The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019/01/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA JANUARY 14, 2019 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 Emergency Program (STEP) facility discussion 3. 7:20 p.m. Crime/drug free rental housing workgroup process 8:20 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 8:25 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 4. 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000) 5. Food security and access study 6. Update on 2020 Census 7. Purchase of tax forfeited property located at 3611 Glenhurst Ave. S. 8. November 2018 monthly financial report 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: January 14, 2019 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 regularly scheduled study session on January 28, 2019. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on January 28, 2019. Also attached to this report is the study session discussion topics and timeline. Proposed topics for future study session discussion: None Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – January 28, 2019 Study session discussion topics and timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Reviewed by: Maria Carrillo-Perez, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning January 28, 2019. 5:30 p.m. – Closed executive session – Westwood room 1.City manager evaluation – Administrative services (60 minutes) 6:30 p.m. – Study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes) 2.Climate action plan update – Administrative services (45 minutes) Overview of the citywide energy use and greenhouse gas emissions trends. Recent actions taken, along with current actions underway and planned future actions will also be provided as they relate to the actions listed in the climate action plan. A member of the consulting firm Lotus, hired to help implement certain actions, will be in attendance. 3.Business plan for community health management – Fire (45 minutes) Staff will provide an update on the progress of the fire department towards reducing the inappropriate use of the 911 system for low acuity medical calls by connecting the patient to resources as part of a care team. This model also provides revenue for work that historically has been done with no reimbursement for the service provided. Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written reports 4.December 2018 monthly financial report 5.Fourth quarter investment report (Oct. – Dec. 2018) 6.Open to Business annual report End of meeting: 8:10 p.m. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning Study session discussion topics and timeline Discussion topic Comments Date Scheduled Finalize Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; adoption postponed on 5/21/18. To be discussed at Jan. Retreat 1/10/19 & 1/11/19 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, 12/10/18 crime free ordinance letter suspension 1/14/19 STEP discussion: facilities 1/14/19 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 1st Qtr. 2019 Zoning guidelines for front-facing buildings with windows not papered Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. 1st Qtr. 2019 Design guidelines - New home construction Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. 1st Qtr. 2019 Retail/service/liquor stores size Discussed on 6/11/18; referred to PC. Discussed 11/26/18 Ongoing 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 Ongoing Immigration & supporting families Discussed 8/6 and referred to HRC. HRC held comm. mtg in Oct. Council/HRC discussion on 12/10; referred back to HRC for refinement of recommendations. TBD Discuss and evaluate our public process TBD Westwood Hills Nature Center access fund TBD Easy access to nature, across city, starting with low-income neighborhoods TBD SEED’s community greenhouse/resilient cities initiative TBD Community center project TBD Utility pricing policy TBD Establish a local housing trust fund Completed 10/15/18 Board and commission work plan process Completed 11/26/18 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 14, 2019 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) facility discussion Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of the study session is to discuss STEP’s request for assistance in addressing its facility needs. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to further consider a partnership with STEP to create a community connection center? Summary: The St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) was founded in 1975 and is located at 6812 West Lake St. The St. Louis Park Emergency Program’s (STEP) mission is to identify, address and respond to the critical and emergency needs of residents in St. Louis Park. STEP provides direct assistance and support services to residents of St. Louis Park, targeting households with low incomes and those faced with a financial crisis. STEP owns its building which is centrally located, on two bus lines, and has on-site parking. The current building is 9,000 square feet of warehouse and office space. STEP’s building is currently being used at maximum capacity. In August 2018, the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) sent a letter to the city requesting assistance in addressing STEP’s facility needs. STEP’s proposal includes a facility that co-locates complementary city and community services. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable at this time. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion/background (provided by STEP) STEP request to city- August 2018 Prepared by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) facility discussion Discussion The following information was provided by STEP. What A partnership between the city and STEP for a Community Connection Center that strategically co-locates services and meets shared community goals. Why The St. Louis Park Emergency Program provides essential services to stabilize 8% of St. Louis Park residents. There is an opportunity to expand STEP’s impact via a shared community center that allows the city and other partner’s access to respond and address residents’ needs. Background •Idea of a resource “hub” or community center for St. Louis Park has been discussed by public officials, faith community leaders, and service providers for several years. •City recently finished comprehensive plan and council strategic priorities. Both provide focus on goals that can be furthered by a collaboration. •STEP’s Strategic Plan completed in 2018 identified need and goals to expand facilities and expand partnerships. •August 2018: STEP’s board of directors formally requested dialog with the city to explore partnering on a St. Louis Park Community Connection Center—a place to receive information, connect with neighbors, and have needs responded to by experts. Vision A Community Connection Center could look like: •A place St. Louis Park residents can easily and comfortably access (Historic Walker Lake). •Access to city resources and information (new resident concerns, housing issues, in- person mySLP responder). •Access to STEP resources (food, clothing, diapers, housing, transportation options, social worker). •Space for STEP to host seasonal programs, volunteer events, community events. •Space for partners to host clinics, community meetings. STEP’s needs in addition to present building (9000 square feet) •Current building is about 9000 square feet. •STEP could use up to an additional 6000-9000 square feet to most effectively meet community needs in the long term. Envisioned new space would include: §Relocated and expanded Clothing Closet (2000-2500 square feet). Current space would be devoted to improving and expanding food program. §Drop-in resource center and reception room (500 square feet). §Multimodal space for events and clinics (2000-2500 square feet). §Warehouse for long term storage for STEP seasonal programs (1500 square feet). §Conference room for volunteer events, board meetings, donor events, & community partners (1000-2000 square feet). Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) facility discussion Top reasons to consider a community connection center 1.Singular access point for services and information for St. Louis Park residents for years to come. 2.Allowing trusted resource of STEP to facilitate relationships and access between residents and city services and needs. 3.Empowers STEP to fully provide vital services to residents in need for the long term. 4.Could serve as an anchor for Historic Walker Lake revitalization efforts. 5.Promotes mobility/accessibility. Would co-locate or be walking proximate to the many other community assets residents commonly access. 6.Fosters on-going collaborations between city, STEP, and other community partners. August 28, 2018 Tom Harmening, City Manager City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Dear Mr. Harmening: On August 21, 2018, the Board of Directors of the St. Louis Park Emergency Program unanimously approved a motion to request the city's assistance in addressing STEP's additional facility needs: The Board of Directors formally requests the City of St. Louis Park to consider a partnership that would address STEP's need for space to conduct our services for St. Louis Park residents. The vision for this additional space would be a "Community Welcome Center" that co-locates STEP and complementary city services. BACKGROUND STEP has identified, addressed, and responded to the critical and emergency needs of St. Louis Park residents since 1975, when it was formed thanks to startup grants from the city and faith communities. STEP's programs address the needs of families experiencing economic stress. Besides providing food, clothing, transportation, and direct financial assistance, STEP has a team of social workers who, among other activities, connect residents with other community resources. STEP owns its building at 6812 West Lake Street. The building is centrally located, on two bus lines, and has on-site parking. It is about 9000 square feet of warehouse and office space. STEP is using its current building to maximum capacity, which restricts its ability to fully realize its vision. STE P's 2018-2020 Strategic Plan identified the priority to expand its facilities and programs to better respond to community needs. In addition, expansion of space would allow STEP to grow its ongoing collaborations with community partners, including the city. Chief among the benefits of the envisioned community connection center is the creation of an accessible, trusted place for residents seeking assistance, connecting to resources, and connecting to one another. POTENTIAL PROJECT STEP is committed to exploring a collaboration that meets city and STEP priorities for a co-location facility. STEP priorities for a collaborative Community Welcome Center include: •STEP space to operate an expansion of its existing Clothing Closet. •STEP administered drop-in community resource center, which would serve as a navigational point for city and community resources. •STEP administered flexible space to host collaborative events and clinics. •STEP office space for staff/interns. •A flexible space for larger gatherings for use by STEP (volunteer events, board meetings, donor events) and community partners. 