate to express the voter’s
preference for that candidate. Ranking number one (1) is the highest ranking. A ranking of
lower numerical value indicates a greater preference for a candidate than a ranking of
higher numerical value.
Repeat candidate ranking occurs when a voter ranks the same candidate at multiple
rankings for the office being counted.
Round means an instance of the sequences of voting tabulation steps.
Skipped ranking occurs when a voter leaves a ranking blank and ranks a candidate at a
subsequent ranking.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Draft ordinance amending city code chapter 10 related to the rules of conduct for municipal elections
Sum of all ranked-choice votes means the sum of all votes for a candidate at every ranking
for an office, including all repeat candidate rankings.
Surplus means the total number of votes cast for an elected candidate in excess of the
threshold.
Threshold means the number of votes sufficient for a candidate to be elected. In any given
election, the threshold equals the total votes counted in the first round after removing
partially defective ballots, divided by the sum of one (1) plus the number of offices to be
filled, then adding one (1).
Threshold = ((Total votes cast/(Seats to be elected + 1)) + 1
Transferable vote means a vote for a candidate who has been defeated.
Totally defective ballot means a ballot that is defective to the extent that the election
judges are unable to determine the voter’s intent for any office on the ballot.
Undeclared write-in candidate means a write-in candidate who is not a declared write-in
candidate.
Undervote means an instance when a voter does not rank any candidates for an office.
10-5. Ballots.
(a) Ballot format.
1.When there are three (3) or more candidates for a single office, a ballot must allow a
voter to rank at least three (3), but not more than six (6), candidates for each office in
order of preference and must also allow the voter to add write-in candidates.
2.A ballot must include instructions to voters that clearly indicate how to mark the ballot
so as to be read by the election judges conducting the count, or if voting equipment is to
be used, so as to be read by the voting equipment used to tabulate results.
3.A ballot must include instructions to voters that clearly indicate how to rank candidates
in order of the voter’s preference.
4.A ballot must indicate the number of seats to be elected for each office.
(b) Mixed-election method ballots. If elections are held in which ranked-choice voting is used in
addition to other methods of voting, the ranked-choice voting and non-ranked-choice voting
elections must be on the same ballot if possible, with ranked-choice voting and non-ranked-
choice voting portions clearly separated on the ballot. If placement of all offices to be elected
cannot be placed on a single ballot, a separate ballot may be used for those offices to be
elected using ranked-choice voting. The city may deviate from the standard ballot order of
offices to allow separation of ranked-choice voting and non-ranked-choice voting elections.
(c) Ballot format rules. The chief election official shall establish administrative rules for ballot
format for each voting mechanism that is selected. All rules shall be adopted in accordance with
this section.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Title: Draft ordinance amending city code chapter 10 related to the rules of conduct for municipal elections
10-6. Ranked-choice voting tabulation center.
The chief election official shall designate at least one (1) location to serve as the ranked-choice
voting tabulation center. Tabulation of votes must be conducted as described in this chapter.
10-7. Write-in votes.
A candidate for municipal office who wants write-in votes for the candidate to be counted as
votes must file a written request with the chief election official no later than seven (7) days
before the general or special election. The chief election official shall provide copies of the form
to make the request.
10-8. Tabulation of votes; in general.
(a) Precinct tabulation. When the hours for voting have ended and all voting has concluded, the
election judges in each precinct shall record and post the number of votes at each ranking on
the ballot. The election judges must then securely transfer all election night materials and
ballots from the precinct to the location designated by the chief election official. Upon receipt,
election night materials and ballot shall be secured.
(b) Notice of recess in count. At any time following receipt of materials, the chief election
official may declare a recess. Notice shall be posted of such recess, which must include the
date, time and location at which the process of recording and tabulating votes will resume and
the reason for the recess.
(c) Recording write-in votes. At a time set by the chief election official, the judges of the election
shall convene at a ranked-choice voting tabulation center to record the names and number of
votes received by each declared write-in candidate. The number of votes received by
undeclared write-in candidates will be recorded as a group, by office.
10-9. Tabulation of votes; single-seat elections.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to a ranked-choice voting election in which one (1) seat in
an office is to be filled from a single set of candidates on the ballot. The method of tabulating
ranked-choice votes for single-seat elections as described in this section must be known as the
“single-seat transferable vote” method of tabulation.
(b) First ranked choice tabulation. A first ranked choice tabulation shall be done under this
clause before a tabulation as described in clause (c). A first ranked choice tabulation will consist
of a first round only. Under the first ranked choice tabulation, the vote total will be the sum of
number one (1) ranked votes. The maximum possible threshold must be determined. If the vote
total for a candidate, other than an undeclared or a declared write-in candidate, is equal to or
greater than the maximum possible threshold, that candidate is declared elected and the
tabulation is complete. If the vote total for no candidate, other than an undeclared or a
declared write-in candidate, is equal to or greater than the maximum possible threshold, a
tabulation, as described in clause (c) shall be done.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Title: Draft ordinance amending city code chapter 10 related to the rules of conduct for municipal elections
(c)Tabulation of round(s).
1. Tabulation of votes at the ranked-choice voting tabulation center must proceed in
rounds for each office to be counted. The threshold must be calculated. The sum of all
ranked-choice votes for every candidate must be calculated. Each round must proceed
sequentially as follows:
a. The number of votes cast for each candidate, as indicated by the highest continuing
ranking on each ballot, must be counted. If a candidate, other than an undeclared
write-in candidate, has a vote total that is equal to or greater than the threshold
that candidate is declared elected and the tabulation is complete. If no candidate,
other than an undeclared write-in candidate, has a vote total that is equal to or
greater than the threshold, a new round begins and the tabulation must continue.
b. At the beginning of the second round only, all undeclared write-in candidates and all
candidates for whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected must be defeated
simultaneously. For rounds subsequent to the second round, all candidates for
whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected must be defeated
simultaneously. Votes for the defeated candidates must be transferred to each
ballot’s next-ranked continuing candidate, except votes for candidates defeated in
the final round are not transferred if, by their defeat, the number of continuing
candidates is reduced to one (1). If no candidate can be defeated under this clause,
the tabulation must continue.
c. The candidate with the fewest votes is defeated. Votes for the defeated candidate
must be transferred to each ballot’s next-ranked continuing candidate, except votes
for candidates defeated in the final round are not transferred if, by their defeat, the
number of continuing candidates is reduced to one (1). Ties between candidates
with the fewest votes must be resolved by lot by the chief election official. The
candidate chosen by lot must be defeated. The result of the tie resolution must be
recorded and reused in the event of a recount.
d. The procedures in clauses a. to c. must be repeated until one (1) candidate reaches
the threshold, or until only one (1) continuing candidate remains. If only one
continuing candidate remains, that continuing candidate must be elected. In the
case of a tie between two (2) or more continuing candidates, the tie must be
resolved by lot by the chief election official. The result of the tie resolution must be
recorded and reused in the event of a recount. A tied candidate chosen by lot must
be defeated. When only one (1) continuing candidate remains after a tie has been
resolved by lot by the chief election official, that continuing candidate must be
elected and the votes of the tied candidate chosen by lot will be retained.
2. When a skipped ranking, overvote or repeat candidate ranking is encountered on a ballot,
that ballot shall count towards the highest continuing ranking that is not a skipped
ranking, an overvote or repeat candidate ranking. If any ballot cannot be advanced
because no further continuing candidates are ranked on that ballot, or because the only
votes for further continuing candidates ranked on that ballot are either overvotes or
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Title: Draft ordinance amending city code chapter 10 related to the rules of conduct for municipal elections
repeat candidate rankings, the ballot shall not count towards any candidate in that round
or in subsequent rounds for the office being counted.
10-10. Ties resolved by lot.
(a)Who resolves a tie by lot. The chief election official must resolve a tie by lot.
(b)Notice to candidates with tied votes. The chief election official must notify all candidates
with tied votes that the tie will be resolved by lot. This notice must be sent at least one (1) hour
prior to resolving the tie by lot. The notice must be sent through a medium that would
generally be capable of reaching a person within the one-hour period, such as face-to-face, a
fax, an email, an instant message, a text, a video chat, a telephone call, or a voicemail. The chief
election official is not required to confirm that the notice is received by a candidate before
resolving a tie by lot. A tie may be resolved by lot even though some or all of the candidates
who have tied votes are not present.
(c)Witnesses. The resolving of the tie by lot must be witnessed by two (2) election judges who
are members of different major political parties.
(d)Video. The resolving of a tie by lot may be recorded through any audio and visual recording
technology.