6812 West Lake Street • St Louis Park, MN 55426 952-925-4899 phone • 952-925-5161 fax • info@STEPslp.org • www.STEPslp.org Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) facility discussion Page 4 Aspects of a collaboration may also include: •Contributing to neighborhood revitalization. (STE P's preference would be for the site to be close to STEP's current building, in the Historic Walker-Lake district.) •Providing a welcoming, accessible alternative for people to access city services and information. •Ensuring a new development consistent with the city's Climate Action Plan goals. •Serving as a public gathering space. •Addressing city priorities and service needs. STEP welcomes the opportunity to learn the Council's response to this request at an upcoming Study Session. STEP staff and board remain available to add more information or respond to questions before or following a Study Session. Over the course of five decades, thanks to the city's partnership, STEP has empowered lives and restored hope for residents. We look forward to partnering again as we chart a course to strategically address the community's needs in the coming decades. Sincerely, MtU(t{�At!t/ Derek Burrows Reise Executive Director cc: Jennifer Ortale, Chair, STEP Board of Directors Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) facility discussion Page 5 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 14, 2019 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Crime/drug free rental housing workgroup process Recommended action: The purpose of this report and study session presentation is to provide an overview of and to seek council’s approval to proceed with a process for convening a crime/drug free rental housing workgroup for the purpose of providing an advanced review and evaluation of the crime/drug free ordinance, as outlined in the report. Policy consideration: Does the city council support the proposed process to establish a workgroup of key stakeholders to review and evaluate the crime/drug free ordinance as outlined in the report, and to present to council the workgroup’s conclusions and recommendations regarding possible amendments to the ordinance? Summary: The crime/drug free rental housing ordinance took effect in 2008 in response to concerns from residents who lived in or near rental properties with disorderly or criminal activity. Council discussed the crime/drug free housing ordinance at meetings in May and December 2018. At its December 17, 2018, meeting, the council adopted a resolution to suspend sending notices of violations of city code Section 8-331 to the owner or property manager of a rental property. This action was taken in order to allow time for further study of the ordinance. The council also directed community development/housing staff to prepare recommendations to assemble a workgroup of key stakeholders to review and evaluate the crime/drug free ordinance and to provide a report to the city council on possible modifications to the ordinance. The following discussion outlines the recommended process to establish the workgroup. Financial or budget considerations: No specific budget for the study has yet been developed. However, it is estimated that meeting facilitation and miscellaneous expenses for the workgroup process should not exceed $5,000. The funding resource for this expense will be the Housing Rehab. Fund. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor and Karen Barton, CD Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Crime/drug free rental housing workgroup process Discussion Background: The city council first discussed the concept of a crime/drug free ordinance in 2006 in response to a growing number of rental tenant behavior complaints. Property managers and residents in the rental community were being negatively affected by disorderly behaviors of other tenants. The purpose of the proposed ordinance was to enhance the rental business licensing section of the city code to assist in reducing crime and improving the quality of life within the community. The city council approved a crime-free ordinance in 2007 that took effect in 2008. The program was designed to be an effective and efficient tool in partnering with rental property owners to maintain crime- and drug-free housing in the city and to provide a safe, livable community for all St. Louis Park residents. When the program was first adopted in 2008 there were 8,316 rental units; today there are 11,284 licensed rental units. At a May 2018 study session, the city council received an update on a number of housing- related items including the crime/drug free housing ordinance. At that time the council directed staff to return to a later council meeting to discuss the ordinance in greater detail. At the its December 10, 2018, study session council continued review of the crime/drug free ordinance, noting the importance of revisiting city ordinances periodically to ensure their effectiveness, given changes in community needs and attitudes. Council directed staff to develop a process for convening a workgroup composed of key stakeholders to review and evaluate the crime/drug free rental housing ordinance. The council also directed staff to prepare a resolution suspending certain provisions of the crime free/drug free ordinance to provide time for the workgroup to be established and conduct a comprehensive review of the ordinance. At its December 17, 2018, meeting, council adopted a resolution to suspend sending notices of violations of city code Section 8-331 to the owner or property manager of a rental property, to allow time for further study. Workgroup outline: To examine the effect of the current crime/drug free housing ordinance and to provide recommendations to the city council on possible modifications to the ordinance, staff proposes forming a workgroup that includes representatives from key stakeholder groups most affected by the ordinance. The proposed process is modeled after one successfully used for developing the tenant protection ordinance and will be managed by the community development/housing staff. Racial equity and inclusion will be taken into account as part of the workgroup’s activities. This process is expected to take approximately six to eight months. •Purpose The workgroup’s purpose is to 1) conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the impact of the crime/drug free ordinance; 2) determine the effectiveness of the ordinance; 3) identify any unintended consequences or concerns; and 4) make recommendations to the council on possible modifications to the ordinance to help promote safe, livable rental properties that are responsive to the needs of tenants, property owners/managers and the community. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Crime/drug free rental housing workgroup process • Workgroup composition Staff proposes that workgroup representatives include key stakeholders. Key stakeholders are defined as those groups most affected by the ordinance, including rental property owners/managers, tenants and other members of the community. • Workgroup size To allow for productive, positive interactions among members, staff proposes the workgroup include 10 members at most. • Meeting facilitation Staff proposes using an outside, impartial party to facilitate the workgroup, so as to conduct the process in an unbiased manner. This method of facilitation was recently used by the naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) preservation workgroup, resulting in a successful outcome. Staff recommends Cathy Bennett, Bennett Community Consulting, for this role. Cathy facilitated the city’s NOAH preservation workgroup discussions, works with the Urban Land Institute MN, is a former community development department staff person for the City of Roseville, and is a facilitator for both the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) housing committee and the regional NOAH preservation workgroup. • City staff role St. Louis Park housing staff will oversee the workgroup process. City staff representing housing, inspections and the police department will attend the workgroup meetings to listen, answer questions and provide requested data. • Workgroup member application process An application process will be created for individuals interested in serving on the workgroup. Applicants will be asked which stakeholder group they identify with, to describe the reason they would like to serve on the workgroup, and to specify if and how they have been directly affected by the ordinance. The final workgroup roster should include demographic diversity and a balanced number of representatives from each of the various stakeholder groups. Staff will work with communications and the community engagement workgroup to develop a broad and inclusive public process for seeking member applications. Once the application process is complete, staff will present the applications to the council for final selection and confirmation of the workgroup members. • Workgroup meeting process o Facilitated workgroup meetings will be held at least monthly to review and analyze the crime/drug free ordinance. Meeting agendas will include review of data related to the ordnances impact, identification and analysis of unintended adverse impacts, a presentation and discussion session with a panel of industry experts and development of conclusions and recommendations for potential modifications to the ordinance. It is anticipated that the workgroup will meet 5 to 6 times. o The workgroup will also host a public listening session that will offer an opportunity for special-interest group representatives and community members to provide testimony to the workgroup related to the crime/drug free ordinance. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Crime/drug free rental housing workgroup process • Workgroup report conclusions and recommendations Once the workgroup has finished its review and evaluation of the ordinance, its conclusions and recommendations for potential modifications to the ordinance will be presented to the council. Next steps: Based on council’s direction, staff will finalize the process for convening the crime/drug free rental housing workgroup. Staff will work with the city’s communication staff and community engagement workgroup to develop an outreach process to inform the community that the council is seeking interested members to serve on a crime/drug free rental housing workgroup, with an emphasis on seeking members most affected by the ordinance. Staff will work with various community groups, industry groups and individuals in an attempt to encourage applications from individuals representing demographic diversity and to ensure a balanced number of representatives from each of the various stakeholder groups. Once the application process is complete, staff will present the applications to the council for final selection and confirmation of the workgroup members. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 14, 2019 Written report: 4 Executive summary Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000) Recommended action: None at this time. This report is intended to provide an overview of the proposed 2019 Pavement Management Project. This project will have a public hearing at the January 22 council meeting. Council will be asked to take final action on this project at the February 4 meeting. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the pavement rehabilitation, installation of sidewalks/trails and reduce impervious surface as a part of our annual Pavement Management Project? Summary: The engineering department has been working on the design of the 2019 Pavement Management Project. This annual project rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets. This year, the streets to be rehabilitated are located in Pavement Management Area 7, (the Pennsylvania Park, Willow Park and Eliot View Neighborhoods). Street rehabilitation work consists of removing and replacing the existing bituminous pavement and replacing the concrete curb and gutter as needed. Other work includes sewer repairs and watermain replacement. There are Connect the Park sidewalk/trail segments in this project. Also, from a neighborhood livability standpoint, past council policy direction has been to evaluate the sidewalk system as a part of all transportation projects and identify gaps in the network. As a part of project development, the sidewalk network adjacent to the streets were reviewed and there are a number of sidewalk gap segments under consideration as a part of this project. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s 2019 capital improvement plan (CIP) and will be paid for using, franchise fees, utility funds, and general obligation bonds. A construction cost estimate for the entire Pavement Management Project is being finalized and will be provided at the January 22 public hearing. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Attachment #1: Sidewalk and Trail Segment Matrix Attachment #2: Project Scope, Proposed Street Widths and Proposed Sidewalk and Trails Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Project Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000) Discussion Background: The city’s pavement management program (PMP) proactively addresses the condition of the residential streets within the city. Many of these streets are now approaching 50 years of age or more. The city’s residential streets are still in relatively good condition due to the fact that the streets were built well, are generally situated on good soils, utilize curb and gutter for drainage and have been well maintained. City maintenance crews have continually worked to keep residential streets in good condition using maintenance strategies such as patching and seal coating. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed to prolong their life. The PMP was developed in 2003 to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right pavement strategy at the right time. Using pavement management software, staff documents street condition ratings and monitors their performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of streets and selects cost- effective treatments to extend pavement life. In addition to the needed street and utility work, the council has provided staff direction to look at all aspects of neighborhood livability and “Living Streets” considerations as a part of our transportation projects. Consistent with this policy, staff has reviewed the sidewalk network, storm water runoff, traffic management and aesthetics. Project description: This year’s project will be performed in Area 7 of the City’s eight pavement management areas. It includes work in the Pennsylvania Park, Willow Park and Eliot View neighborhoods. The attached maps identify the streets in Area 7 that have been selected for rehabilitation and outlines the various work to be performed on each street. Selection was based on street condition and field evaluations to determine the condition of the pavement, curb and gutter, and the city’s underground utilities. A team of staff members from streets, utilities, and engineering worked together to select streets and to recommend appropriate rehabilitation techniques for inclusion in this year’s Pavement Management Project. Many of the street segments are proposed to include additional infrastructure upgrades such as watermain and water service replacement, storm sewer construction, and the installation of sidewalk. Watermain and water service replacement: The watermain on these streets are approximately 60-75 years old and experiencing deterioration. The work will consist of the replacement of the watermain and the water services to the curb stop. The watermain is approximately 7.5 feet deep and located under or near one of the curb lines, running parallel to the street. In order to replace the watermain on a street segment, the asphalt pavement and curb are removed and the street is open cut to the depth of the watermain. The removal of the entire curb line on at least one side of the street gives the city an opportunity to modify the width of the roadway. There is more information on the proposed modifications to the street widths later in this report. The water services connect to the watermain and run to the curb stop and then to the house. The curb stop is located between the curb and gutter and the right of way line. The city owns the water service between the watermain and the curb stop while the property owner owns the water service between the curb stop and the house. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000) As a part of this project, the water service is proposed to be replaced between the watermain and the city owned curb stop. The water service is also approximately 7.5 feet deep and must be open cut to replace. Replacing the water services has significant impacts on existing trees, landscaping, sidewalks, driveways, retaining walls, etc. Street widths: This is the fourth year that the city has taken the opportunity to right-size our streets as a part of the Pavement Management Project. Doing so is consistent with council direction and the Living Streets policy. The majority of the roads in our residential neighborhoods are 28 feet wide or less. When we are removing the curb along the entire length of at least one side of the road as a part of a project, staff will recommend reducing the width of the street if it is greater than 28 feet wide and has a low parking demand. As noted previously, as a part of the project we are replacing the watermain on a number of the streets in the neighborhood, this will require the removal of the curb on one side of these streets. In addition, the soils in the area are high in organics, causing the curb and gutter on many of the streets without watermain replacement to settle and hold water. To address this and improve drainage, staff is recommending that the curb on both sides of these streets be removed. Staff recommends reducing the widths of our streets for the following reasons: 1. Trees- A wider grass boulevard provides more space to plant trees. 2. Traffic calming- narrower streets can reduce vehicle speeds. 3. Reduction in directly connected impervious- less street pavement means less runoff going into our lakes, wetlands and Minnehaha Creek. 4. Less pavement reduces solar generated heat. 5. Pedestrian safety- by narrowing the streets pedestrians have a shorter crossing distance and less exposure to vehicles. 