(e)Media. The chief election official may allow the media to view the resolution of a tie by lot.
(f)Procedures. The chief election official may establish written procedures for implementing
this section.
10-11. Reporting results.
(a)Precinct summary statement. Each precinct must print a precinct summary statement, which
must minimally include the number of votes in the first ranking for each candidate.
(b)Ranked-choice voting tabulation center summary statement. The ranked-choice voting
tabulation center must print a summary statement, which must include the following
information: total votes cast, number of undervotes, number of totally defective and spoiled
ballots, threshold calculation, total first choice rankings for all candidates, round-by-round
tabulation results, including simultaneous batch eliminations and defeated candidate transfers,
and exhausted ballots at each round.
(c)Election abstract. The election abstract must include the information required in the ranked-
choice voting tabulation center summary statement, with the addition of the number of
registered voters by precinct, the number of Election Day voter registrations, the number of
absentee voters, and all other information required by the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter.
10-12. Recounts.
(a)Required recounts. A candidate defeated in the final round of tabulation may request a
recount of the votes cast for the nomination or election to that office if the difference between
the final round vote total for that candidate and for a winning candidate is less than the
percentage threshold as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 204C.36.
1. Candidates shall file a written request for the recount with the city clerk. All requests
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 8
Title: Draft ordinance amending city code chapter 10 related to the rules of conduct for municipal elections
shall be filed during the time for notice of contest of election for which a recount is
sought.
2. Upon receipt of a request made pursuant to this section, the city shall recount
the votes for a municipal office at the expense of the city.
(b)Discretionary candidate recounts. Candidates defeated in the final round of tabulation when
the vote difference is greater than the difference required by clause (a) above, and candidates
defeated in an earlier round of counting, may request a recount in the manner provided in this
section at the candidate’s own expense.
1. The votes shall be recounted as provided in this section if the requesting
candidate files with the city clerk a bond, cash, or surety in an amount set by the city
for payment of the recount expenses.
(c)Notice of contest. Time for notice of contest of election to a municipal office which is
recounted pursuant to this section shall begin to run upon certification of the results by the
governing body of the municipality.
(d)Scope of recount. A recount conducted as provided in this section is limited in scope to the
determination of the number of votes validly cast for the office to be recounted. Only the
ballots cast in the election and summary statements certified by the election judges may be
considered in the recount process.
10-13. Count procedures.
The chief election official shall establish administrative procedures for the tabulation of votes in
accordance with rules for counting the votes contained in sections of this chapter.
10-14. Electronic voting systems.
All provisions of Minnesota Statutes pertaining to electronic voting equipment systems apply,
to the extent they are not inconsistent with this chapter. Any voting equipment system used to
conduct an election under this section must be authorized by the county auditor pursuant to
Minnesota Statute Section 206.58.
10-15. Testing of voting systems.
The chief election official shall have the voting system tested to verify that the system will
correctly mark ballots using all methods supported by the system, and count the votes cast for
all candidates and on all questions per Minnesota Statute Section 206.83. In addition to all
requirements of Minnesota Statute Section 206.83, the equipment must be tested to ensure
that each ranking for each candidate is recorded properly, and must be tested to ensure the
accuracy of software used to perform vote transfers and produce results.
10-16. Post-election review of voting system and tabulation of results.
(a)Selection of test date; notice. At canvass, the chief election official must select by lot the
offices and precincts to be reviewed and set the date, time and place for the post-election
review. Post-election review is not required for a hand count election.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 9
Title: Draft ordinance amending city code chapter 10 related to the rules of conduct for municipal elections
(b)Scope and conduct of test. The post-election review must be conducted, in public, of a
sample of ballots cast for at least one (1) single-seat ranked-choice voting election for city
council.
(c)Single seat test. At canvass, the chief election official shall select, by lot, a total of two (2)
precincts. Using the actual ballots cast in the two (2) precincts selected, the judges of the
election shall conduct a hand count of ballots cast for the one (1) or two (2) offices of council
member. Using procedures called for in this chapter and accompanying rules, the judges shall
count and record the ballots cast.
(d)Standard of acceptable performance by voting system. A comparison of the results compiled
by the voting system with the results compiled by the judges of election performing the hand
count must show that the results of the electronic voting system differed by no more than the
applicable percentage threshold, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 204C.36, from the
hand count of the sample tested. Valid votes that have been marked by the voter outside the
vote targets or using a manual marking device that cannot be read by the voting system must
not be included in making the determination whether the voting system has met the standard
of acceptable performance.
(e)Additional review if needed. Additional review(s) may be required as follows:
(1)Additional precinct review. If a test under clause (c) reveals a difference greater than
the applicable percentage threshold, as provide by Minnesota Statutes, Section
204C.36, in at least one (1) precinct of an office, the chief election official must
immediately publicly select by lot two (2) additional precincts of the same office for
review. The additional precinct review must be completed within two (2) days after
the precincts are selected and the results immediately reported to the county
auditor.
(2)Additional office review. If the additional precinct review also indicates a difference
in the vote totals that is greater than the applicable percentage threshold, as
provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 204C.36, in at least one (1) precinct of an
office, the chief election official must conduct a review of the ballots from all the
remaining precincts in the office being reviewed. This review must be completed no
later than two (2) weeks after the canvass.
(f)Report of results. Upon completion of the post-election review, the chief election official
must immediately report the results to the county auditor and make those results public.
(g)Update of vote totals. If the post-election review under this section results in a change in the
number of votes counted for any candidate, the revised vote totals must be incorporated in the
official result from those precincts.
(h)Effect on voting systems. If a voting system is found to have failed to record votes accurately
and in the manner provided by this chapter, the voting system may not be used at another
election until it has been approved for use by the county auditor, pursuant to Minnesota
Statute Section 206.58. In addition, the county auditor may order the city to conduct a hand
recount of all ballots cast in the election.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 10
Title: Draft ordinance amending city code chapter 10 related to the rules of conduct for municipal elections
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after passage and publication
according to law.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 3, 2018
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney
First Reading November 19, 2018
Second Reading December 3, 2018
Date of Publication December 13, 2018
Date Ordinance takes effect December 28, 2018
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: October 22, 2018
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: September 2018 monthly financial report
Recommended action: No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reports are part of our financial management policies.
Summary: The monthly financial report provides a summary of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A
budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report.
Financial or budget considerations: At the end of September, general fund expenditures are at
approximately 71.5% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 3.5% under budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Summary of revenues and expenditures – general fund
Budget to actual – enterprise funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: September 2018 monthly financial report
Discussion
Background: This report provides summary information of the overall level of revenues and
departmental expenditures in the general fund and a comparison of budget to actual
throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in
this report.
Present considerations:
General Fund
Actual expenditures should generally be at about 75% of the annual budget at the end of
September. General Fund expenditures are currently under budget by approximately 3.5%.
Revenues tend to be harder to measure in the same way due to the timing of when they are
received, examples of which include property taxes, grants and State aid payments. A few
comments on specific variances are explained below.
License and permit revenues are at approximately 82% of budget through September. This is
primarily because the majority or over 96% of the 2018 business and liquor license revenue has
been received, which is typical of previous years. Permit revenue is at 78% through September.
Fine & forfeit revenue continues to exceed budget by about 6% through September.
Intergovernmental revenue will increase to nearly 94% next month due to the receipt of the
Police & Fire Aid on October 1.
Community development is running a small expenditure variance of about 2% that is due in
part to the extension of a part-time staff position beyond what was originally budgeted to
continue planning work for SWLRT. The variance is also partially due to a housing staff
allocation that will be adjusted at year end.
Communications & marketing has a small expenditure variance of about 1% due to printing and
postage costs incurred for the calendar, newsletter and advertising to promote special events.
Engineering also has a variance in personal services due to seasonal project overtime and
additional interns. Some of this time will be reimbursed from the related project funds.
The recreation center division is at 82%, which is a seasonal expenditure variance normal after
the summer months for temporary staffing and pool supplies.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: September 2018 monthly financial report
Utility Funds
Utility revenue typically lags one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full
quarter behind for some residential accounts depending on the billing cycle. At end of year, an
adjustment is made to accrue revenue for the full year.
Other revenue is exceeding budget in the water fund due to additional antenna lease revenue.