6. Cost- narrower streets reduce the cost of initial construction and future maintenance (i.e. sealcoating, sweeping, salt application, snow plowing, etc.) 7. Construction greenhouse gas reduction and vehicle miles travelled- reducing the width of the streets as recommended will reduce the number of trucks hauling bituminous and aggregate to the site during construction. In single family residential areas, not directly adjacent to a commercial node or high density housing, the majority of the available on- street parking is not used on a daily basis. The police and fire departments have reviewed our street width standards and they do not have a concern about a 28 foot wide road with parking on both sides. When staff recommends reducing the street width to less than 28 feet, it is usually accompanied by a recommendation to limit parking to one side of the street in order to address concerns regarding emergency vehicle access. However, the streets that are 26 feet wide in this year’s project were constructed in 1979 to 1981 and do not have parking restrictions. The property owners have not shared a concern about allowing parking on both sides of these roads. As a result, we are not recommending parking restrictions on these road segments. A graphic representing staff’s street width recommendations is attached. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000) The following are the recommended street width changes: Street segment Existing (ft) Proposed (ft) Pennsylvania Avenue (Cedar Lake Rd to 26 ½ Street) 30 28 36 ½ Street (Pennsylvania Avenue to Oregon Avenue) 30 28 Oregon Avenue (26 ½ Street to Cedar Lake Road) 30 28 Sumter Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to 23rd Street) 30 28 Rhode Island Avenue & 23rd Street (Cedar Lake Road to Texas Avenue) 30 28 Quebec Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to 22nd Street) 30 28 24th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue (Rhode Island Avenue to 22nd Street) 30 28 Quebec Drive (Pennsylvania Avenue to 22nd Street) 30 28 22nd Street (Texas Avenue to dead end) 30 28 Florida Avenue (Eliot View Road to dead end) 30 28 14th Street (Texas Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue) 30 28 13 ½ Street (13th Lane to Pennsylvania Avenue) 30 28 The following streets are recommended to stay at their current width: Street segment Existing (ft) Proposed (ft) 26th Street and Quebec Avenue (Virginia Avenue to Cedar Lake Road) 26 26 25th Street (26th Street to Sumter Avenue) 26 26 Sumter Avenue (26th Street to Cedar Lake Road) 26 26 **Nevada Avenue (dead end to Cedar Lake Road) 30 30 23rd Street (Louisiana Avenue to Hampshire Avenue) 26 26 Kentucky Lane (24th Street to Cedar Lake Road) 26 26 **Hampshire Avenue (24th Street to Cedar Lake Road) 30 30 13th Lane (Texas Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue) 26 26 **Recommend to stay at current street width due to the parking on these streets being heavily utilized by the high density housing along the street. Storm sewer: Staff has identified storm water best management practices (BMPs) opportunities in order to reduce runoff volume, reduce pollutants, and improve storm water quality as a part of the project. These include reducing the street impervious by 4.8%, treatment manholes (SAFL Baffles) at three locations and a rain garden at Willow Park. Street trees: The city forester has completed a tree inventory in the project area. This inventory reviewed the size, species, health, and condition of all of the trees within the project limits. As a part of the design, staff worked to preserve existing boulevard trees to the maximum extent possible. There are a number of trees that are being recommended for removal because of health, watermain construction or sidewalk construction. Tree replacement will be completed based on the city’s tree ordinance. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000) Sidewalks and trails: As a part of the project development, staff reviewed the neighborhood sidewalk network and the Connect the Park plan. In all, 1.33 miles of sidewalk and trails were identified to be considered as a part of this project. This includes 0.63 miles of Connect the Park sidewalk and trail, and 0.70 miles of gap segments. For purposes of discussion, a “gap” is considered a section of sidewalk that is missing on a continuous street block or provides a pedestrian connection to a community sidewalk for high density housing. The Connect the Park and gap segments were broken down block by block and evaluated for construction costs, impacts, and network connectivity. There are 10 different segments that were evaluated. The construction of all sidewalk/trail segments were reviewed and staff is recommending that seven segments or 0.81 miles of sidewalks and trails be built as a part of this project. These segments, if approved, would be constructed at no cost to the property owners and the city would be responsible for future repairs to defective sidewalk panels. These sidewalk segments are designated as either neighborhood or community sidewalk. Neighborhood sidewalks are the property owner’s responsibility for snow removal; Community sidewalks are the city’s responsibility. This designation is based on the following definitions: Community sidewalks are located on a street that is directly adjacent to an activity node. They make major connections within the city and to neighboring cities’ systems. These pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and/or trails) are spaced roughly at ¼-mile intervals across the city. Most of these sidewalks are located along collector and arterial roadways that have high traffic volumes. In general, activity nodes are community or area destinations such as; the library, schools, retail areas, parks, regional trails, transit nodes, and places of worship. Snow removal on community sidewalks are the city’s responsibility. Due to current snow removal equipment, the city requires the sidewalk be at least 5 foot wide minimum (6 feet preferred). Neighborhood sidewalks are all other sidewalks in the city. They provide accessibility for pedestrians within the immediate area and feed into the Community Sidewalk system. These sidewalks are generally located on lower volume roads. Snow removal on neighborhood sidewalk are the property owner’s responsibility. Attached to this report, staff has provided individual evaluation sheets for each of the 10 sidewalk segments. Comments received from the public meetings and other communication from property owners along with details on each segment have been added to the individual segment pages. Each sidewalk segment is unique and requires its own set of design solutions. Staff used the following criteria to develop our recommendations. Staff recommendations are context sensitive; no one criteria ranked higher than others, rather it was an evaluation of numerous factors. • Traffic volumes o Volumes under 150 vehicles a day = Look at other criteria factors o Volumes from 150 vehicles a day and greater = Sidewalk recommended on at least 1 side of the street Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000) • Existing sidewalk percentage versus proposed sidewalk percentage o If proposed sidewalk is less than 25% = Recommend sidewalk if no major impacts o If proposed sidewalk is greater than 25% = Look at other criteria factors. • Street widths • Connectivity to sidewalk network and destinations o How does the sidewalk fit into the overall network of sidewalks and trails? o Is this sidewalk identified in the Active Living Sidewalk and Trail Plan? o Does the sidewalk provide a direct connection to a park, shopping center, school, etc.? • Impacts (trees, retaining walls, driveways, etc.) • Right of way width • Cost The table below is a summary of all of the sidewalks and trails evaluated for this project along with staff recommendations for construction in 2019. The bolded segments are sidewalks that staff recommends for construction at this time. Number Description Maintenance responsibility Build in 2019? 1 Nevada Avenue- Dead End to Cedar Lake Road (East Side) Community Yes 2 Hampshire Avenue- 24th Street to Cedar Lake Road (East Side) Neighborhood Yes 3 Hampshire Avenue- 24th Street to Cedar Lake Road (West Side) Neighborhood No 4 Quebec Avenue- Cedar Lake Road to 24th Street (East Side) Community Yes 5 Pennsylvania Avenue- Quebec Avenue to 22nd Street (East Side) Community Yes 6 Pennsylvania Avenue- Quebec Avenue to 22nd Street (East Side) Community No 7 22nd Street- Texas Avenue to Oregon Court (North Side) Community Yes 8 Bituminous Trail- 22nd Street to Franklin Avenue Community Yes 9 14th Street- Texas Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue (South Side) Neighborhood No 10 Pennsylvania Avenue- Lamplighter Park to Wayzata Blvd (West Side) Community Yes Traffic management: The city hired Spack Consulting to gather data of the existing traffic conditions. This included measuring existing average daily traffic volumes (ADTs), truck traffic volumes, and vehicle speeds. Staff also collected additional traffic data in the neighborhood as well as performed stop sign warrants for every intersection. The warrant analyses performed did not find any new candidates for stop signs within the project area. Staff does not recommend any other additional traffic controls in relation to this project. The few higher speeds identified in the existing conditions can be mitigated by the proposed road narrowing, the addition of sidewalks, and the addition of boulevard trees. The truck traffic levels found during the project were found to be contextually normal for the different parts of the neighborhoods. Truck traffic was expected on 23rd Street at Florida Avenue as that is an industrial area. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 7 Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000) Public process: Three open houses have been held to provide an opportunity for residents to learn more about the proposed project and to provide feedback on the proposed plans. Notifications were done through letters, neighborhood associations, NextDoor, GovDelivery and the city website. 