In addition, $166,000 in the storm water fund is grant revenue received from Hennepin
County for contamination clean-up costs for the Carpenter Park project.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Actual $2,609 $5,557 $8,439 $11,235 $14,063 $17,092 $21,083 $24,171 $27,063
Budget $3,158 $6,316 $9,475 $12,633 $15,791 $18,949 $22,108 $25,266 $28,424 $31,582 $34,741 $37,899
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of September 30, 2018 20182018201620162017201720182018BalanceYTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget Sept YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes23,597,282$ 24,193,360$ 24,748,436$ 24,837,901$ 25,705,886$ 14,402,240$ 11,303,646$ 56.03% Licenses and Permits3,496,177 4,320,078 3,745,736 3,985,517 3,924,648 3,224,283 700,365 82.15% Fines & Forfeits341,200 299,808 254,200 293,236 269,200 218,301 50,899 81.09% Intergovernmental1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 1,899,006 1,864,877 986,168 878,709 52.88% Charges for Services1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 2,051,552 2,162,410 1,547,340 615,070 71.56% Miscellaneous Revenue977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 1,294,452 1,318,037 1,003,109 314,928 76.11% Transfers In1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 1,951,218 1,929,090 1,439,317 489,773 74.61% Investment Earnings 140,000 114,957 140,000 125,984 160,000 61,178 98,822 38.24% Other Income27,450 20,440 30,450 54,303 40,950 18,088 22,862 44.17% Use of Fund Balance *254,891 - 58,541 - 523,835 - 523,835 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues34,082,737$ 35,680,861$ 35,811,011$ 36,493,169$ 37,898,933$ 22,900,024$ 14,998,909$ 60.42%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration 1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 1,056,796$ 1,341,606$ 994,397$ 347,209$ 74.12% Finance 933,624 869,759 957,275 924,832 978,752 682,927 295,825 69.78% Assessing641,038 607,443 707,139 652,015 759,865 509,453 250,412 67.05% Human Resources748,718 801,958 754,699 730,731 796,666 539,161 257,505 67.68% Community Development1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 1,353,476 1,479,911 1,141,232 338,679 77.11% Facilities Maintenance1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 1,128,339 1,162,342 872,634 289,708 75.08% Information Resources1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 1,421,685 1,589,432 1,045,342 544,090 65.77% Communications & Marketing608,228 657,758 646,841 722,199 755,940 576,025 179,915 76.20% Community Outreach25,587 22,718 26,553 24,403 27,637 17,935 9,703 64.89% Engineering549,251 436,228 376,601 339,876 525,834 405,896 119,938 77.19%Total General Government8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 8,354,352$ 9,417,985$ 6,785,002$ 2,632,984$ 72.04% Public Safety: Police8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 9,255,342$ 9,930,681$ 7,146,113$ 2,784,568$ 71.96% Fire Protection4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 4,319,457 4,657,973 3,444,637 1,213,336 73.95% Inspectional Services2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 2,271,301 2,544,762 1,681,503 863,259 66.08%Total Public Safety14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 15,846,100$ 17,133,416$ 12,272,253$ 4,861,163$ 71.63% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 245,942$ 230,753$ 149,541$ 81,212$ 64.81% Public Works Operations2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 2,809,715 3,091,857 2,099,169 992,688 67.89% Organized Recreation1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 1,470,613 1,582,490 1,193,503 388,987 75.42% Recreation Center1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 1,856,529 1,860,755 1,526,620 334,135 82.04% Park Maintenance1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 1,797,271 1,830,530 1,371,175 459,355 74.91% Westwood Nature Center576,173 555,887 602,400 572,942 622,346 435,209 187,137 69.93% Natural Resources479,408 362,094 550,235 430,995 559,662 281,876 277,786 50.37% Vehicle Maintenance1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 1,088,375 1,253,367 882,272 371,095 70.39%Total Operations & Recreation10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 10,272,383$ 11,031,760$ 7,939,365$ 3,092,395$ 71.97% Non-Departmental: General 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 31,859$ 43,422$ 31,007$ 12,415$ 71.41% Transfers Out- 1,873,000 - 885,000 - - - 0.00% Council Programs198,000 35,432 162,568 0.00% Contingency266,719 104,224 385,295 188,254 74,350 - 74,350 0.00%Total Non-Departmental297,070$ 2,040,871$ 417,204$ 1,105,113$ 315,772$ 66,439$ 249,333$ 21.04%Total General Fund Expenditures34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 35,577,947$ 37,898,933$ 27,063,059$ 10,835,875$ 71.41%*Primarily related to E911 capital items from restricted fund balance.Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 6) Title: September 2018 monthly financial reportPage 4
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of September 30, 2018 Current BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetSept Year To DateBudget VarianceOperating revenues: User charges6,177,384$ 3,649,736$ 2,527,648$ 59.08% 7,421,016$ 5,067,883$ 2,353,133$ 68.29% 3,590,500$ 1,960,825$ 1,629,675$ 54.61% 3,024,731$ 1,906,452$ 1,118,279$ Other375,750 465,897 (90,147) 123.99% 30,000 21,730 8,270 72.43% 140,000 92,179 47,821 65.84%- 166,000 (166,000) Total operating revenues6,553,134 4,115,633 2,437,501 62.80% 7,451,016 5,089,613 2,361,403 68.31% 3,730,500 2,053,004 1,677,496 55.03% 3,024,731 2,072,452 952,279 Operating expenses: Personal services1,377,010 1,057,823 319,187 76.82% 689,225 615,989 73,236 89.37% 631,295 445,900 185,395 70.63% 796,527 492,535 303,992 Supplies & non-capital430,300 161,884 268,416 37.62% 65,550 31,142 34,408 47.51% 184,750 55,804 128,946 30.21% 31,600 1,727 29,873 Services & other charges1,704,224 1,306,764 397,460 76.68% 4,605,626 3,853,852 751,774 83.68% 3,014,442 1,779,287 1,235,155 59.03% 595,187 194,815 400,372 Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,511,534 2,526,471 985,063 71.95% 5,360,401 4,500,983 859,418 83.97% 3,830,487 2,280,991 1,549,496 59.55% 1,423,314 689,077 734,237 Operating income (loss)3,041,600 1,589,162 1,452,438 52.25% 2,090,615 588,630 1,501,985 28.16% (99,987) (227,987) 128,000 228.02% 1,601,417 1,383,375 218,042 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 15,172 15,765 (593) 103.91% 2,391 8,148 (5,757) 340.78% 15,000 7,819 7,181 52.13% 14,800 9,359 5,441 Debt issuance costs- (92,225) 92,225 - (18,740) 18,740 - - - Interest expense/bank charges(176,342) (283,048) 106,706 160.51% (26,584) (44,677) 18,093 168.06% (25,500) (13,221) (12,279) 51.85% (40,897) (29,802) (11,095) Total nonoperating rev (exp)(161,170) (359,508) 198,338 223.06% (24,193) (55,269) 31,076 228.45% (10,500) (5,402) (5,098) 51.45% (26,097) (20,443) (5,654) Income (loss) before transfers2,880,430 1,229,654 1,650,776 42.69% 2,066,422 533,361 1,533,061 25.81% (110,487) (233,389) 122,902 211.24% 1,575,320 1,362,932 212,388 Transfers inTransfers out(601,985) (451,489) (150,496) 75.00% (823,637) (617,728) (205,909) 75.00% (234,046) (175,534) (58,512) 75.00% (322,459) (241,844) (80,615) NET INCOME (LOSS)2,278,445 778,165 1,500,280 34.15% 1,242,785 (84,367) 1,327,152 -6.79% (344,533) (408,923) 64,390 118.69% 1,252,861 1,121,088 131,773 Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,316,199) (2,912,359) (403,840) 87.82% (1,619,500) (346,797) (1,272,703) 21.41%- - - (2,688,977) (11,865) (2,677,112) Revenues over/(under) expenditures(1,037,754) (2,134,194) 1,096,440 (376,715) (431,164) 54,449 (344,533) (408,923) 64,390 (1,436,116) 1,109,223 (2,545,339) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 6) Title: September 2018 monthly financial reportPage 5% of Budget63.03%68.52%61.84%5.47%32.73%48.41%86.38%63.24%72.87%78.33%86.52%75.00%89.48%0.44%
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: October 22, 2018
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept 2018)
Recommended action: No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Reporting on investments quarterly is part of our financial management
policies.
Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield.
Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value at September 30, 2018 is $50.9
million. Approximately $34 million is invested in longer term securities including U.S. Treasury
notes, Federal agency bonds, municipal debt securities, and certificates of deposit. The
remainder of the portfolio is held in money market accounts and commercial paper for future
cash flow needs. The overall yield to maturity is at 1.92%, up from 1.69% at the end of the
second quarter.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept 2018)
Discussion
Background: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and
investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A
and the City’s investment policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3)
Return on investment.