1. Kickoff Open House #1 (August 8, 2018) This public meeting was a kickoff meeting to provide residents with high level information on what was being proposed for this project and the history of the Pavement Management Program. Information was provided on what to expect for future open houses and what to expect during construction. Staff presented the proposed project scope. Many residents asked questions and provided suggestions for modifications to this preliminary design. There were 26 residents who signed in at this open house out of 823 properties notified of the meeting. 2. Open House #2 (November 15, 2018) The purpose of this open house is to provide attendees with the preliminary design for streets and sidewalks/trails. The preliminary plans show impacts to trees, landscaping, retaining walls, etc. and the proposed construction limits. Residents were able to look at preliminary layouts and provide feedback to city staff. Many residents asked questions, wrote post it notes on the plans and provided suggestions for modifications to this preliminary design. Staff tried to incorporate these comments into a refined design. Feedback from this meeting ultimately helped guide city staff on the final designs. There were 11 residents who signed in at this open house out of 823 properties notified of the meeting. 3. Open House #3 (January 8, 2019) The purpose of this open house is to provide attendees with the staff recommended final design for streets and sidewalks/trails. The final plans show impacts to trees, landscaping, retaining walls, etc. and the proposed construction limits. This is the last public information meeting before bringing this project to City Council for a public hearing and action. There were 12 residents who signed in at this open house out of 823 properties notified of the meeting. 4. City Council Public Hearing (January 22, 2019) The public hearing will provide an opportunity for residents to speak to council regarding the project. 5. City Council Project Approval (February 4, 2019) The council will then be asked to approve the project as recommended or approve a modified project based on resident feedback. If property owners were unable to attend the meetings, or if they had specific concerns that they wanted to walk through, staff met with them on site. Using the information gathered from the open houses, individual site visits, phone calls and emails, staff revised the sidewalk design to try to minimize the impacts within the right-of-way. When impacts could not be avoided, staff proposed mitigation. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 8 Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000) Engineering staff worked closely with operations and recreation staff to ensure the network of sidewalk/trails being built would meet the objectives for tree preservation/replanting and acceptable widths and design features for snow removal on community sidewalk segments. Next steps: The proposed schedule for the segments recommended by staff to facilitate construction in 2019 is as follows: Council study session January 14, 2019 Council public hearing January 22, 2019 Council project approval February 4, 2019 Council awards construction bids Early April 2019 Construction May to November 2019 ATTACHMENT 1- SIDEWALK SEGMENT MATRIX Segment 1 Nevada Avenue (Dead End to Cedar Lake Road) East Side ROW width 60 feet Proposed boulevard width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk length 138 feet (21%) Existing sidewalk length 510 feet (79%) Properties affected by sidewalk City Property Maintenance responsibility Community Sidewalk (City) Trees removed None Trees protected None New retaining wall needed None Private utility relocations None Sidewalk at back of curb? None Traffic ADT 251 Total cost $10,302.21 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new sidewalk $74.65 Recommendation Yes Recommendation based on: Completes gap from existing sidewalk to trail that leads to dog park Notes: None Resident Feedback: None Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 9 Segment 2 Hampshire Avenue (24th Street to Cedar Lake Road) East Side ROW width 60 feet Proposed boulevard width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk length 1,222 feet (100%) Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%) Properties affected by sidewalk 9 residential properties, Apartments, Townhomes Maintenance responsibility Neighborhood Sidewalk (Resident) Trees removed 23 trees Trees protected 3 trees New retaining wall needed None Private utility relocations None Sidewalk at back of curb? None Traffic ADT 440 Total cost $86,571.16 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new sidewalk $70.84 Recommendation Yes Recommendation based on: Traffic volumes, connection to high density properties Notes: Hampshire Avenue (for 200 feet south of Cedar Lake Road) will be shifted approx. 10 to the west to straighten out the street and provide adequate right of way on the east side for a boulevard and sidewalk. Resident Feedback: 6730 Eliot View Rd- Agreement was with the city when the 1st permanent streets were put in that the Eliot View neighborhood resident would not get sidewalks if they didn’t want them. Hampshire is my side street and I have 2 new trees that the city put in last 3 years that would be impacted. 22 trees between Cedar Lake Road and 24th Street would be impacted. Many very mature trees, shrubs and landscaping would have to be removed. Doesn’t connect to anything. Save the money. I am against adding the sidewalk. A visual inspection would show that a sidewalk on this side of Hampshire is not practical. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 10 Segment 3 Hampshire Avenue (24th Street to Cedar Lake Road) West Side ROW width 60 feet Proposed boulevard width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk length 1,121 feet (100%) Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%) Properties affected by sidewalk 7 residential properties Maintenance responsibility Neighborhood Sidewalk (Resident) Trees removed 7 trees Trees protected 5 trees New retaining wall needed None Private utility relocations 8 Power poles Sidewalk at back of curb? None Traffic ADT 440 Total cost $66,194.77 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new sidewalk $59.05 Recommendation No Recommendation based on: Sidewalk does not directly connect to high density properties on the east side, grading of boulevard is away from the street which would require fill to build up the sidewalk, driveways grades. Notes: None Resident Feedback: None Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 11 Segment 4 Quebec Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to 24th Street) East Side ROW width 50 feet Proposed boulevard width 5.75 feet Proposed sidewalk width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk length 275 feet (100%) Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%) Properties affected by sidewalk 1 church Maintenance responsibility Community Sidewalk (City) Trees removed 3 trees Trees protected 0 trees New retaining wall needed None Private utility relocations 1 power pole Sidewalk at back of curb? None Traffic ADT 495 Total cost $19,114.39 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new sidewalk $69.51 Recommendation Yes Recommendation based on: Connect the Park CIP Sidewalk, Provides a north-south connection through the neighborhood Notes: None Resident Feedback: None Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 12 Segment 5 Pennsylvania Avenue (Quebec Avenue to 22nd Street) East Side ROW width 50 feet Proposed boulevard width 0-5 feet Proposed sidewalk width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk length 1,042 feet (100%) Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%) Properties affected by sidewalk 12 residential properties Maintenance responsibility Community Sidewalk (City) Trees removed 7 trees Trees protected 15 trees New retaining wall needed None Private utility relocations 1 Power pole Sidewalk at back of curb? Yes, 100 feet to protect trees Traffic ADT 181 Total cost $67,579.09 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new sidewalk $64.86 Recommendation Yes Recommendation based on: Connect the Park CIP sidewalk, Provides a north-south connection through the neighborhood Notes: None Resident Feedback: None Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 13 Segment 6 Pennsylvania Avenue (Quebec Avenue to 22nd Street) West Side ROW width 50 feet Proposed boulevard width 0 feet Proposed sidewalk width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk length 975 feet (100%) Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%) Properties affected by sidewalk 12 residential properties Maintenance responsibility Community Sidewalk (City) Trees removed 5 trees Trees protected 5 trees New retaining wall needed None Private utility relocations None Sidewalk at back of curb? Yes, 975 feet to limited ROW Traffic ADT 181 Total cost $53,615.86 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new sidewalk $54.99 Recommendation No Recommendation based on: Limited right of way, 0 foot boulevard, Recommending sidewalk on east side due to available boulevard on east side Notes: None Resident Feedback: None Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 14 Segment 7 22nd Street (Texas Avenue to Oregon Court) North Side ROW width 60 feet Proposed boulevard width 5-7 feet Proposed sidewalk/trail width 6 feet Sidewalk, 8 feet Trail Proposed sidewalk/trail length 537 feet (38%) Existing sidewalk length 891 feet (62%) Properties affected by sidewalk/Trail 1 property (School) Maintenance responsibility Community Sidewalk/Trail (City) Trees removed 0 trees Trees protected 0 trees New retaining wall needed None Private utility relocations 3 Power Poles Sidewalk/Trail at back of curb? None Traffic ADT 109 Total cost $26,008.54 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new sidewalk/trail $48.43 Recommendation Yes Recommendation based on: Connect the Park CIP sidewalk/Trail, Provides a north-south connection through the neighborhood Notes: None Resident Feedback: None Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 15 Segment 8 Bituminous Trail (22nd Street to Franklin Avenue) ROW width NA Proposed boulevard width NA Proposed trail width 8 feet (Bituminous Trail) Proposed trail length 457 feet (100%) Existing trail length 0 feet (0%) Properties affected by trail 1 Property (School) Maintenance responsibility Community Trail (City) Trees removed 2 trees Trees protected 0 trees New retaining wall needed None Private utility relocations None Trail at back of curb? None Traffic ADT NA Total cost $18,692.08 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new trail $40.90 Recommendation Yes Recommendation based on: Connect the Park CIP Trail, Provides a north-south connection through the neighborhood Notes: None Resident Feedback: None Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 16 Segment 9 14th Street (Texas Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue) South Side ROW width 60 feet Proposed boulevard width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk width 5 feet Proposed sidewalk length 625 feet (76%) Existing sidewalk length 193 feet (24%) Properties affected by sidewalk 8 residential properties Maintenance responsibility Neighborhood Sidewalk (Resident) Trees removed 17 trees Trees protected 1 tree New retaining wall needed Reconstruction of private walls & fences Private utility relocations None Sidewalk at back of curb? None Traffic ADT 267 Total cost $53,967.00 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new sidewalk $86.35 Recommendation No Recommendation based on impacts to- Sidewalk would make driveway grades steep and drain towards garage; private retaining walls and fences impacted; reduced car storage in driveways, boulevard grading steep and tree removal. Resident Feedback: 7825 13th Lane- The section of sidewalk on 14th Street is not really needed, it’s not a through street and has limited foot traffic. The thing about any sidewalks is that the winter is the time they are most needed and that is the time of the year they are most unusable. Plows clearing the streets and filling up the sidewalks. Ice forming on them so they become staking rinks. All made worse by the short amount of daylight. 7647 14th Street- Opposed to sidewalk extension on 14th Street. Sidewalk would remove many trees, fences, flowers. While some would use the sidewalk, kids would not. Also with the slope of driveways and yards, there would be problems with extending the sidewalk. 7659 14th Street- Initial proposal requires significant impact to resident’s properties on south side of street. The proposed sidewalk would require the city to take a minimum of 12 feet of each resident property. Require the removal of many trees (5 trees on my property alone) and likely require a retaining wall. Neighbor’s house to the west would have their driveway shortened to point where its usefulness would be impacted. Cost of sidewalk seem impractical compared to use it would get from pedestrians. 14th Street get relatively little local pedestrian traffic due to its proximity to Lamplighter Park. It is my opinion that most East/West pedestrian traffic is focused at the park which has good existing infrastructure making another East/West sidewalk of less value to the area. If the sidewalk was deemed necessary, it seems to me that a sidewalk directly at the curb would require less disturbance to property and would hopefully cost less to build. A sidewalk at the curb would require less tree removal and excavation compared to a boulevard design with the sidewalk and grass buffer. If the sidewalk was deemed necessary, it seems to me that a sidewalk directly at the curb would require less disturbance to property and would hopefully cost less to build. A sidewalk at the curb would require less tree removal and excavation compared to a boulevard design with the sidewalk and grass buffer. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 17 Segment 10 Pennsylvania Avenue (Lamplighter Park to Wayzata Blvd) West Side ROW width 60 feet Proposed boulevard width 5 feet Proposed sidewalk width 6 feet Proposed sidewalk length 605 feet (65%) Existing sidewalk length 333 feet (35%) Properties affected by sidewalk 5 residential properties Maintenance responsibility Community Sidewalk (City) Trees removed 2 trees Trees protected 3 trees New retaining wall needed Yes (397 feet) Private utility relocations Electrical Box Sidewalk at back of curb? None Traffic ADT 641 Total cost $92,559.16 Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of new sidewalk $152.99 Recommendation Yes Recommendation based on: Completes sidewalk gap on west side of Pennsylvania Avenue, traffic volume on Pennsylvania Ave Notes: None Resident Feedback: 7825 13th Lane- Sidewalks on west side of Pennsylvania Ave would have limited use. The east side sidewalk is uninterrupted to 16th Street and that is where I will be walking by dog each day. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 18 TEXAS AVE SF R A N K L IN A V E W CEDAR LAKE R D WESTWOOD HILLS DR FRANKLIN AVE W VIRGINIAAVES22ND ST W V IRGINI A CIRSVIC TO R I A CI RSUMT E R A V ES23RD ST W Q UEBECAVE S RHODEISLA N D AVES 26TH ST W P E N N S YLVANIAAVES2 2 ND S T W 24TH ST W QUEBEC DR 22ND ST W NEVADA AVE SRHODEISLANDAVESPENNSYLVANIAAVE SVIRGINIAAVES VIRGINIA CIR N U T A H A V ESO REGON A VESSUMTER AVE S25TH ST W OREGO N CTQ U E B E C A V E S ±Proposed streetimprovements Street rehabilitation Street rehabilitation and watermiain Proposed Sidewalks andTrails Recommended for 2019 Sidewalk (Resident Maintained) Sidewalk (City Maintained) Trail (City Maintained) Not Recommended in 2019 Sidewalk Existing Sidewalk andTrails Existing Sidewalk (Resident Maintained) Existing Sidewalk (City/Contract Maintained) Exisitng Trails (City Maintained) Project Scope, Proposed Street Widths and Proposed Sidewalks/Trails 30' to 28'30' to 28'30 ' t o 2 8 '30' to 28'30' to 2 8 '30' to 28'30' to 28'30' to 28'3 0 ' t o 2 8 '30' to 28'30' to 28'30' to 28 ' 30' to 28' 26' 26' 26' 26' 26'26'30' to 28'30' to 28'30'2 6 ' Proposed street width changesXX' to XX' 2019 Pavement Management Project Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 19 18TH ST W LOUISIANAAVESHAMPSHIREAVESIDAHOAVE SKENTUCKYAVESFLORIDA AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W KENTUCKY LN FRANKLIN AVE W HAMPSHIREAVES22ND ST W 18TH ST W 1 8 TH STW 24TH ST W FLORIDA AVE SCEDAR LAKE R D EDGEWOODAVESFLORIDAAVESGEORGIAAVES23RD ST W JERSEYAVESHAMPSHIRE AVE SEDGEWOODAVES23RD ST W E LIO T V I E W R D ±Proposed streetimprovements Street rehabilitation Street rehabilitation and watermiain Proposed Sidewalks andTrails Recommended for 2019 Sidewalk (Resident Maintained) Sidewalk (City Maintained) Trail (City Maintained) Not Recommended in 2019 Sidewalk Existing Sidewalk andTrails Existing Sidewalk (Resident Maintained) Existing Sidewalk (City/Contract Maintained) Exisitng Trails (City Maintained) Project Scope, Proposed Street Widths and Proposed Sidewalks/Trails Proposed street width changesXX' to XX' 2019 Pavement Management Project 30' to 28'30'30'30'2 6 '26'26'26' Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 20 WESTWOOD HILLS DR14TH ST W 16TH ST W UTAH DR 16TH S T WUTAH AVE STEXAS CIR INTERSTATE 394 INTERSTATE 394 13TH LN W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SOREGON AVE SWESTW O O D HILLS RD 13TH LN W 13 1/2 ST W TEXAS AVE SWAYZATABLVD 14TH ST W SERVICE DR HWY 394 S INTERSTATE 394 INTERSTATE 394 ±Proposed streetimprovements Street rehabilitation Street rehabilitation and watermiain Proposed Sidewalks andTrails Recommended for 2019 Sidewalk (Resident Maintained) Sidewalk (City Maintained) Trail (City Maintained) Not Recommended in 2019 Sidewalk Existing Sidewalk andTrails Existing Sidewalk (Resident Maintained) Existing Sidewalk (City/Contract Maintained) Exisitng Trails (City Maintained) Project Scope, Proposed Street Widths and Proposed Sidewalks/Trails Proposed street width changesXX' to XX' 2019 Pavement Management Project 30' to 28' 30' to 28' 26' 26'26'Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: 2019 Pavement Management Project Update (4019-1000)Page 21 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 14, 2019 Written report: 5 Executive summary Title: Food security and access study Recommended action: No action at this time. This report is to inform the city council about the community assessment study of food security and access that will be undertaken in 2019 by Wilder Research, as identified in the goals and strategies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Policy consideration: This study is to determine the extent of food security and access issues in the city, and discuss what role the city can have in supporting greater food access and security for residents. Summary: One of the goals in the city’s health section of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to “Ensure all in our community have access to healthy food.” The strategies associated with this goal are: A. Conduct a detailed study to assess food accessibility and security in the community, and determine if there are any gaps. B. Determine what steps the city can take to address gaps in food access and security. The city has engaged Wilder Research to conduct the study. Wilder Research has extensive experience in food security, equity, and access, including working with Second Harvest Heartland, the General Mills Foundation, and the Center for Prevention at Blue Cross and Blue Shield among others on these issues. The study scope will begin with Wilder Research staff conducting interviews with key informants around the community to gain an understanding of the issues surrounding this topic. Wilder will also conduct research and map data to understand access and security specifically in St. Louis Park. From this information, Wilder will follow up with resident focus groups impacted by food insecurity, and will interview additional individuals who can share their personal experiences with food access and insecurity in St. Louis Park. The study is expected to be finalized this fall, and will include recommendations on what role the city can have in supporting greater food access and security for residents. Financial or budget considerations: The cost for this study is $50,000 and it is provided for in the 2019 Development Fund 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. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 14, 2019 Written report: 6 Executive summary Title: Update on 2020 Census Recommended action: This report is provided to update the council on the status of the 2020 Census and the formation of a Complete Count Committee in St. Louis Park. Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to formally appoint the members of the Complete Count Committee? Summary: April 1, 2020, is Census Day. It is important all St. Louis Park residents be counted and counted accurately. Activities to prepare for the Census 2020 are underway, with emphasis currently on geographic updates that lay the foundation for the Census. City staff have been actively engaged in preparations for the census. In 2018, staff provided boundary and address lists to the Census Bureau, including updated apartment unit address lists; staff joined the newly formed Metro Local Governments Roundtable on 2020 Census; staff introduced the Census outreach to the Human Rights Commission to advise staff in our efforts; and the city also began using our media channels to share temporary job opportunities with the U.S. Census Bureau that will be available in 2019 and 2020. In 2019, staff proposes to recruit and form a local Complete Count Committee (CCC) whose purpose is to aid local outreach efforts and provide leadership and support for local participation. Members may include individuals or organizations that are trusted in the community and bring resources to bear on the effort, such as communications, connections to hard-to-count populations, or access to volunteers to help with targeted outreach. City staff will support the CCC to communicate Census updates and training opportunities, and bring other resources to bear on the CCC’s efforts, as applicable. To keep the process moving along staff is not planning a formal appointment process for CCC members, but at city council direction, would adjust the process. To undertake a formal process of recruiting, vetting and council appointment of committee members could add a two or three months to the process. The CCC is needed to help overcome several challenges. Self-response rates generally declined from the 2000 to 2010 Census. In St. Louis Park, it fell from 87% to 82% for the city as a whole. Low self-response rates add costs to the count and may result in undercounting. The Census Bureau projects low self-response rates in parts of the in 2020, too. Areas with more racial diversity, foreign born residents, renters or people that moved within the last year are all indicators the area will have lower self-response rates. Financial or budget considerations: The 2019 budget includes $20,000 for census activities. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion (census background) Comparison of 2000 and 2010 Census Response Rates Predicted Non-Response Rates for 2020 Census Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Update on 2020 Census Discussion Background: What is the Census? The nation’s founders inscribed a full count of the population into the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, the Census Bureau has counted every resident in the U.S. every ten years, beginning in 1790. In previous censuses, the majority of households returned their census forms by mail; census workers walking neighborhoods throughout the United States counted the remaining households. The upcoming Census also will add an online response form to use modern and cost-efficient methods to count everyone once and in the right place. Why is the Census important? * The data that will be collected by the 2020 census are critical for states, counties, and communities. Representation Funding Census data determines the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as districts for state government. Census data guides federal spending allocation of approximately $589 billion to local communities every year. Minnesota is at risk of losing a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.* Even one missed person could mean a forfeited $15,000 in funding over ten years.* Planning Business Census data helps plan roads, schools, hospitals, senior centers, and emergency services to best serve changing populations. Census data assists businesses in locating factories & stores, recruiting employees, and conducting market research. Read about Minnesota’s demographics * to understand how community needs are shifting. Learn how Chambers of Commerce and other organizations in our state use census data.* *This information is also available for viewing in the Community Development Department during regular business hours. Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Update on 2020 Census What is the general timeline for the 2020 Census? •July 2017 – April 2018 → Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program for local governments •Fall 2018 → Form Complete Count Committees to begin local Census organizing work •April 2018 → Census questions delivered to Congress •September 2018 → Recruitment for Census Taker and Census Office Positions begins •April 1, 2019 → Census 2020 Minnesota One Year Out kickoff events •July 2019 → Communications and advertising campaign begins •July-August 2019 → Area Census Offices open in Minnesota •August 2019 → In-field Address Canvassing and Group Quarters operation begins •March 2020 → Door-to-door enumeration and Enumeration at Transitory Locations begins •April 1, 2020 → 2020 Census Day •April 2020 → Non-response Follow-up begins for households that did not submit a Census form What are the roles of the Census Bureau, State Demographic Center and Cities? The U.S. Census Bureau is ultimately responsible for all aspects of the 2020 Census. The State Demographic Center role is to help recruit, train, organize, and support local governments and organizations as they promote the 2020 Census. A city’s primary role is design and implement a local strategies to promote the 2020 Census. This is typically done through a county or city-level Complete Count Committee (CCC). What are the remaining key Census tasks for St. Louis Park? •2019 o Form a Complete Count Committee (CCC). o Hold first CCC meeting. o Develop a CCC action plan for St. Louis Park. o Continue to post Census job openings on the city website. o Participate in the New Construction Program (staff only). o Consider providing communications at major community events (Parktacular, Fire Department Open House, etc.). •2020 o Possibly install online response kiosk(s) in a publicly-accessible public building such as city hall or library. o Use our city’s media tools to amplify messages about the upcoming census. o Possibly hold a public event to promote civic engagement and 2020 Census participation. Page 4 Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Update on 2020 Census 89% 92% 88% 83% 75% 92% 84% 89% 88% 92% 86% 84% 91% 92% 85% 2000 Response Rate by Tract85% 84% 79% 82% 85% 79% 80% 88% 88% 75% 90% 80% 83% 90% 80% 2010 Response Rate by Tract Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 5 Title: Update on 2020 Census Predicted Non-Response Rate for 2020 Census 15.1% 18.4% 21.5% 21.4% 14.2% 22.3% 22.3% 14.5% 19.6%21.6% 10.4% 21.0% 17.8% 13.3% 21% Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 14, 2019 Written report: 7 Executive summary Title: Purchase of tax forfeited property located at 3611 Glenhurst Ave. S. Recommended action: This report is provided to update the Council on the proposed purchase of the tax forfeited single family home located at 3611 Glenhurst Ave. S. for a demonstration project and affordable homeownership opportunity. Policy consideration: Is the purchase of this home for a demonstration project and creating an affordable homeownership opportunity in line with the city’s housing goals? Summary: To further the city’s housing goals of providing affordable home ownership opportunities and supporting the city’s climate action plan strategies and goals, funding was included in the 2019 Housing Rehab budget for the acquisition of a single family home. The intent of the program is to acquire a single family home to rehab and demonstrate how smart design and the incorporation of energy efficient improvements can be made to the typical home found in St. Louis Park. The city will partner with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) to eventually sell the home to a low income household as a land trust home. 3611 Glenhurst Ave. S. is a tax forfeited property which the city can purchase at a below-market value to implement affordable housing, as provided in Minnesota Statute 282.01 subd. 1a paragraph (2). Given that the home will be sold to a qualified low-income household, Hennepin County is offering the property to the city at a 20% discounted price of $248,092. The city has a hold on the property so no one can purchase it other than an eligible re-purchaser (i.e. former owner or heir). January 11, 2019 is the last date for an eligible re-purchase of the property. Financial or budget considerations: The purchase of this property is in the housing rehab budget for 2019. In addition to the $248,092 purchase price funds will be needed to remodel the home including energy efficient improvements and potentially smart design. The proceeds from the sale of the property to WHAHLT will reimburse the city for a significant portion of the acquisition and rehab costs. Next steps: Approval of a resolution authorizing the purchase of 3611 Glenhurst Ave. S. will be on the agenda for the January 22, 2019 city council meeting. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Map and photo of 3611 Glenhurst Ave. S. Prepared by: Marney Olson, Assistant Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Karen Barton, CD Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Purchase of tax forfeited property located at 3611 Glenhurst Ave. S. 3611 Glenhurst Ave. S. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: January 14, 2019 Written report: 8 Executive summary Title: November 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 November, general fund expenditures were at approximately 88% of the adopted annual budget, which continues to be about 4% 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 January 14, 2019 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: November 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 92% of the annual budget at the end of November. General Fund expenditures are currently under budget by approximately 4%. Revenues are 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 expenditure variances are explained below. Community development has a variance in personal services that is primarily due to the extension of a part-time staff position through the end of the year to continue planning work for SWLRT. The variance is also due in part to a housing staff allocation that will be adjusted at year end. Communications & marketing has a variance from higher than anticipated printing and publishing costs. Staff is reviewing to ensure printing costs are allocated to correct budgets. Engineering has a variance in personal services. At year end an evaluation will be done to insure staff time and the related expense has been properly split out to the various projects. The recreation center division expenditures are exceeding budget due to additional temporary staffing needs. However, revenues are also higher than budget which offset the added expenditure. 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 $29,886 $33,501 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 Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Title: November 2018 monthly financial report Utility Funds The user charges revenue in each of the funds is lower than 92% due to the timing of the billing cycles. Utility revenues lag 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 in the water fund is exceeding budget due to additional antenna lease revenue and delinquent utility administrative fees. Other revenue in the solid waste fund is from Hennepin County recycling and organics grants. In addition, the $166,000 of other revenue in the storm water fund is grant revenue received from Hennepin County for contamination clean-up costs for the Carpenter Park project. Personal services expense is higher than budget in the Sewer Fund, but overall between the four utility funds is on budget. Staff spends time where needed throughout the year. Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of November 30, 2018 20182018201620162017201720182018Balance YTD Budget BudgetAuditedBudgetAuditedBudgetNov YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes23,597,282$ 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 3,745,953 178,695 95.45% Fines & Forfeits341,200 299,808 254,200 293,236 269,200 256,340 12,860 95.22% Intergovernmental1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 1,899,006 1,864,877 1,830,812 34,065 98.17% Charges for Services1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 2,051,552 2,162,410 1,938,297 224,113 89.64% Miscellaneous Revenue977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 1,294,452 1,318,037 1,259,850 58,187 95.59% Transfers In1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 1,951,218 1,929,090 1,759,166 169,924 91.19% 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 30,719 10,231 75.02% 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$ 25,284,555$ 12,614,378$ 66.72%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 1,056,796$ 1,341,606$ 1,204,701$ 136,905$ 89.80% Finance933,624 869,759 957,275 924,832 978,752 884,255 94,498 90.35% Assessing641,038 607,443 707,139 652,015 759,865 634,061 125,805 83.44% Human Resources748,718 801,958 754,699 730,731 796,666 670,154 126,513 84.12% Community Development1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 1,353,476 1,479,911 1,414,570 65,342 95.58% Facilities Maintenance1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 1,128,339 1,162,342 1,072,500 89,842 92.27% Information Resources1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 1,421,685 1,589,432 1,353,903 235,529 85.18% Communications & Marketing608,228 657,758 646,841 722,199 755,940 745,807 10,133 98.66% Community Outreach25,587 22,718 26,553 24,403 27,637 18,366 9,271 66.45% Engineering549,251 436,228 376,601 339,876 525,834 509,458 16,377 96.89%Total General Government8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 8,354,352$ 9,417,985$ 8,507,773$ 910,213$ 90.34% Public Safety: Police8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 9,255,342$ 9,930,681$ 8,884,008$ 1,046,673$ 89.46% Fire Protection4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 4,319,457 4,657,973 4,231,942 426,032 90.85% Inspectional Services2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 2,271,301 2,544,762 2,090,262 454,500 82.14%Total Public Safety14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 15,846,100$ 17,133,416$ 15,206,212$ 1,927,205$ 88.75% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 245,942$ 230,753$ 189,788$ 40,966$ 82.25% Public Works Operations2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 2,809,715 3,091,857 2,558,449 533,409 82.75% Organized Recreation1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 1,470,613 1,582,490 1,392,885 189,605 88.02% Recreation Center1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 1,856,529 1,860,755 1,823,842 36,914 98.02% Park Maintenance1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 1,797,271 1,830,530 1,693,353 137,177 92.51% Westwood Nature Center576,173 555,887 602,400 572,942 622,346 545,377 76,970 87.63% Natural Resources479,408 362,094 550,235 430,995 559,662 348,295 211,368 62.23% Vehicle Maintenance1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 1,088,375 1,253,367 1,108,558 144,810 88.45%Total Operations & Recreation10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 10,272,383$ 11,031,760$ 9,660,544$ 1,371,216$ 87.57% Non-Departmental: General 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 31,859$ 43,422$ 36,589$ 6,833$ 84.26% Transfers Out- 1,873,000 - 885,000 - - - 0.00% Council Programs198,000 90,092 107,908 45.50% 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$ 126,681$ 189,091$ 40.12%Total General Fund Expenditures34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 35,577,947$ 37,898,933$ 33,501,209$ 4,397,724$ 88.40%*Primarily related to E911 capital items from restricted fund balance.Study session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 8) Title: November 2018 monthly financial reportPage 4 Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of November 30, 2018 Current BudgetNov Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetNov Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetNov Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetNov Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 6,177,384$ 4,991,676$ 1,185,708$ 80.81% 7,421,016$ 5,994,700$ 1,426,316$ 80.78% 3,590,500$ 2,530,212$ 1,060,288$ 70.47% 3,024,731$ 2,400,322$ 624,409$ 79.36% Other 375,750 533,210 (157,460) 141.91% 30,000 24,086 5,914 80.29% 140,000 167,013 (27,013) 119.30% - 166,000 (166,000) Total operating revenues6,553,134 5,524,886 1,028,248 84.31% 7,451,016 6,018,786 1,432,230 80.78% 3,730,500 2,697,225 1,033,275 72.30% 3,024,731 2,566,322 458,409 84.84%Operating expenses: Personal services1,377,010 1,299,987 77,023 94.41% 689,225 739,536 (50,311) 107.30% 631,295 547,150 84,145 86.67% 796,527 577,576 218,951 72.51% Supplies & non-capital430,300 199,514 230,786 46.37% 65,550 33,266 32,284 50.75% 184,750 134,148 50,602 72.61% 31,600 2,042 29,558 6.46% Services & other charges1,704,224 1,713,247 (9,023) 100.53%4,605,626 4,635,041 (29,415) 100.64% 3,014,442 2,239,078 775,364 74.28% 595,187 245,017 350,170 41.17% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,511,534 3,212,748 298,786 91.49% 5,360,401 5,407,843 (47,442) 100.89% 3,830,487 2,920,376 910,111 76.24% 1,423,314 824,635 598,679 57.94%Operating income (loss)3,041,600 2,312,138 729,462 76.02% 2,090,615 610,943 1,479,672 29.22% (99,987) (223,151) 123,164 223.18% 1,601,417 1,741,687 (140,270) 108.76%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 63.24% Debt issuance costs- (92,225) 92,225 - (18,740) 18,740 - - - Interest expense/bank charges(176,342) (286,730) 110,388 162.60% (26,584) (48,219) 21,635 181.38% (25,500) (16,847) (8,653) 66.07% (40,897) (33,344) (7,553) 81.53% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(161,170) (363,190) 202,020 225.35% (24,193) (58,811) 34,618 243.09% (10,500) (9,028) (1,472) 85.98% (26,097) (23,985) (2,112) 91.91%Income (loss) before transfers2,880,430 1,948,948 931,482 67.66% 2,066,422 552,132 1,514,290 26.72% (110,487) (232,179) 121,692 210.14% 1,575,320 1,717,702 (142,382) 109.04%Transfers inTransfers out(601,985) (551,820) (50,165) 91.67% (823,637) (755,001) (68,636) 91.67% (234,046) (214,542) (19,504) 91.67% (322,459) (295,587) (26,872) 91.67%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,278,445 1,397,128 881,317 61.32% 1,242,785 (202,869) 1,445,654 -16.32% (344,533) (446,721) 102,188 129.66% 1,252,861 1,422,115 (169,254) 113.51%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,316,199) (2,990,737) (325,462) 90.19% (1,619,500) (355,519) (1,263,981) 21.95%- - - (2,688,977) (17,372) (2,671,605) 0.65%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(1,037,754) (1,593,609) 555,855 (376,715) (558,388) 181,673 (344,533) (446,721) 102,188 (1,436,116) 1,404,743 (2,840,859) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy session meeting of January 14, 2019 (Item No. 8) Title: November 2018 monthly financial reportPage 5