Present considerations: The portfolio value decreased in the third quarter to $50.9 million from
$59.6 million at June 30, 2018. The decrease was entirely in money market account balances, as
$4 million of the 2018 bond proceeds were spent down on projects in progress. Cash was also
needed for the semi-annual debt service and pay as you go TIF note payments due August 1, in
addition to construction contract payments, payroll and operating expenses.
The overall yield of the portfolio increased to 1.92%, compared to 1.69% at June 30, 2018. This is
the combined yield including both cash held in money market accounts and long term
investments. As some of the older long term investments with lower yields are replaced with
new higher yielding securities, the overall portfolio yield should continue to rise. Cities will
typically use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury (2.81% on September 28, 2018) or a
similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio.
There is about $13 million in money market accounts at the end of the quarter. This includes
bond proceeds of approximately $7.1 million from the 2017 ($2.6 mil) and 2018 ($4.5 mil) bonds.
Since the second half property tax settlement won’t be received until December 1, it is necessary
to keep adequate cash available for on-going expenses for payroll and operating expenses until
that time. Money market rates continued to increase in the third quarter to between 1.75% -
1.85%. Just over one year ago, money market rates were much lower at only .35%.
In addition to the cash held in money market accounts, the portfolio also has $3.5 million of
commercial paper. Commercial paper are promissory notes with short maturity periods issued
by financial institutions and large corporations, and usually have higher rates than money market
accounts for investing cash in the shorter term. One commercial paper security with a rate of
1.62% matured and was replaced at a rate of 2.63%. Rates on the four commercial paper
securities in the portfolio range from 2.17% to 2.63% and will mature over the next 1 to 6 months.
Approximately $3.1 million of the portfolio is invested in certificates of deposit. None matured
during the quarter so there are still 13 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $245,000
or less, which guarantees that each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. The maturity dates
range from 8 to 24 months and rates of up to 2.3%.
The remaining $31.3 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term securities which
include municipal bonds ($5.4 mil), Federal agency bonds ($10 mil) and U.S. Treasury notes
($15.9 mil). Municipal bonds are issued by states, local governments, or school districts to
finance special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal
Home Loan Bank, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae and may have call dates where they can be called
prior to final maturity. Several trades were made during the quarter replacing securities with
rates between .89% - 1.25% with new securities with rates between 2.69% - 3%.
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept 2018)
This table is a summary of the City’s portfolio at September 30, 2018:
Next steps: None at this time.
6/30/18 9/30/18
<1 Year 52% 46%
1-2 Years 11% 12%
2-3 Years 21% 28%
3-4 Years 16% 13%
>4 Years 0% 1%
6/30/18 9/30/18
Money Markets/Cash $22,050,451 $13,094,151
Commercial Paper $3,167,889 $3,475,845
Certificates of Deposit $3,061,479 $3,064,911
Municipal Debt $5,396,359 $5,398,076
Agencies/Treasuries $25,885,408 $25,894,947
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
September 30, 2018
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date Yield Par Value
Market Value at
9/30/2018
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.05%1,471 1,471 1
4M Liquid Asset Money Market 1.75%2,821,005 2,821,005 49,368
4MP Liquid Asset Money Market 1.83%2,981,079 2,981,079 54,554
4MP 2017A Bonds Money Market 1.83%2,602,781 2,602,781 47,631
4M 2018A Bonds Money Market 1.75%90,978 90,978 1,592
4MP 2018A Bonds Money Market 1.83%4,413,357 4,413,357 80,764
12,909,200
UBS Institutional Money Market & Cash 1.85% 183,480 183,480 3,394
PFM Comm Paper - Bank Tokyo 06538CL90 11/09/2018 2.17% 1,000,000 997,390 21,700
PFM Comm Paper - BNP Paribas 09659CL97 11/09/2018 2.17% 900,000 897,687 19,530
PFM Comm Paper - ING Funding 4497W1Q82 03/08/2019 2.55% 800,000 790,880 20,400
PFM Comm Paper - JP Morgan 46640QQR5 03/25/2019 2.63% 800,000 789,888 21,040
3,475,845
PFM CD - Cit Bank UT 17284CH49 06/04/2019 1.90% 240,000 239,381 4,560
PFM CD - Amer Exp F UT 02587CAC4 07/10/2019 1.95% 240,000 239,347 4,680
PFM CD - Capital One Bank 14042E4S6 07/15/2019 1.95% 240,000 239,107 4,680
PFM CD - First Bk Highland IL 3191408W2 08/13/2019 2.00% 240,000 239,134 4,800
PFM CD - Webster Bk NA CT 94768NJX3 08/20/2019 1.90% 240,000 239,062 4,560
PFM CD - Capital One Bank 140420PS3 10/08/2019 2.10% 240,000 238,939 5,040
PFM CD - State Bk India IL 856283XJ0 10/15/2019 2.10% 240,000 238,927 5,040
PFM CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38148JHB0 01/14/2020 2.20% 240,000 238,678 5,280
PFM CD - Amer Express UT 02587DXE3 01/30/2020 1.95% 240,000 237,698 4,680
PFM CD - Camden Nat'l Bank ME 133033DR8 02/26/2020 1.80% 240,000 237,878 4,320
PFM CD - Private Bank & Tr IL 74267GVA2 02/27/2020 1.75% 240,000 238,032 4,200
PFM CD - World's Foremost 9159919E5 08/06/2020 2.30% 200,000 196,954 4,600
PFM CD - Comenity Cap Bk UT 20033AND4 10/13/2020 2.00% 245,000 241,773 4,900
3,064,911
PFM Muni Debt - Williamston Mich Sch 970294CN2 05/01/2019 1.46% 2,000,000 1,991,780 29,200
PFM Muni Debt - New York City 64971WUX6 08/01/2019 1.33% 2,000,000 1,981,440 26,600
PFM Muni Debt - Connecticut St 20772JKN1 10/15/2020 1.78% 1,000,000 976,350 17,800
PFM Muni Debt - California St 13063DGA0 04/01/2021 2.80% 450,000 448,506 12,600
5,398,076
PFM FHLB 3130AAE46 01/16/2019 1.25% 530,000 528,431 6,625
PFM FNMA 3135G0H63 01/28/2019 1.03%600,000 598,164 6,180
PFM FHLB Global 3130A9EP2 09/26/2019 1.04%625,000 614,875 6,500
PFM FHLMC 3137EAEF2 04/20/2020 1.49%1,000,000 978,670 14,900
PFM FNMA 3135G0T60 07/30/2020 1.60%1,250,000 1,221,550 20,000
PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 0.89% 675,000 656,910 6,008
PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 1.09% 700,000 681,240 7,630
PFM FHLB 3130ACE26 09/28/2020 1.48% 575,000 558,814 8,510
PFM FHLMC 3137EAEJ4 09/29/2020 1.69% 530,000 517,752 8,957
PFM FHLMC 3137EAEK1 11/17/2020 1.91% 800,000 784,016 15,280
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.02% 150,000 146,438 1,530
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.12% 750,000 732,188 8,400
PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEL9 02/16/2021 2.47% 800,000 790,800 19,760
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U27 04/13/2021 2.55% 500,000 494,915 12,750
PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.86% 250,000 240,783 4,650
PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.87% 675,000 650,113 12,623
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R77 05/31/2021 2.02% 1,600,000 1,538,752 32,320
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U35 06/22/2021 2.76% 700,000 696,619 19,320
PFM FHLB Global 3130A8QS5 07/14/2021 1.25% 750,000 715,163 9,375
PFM Freddie Mac 3134GSWC5 08/27/2021 2.90% 775,000 771,319 22,475
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.86% 600,000 585,330 11,160
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.73% 1,200,000 1,170,660 20,760
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.93% 1,600,000 1,560,880 30,880
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.85% 1,150,000 1,121,883 21,275
PFM FHLB 3130AEXV7 09/20/2021 3.00% 750,000 748,320 22,500
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 1,100,000 1,047,024 18,920
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 547,308 9,430
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.85% 200,000 190,368 3,700
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 1.96% 700,000 675,416 13,720
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.12% 850,000 820,148 18,020
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.18% 800,000 771,904 17,440
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.69% 1,300,000 1,254,344 34,970
PFM US Treasury Note 912828TJ9 08/15/2022 2.76% 1,050,000 1,000,083 28,980
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.86% 500,000 483,770 14,300
25,894,947
GRAND TOTAL 50,927,930 977,361
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 1.92%
Study session meeting of October 22, 2018 (Item No. 7)
Title: Third quarter investment report (July – Sept 2018)Page 4