Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Memo- Comprensive Plan
MEMO To: Mayor and City Council From: Nancy Anderson Date: November 4, 1999 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Attached is the updated Comprehensive Plan for the City of Hopkins. The entire plan is attached except for the utility sections. The plan has been distributed to the surrounding cities and the school district for comment. The utility sections will be completed this month. The plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 31. Mark Koegler will also be at the meeting. City of Hopkins Comprehensive Plan Draft 3 October 25, I999 — ©© ©a Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Table of Contents Goalsof the City of Hopkins ............................................................. ..............................1 Strengths- Weaknesses - Opportunities - Threats ................................ ..............................3 Strengths of Hopkins 3 Weaknesses of Hopkins 5 Opportunities for Hopkins 6 Threats to Hopkins 7 Analysis of Population, Households, and Employment .................. ..............................8 Population Characteristics — 1980 and 1990 9 Population Conclusions and Predictions 10 Population and Employment Issues 11 LandUse and Development .............................................................. .............................12 Land Use and Development Issues 12 Housing and Residential Neighborhood Issues 14 Downtown Issues 15 Industry and Business Issues 15 Overall Community Structure Issues 15 Other Land Use Issues 16 LandUse and Development Plan ..................................................... ............................. Residential Neighborhood Policies 19 Downtown Policies 1 9 Industry and Business Policies 20 Community Structure Policies 21 Other Land Use Policies 21 SolarAccess Protection ..................................................................... .............................22 Aviation .............................................................................................. ............................. DowntownHopkins ........................................................................... .............................24 Introduction 24 Urban Design Guidelines 29 Transportation Transportation Issues 32 Transportation Plan 32 Roadway System Policies 33 Travel Demand Management Policies 33 Transit Policies 34 Light Rail Transit 34 Table of Contents (cont.) Metro Transit Bus Service 35 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Policies 35 Housing. ........ ..................... ...... ..... ................................. ..... Analysis of Housing Stock 37 Housing Stock 37 Housing Issues 40 Housing Plan 40 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) 42 Parks Open Space, and Trails ......................................................... .................. Introduction 46 Park, Open Space and Trail Policies 46 Classification System 46 Facility Inventory 48 Park System Needs 52 Trails and Sidewalks 56 Park Recommendations 57 ImplementationStrategies.... ..... .....................................,..............................................59 Introduction 59 Land Use Strategies 59 Transportation Strategies 59 Utility Strategies 61 Public Service Strategies 61 Parks and Open Space Strategies 62 Housing 62 Community Image Strategies 63 Redevelopment Strategies 63 Goals of the City of Hopkins The following statements summarize the goals of the City of Hopkins which have guided the preparation of this Comprehensive Plan and to which the City will refer in establishing spending and action priorities. 1. Protect the residential neighborhoods. Hopkins is primarily a residential community, and its people are its strength. The City has established neighborhoods with well- maintained homes, mature vegetation, and decades of personal commitment. However, the effects of time, physical deterioration, changing tastes, market competition, and, not least, the influence of traffic and nearby businesses may erode the quality of these neighborhoods, and irrevocably change the nature of the community population. A primary goal of the City of Hopkins is to work to protect these residential areas. Strong, well- maintained neighborhoods protect people's investments in property and foster a positive economic development climate. Improved communication between neighborhood areas and the City, schools and businesses will enhance the entire community. This goal is supported by all Comprehensive Plan elements. 2. Improve Downtown Hopkins. It is rare to discover a distinctive, pedestrian -scale commercial area set in the heart of a small suburban community, but Hopkins has one. Downtown Hopkins and Mainstreet give the city a strong central focus and sense of place or identity that many other communities find very difficult to recreate. Major improvements have been made Downtown in recent years through public - private cooperative efforts. These efforts should continue with more emphasis on the private sector and less public financing involvement. Efforts should be made to retain existing downtown businesses and attract new businesses to Mainstreet. The City should continually monitor the downtown business climate. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan support this goal. 3. Improve deteriorating and/or obsolescent industrial or commercial areas. The City should continue to encourage the improvement of industrial and commercial businesses to ensure that the limited amount of non - residential land in Hopkins can be used to its full potential. A specific focus should be on redevelopment of properties along portions of Excelsior Boulevard. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 1 4. Bolster the image and character of the community. Hopkins retains many of the freestanding, small -town characteristics that were developed over its 100 -year history. These features are a valuable asset, one that many communities today are either trying to recapture or create. Over the past decade, Hopkins has made a number of major improvements, all of which support a stronger community image. These efforts should continue. The City should develop a public relations strategy that might include a periodic sampling of resident and non- resident perceptions about the community. The Community Image and Land Use Plans address this goal. 5. Build civic involvement, commitment, and pride. The best city plans have no benefit unless the local population is concerned about its community and has leaders (elected and otherwise) with vision and wisdom. Hopkins has the ingredients for successful community support as a result of its small -town character, strong residential neighborhoods and Downtown civic focus. The City should continue to emphasize the importance of youth and families. Efforts should be undertaken to foster awareness of the importance of youth to the community and to support families. 6. Maintain fiscal health and an acceptable balance between service quality and property tax rates. Residents and business people have traditionally supported this aim. Demonstrating responsibility in fiscal matters, while having obvious local benefits, would also aid the City in its public relations with prospective residents and business owners. Continued pursuit of new and expanded businesses and industries is the best way to meet this goal. The City should continue to foster stability and growth of existing businesses while encouraging targeted business to locate in Hopkins. An effort should also be made to develop and implement new business financing programs for redevelopment and rehabilitation. All plan elements support this goal. 7. Improve County Roads In 1995, the City of Hopkins assembled a corridor study for Excelsior Boulevard (County Road 3). hnplementation of the planned upgrade of the roadway is well underway and will continue into the early 2000s. The City should continue to improve the link between Mainstreet and Excelsior Boulevard and efforts should be initiated to improve Shady Oak Road. Along major routes, community entrances should be marked with signage, special paving, landscaping, lighting and other improvements Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 2 Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats In order to properly frame a strategy for moving the community toward a desirable future, it is important to understand its strengths and weakness, opportunities and threats. When the 1989 Comprehensive Plan was prepared, several methods were conducted to assemble a listing of these trends and factors. Efforts included a community opinion survey; input from the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, elected and appointed officials, and other members of the public; discussions with members of the City Planning and Economic Development staff; and a review of Census data. For the current plan update, the Planning Commission reviewed this information, incorporated components of the Hopkins Strategic Plan and made appropriate modifications. The community's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats were subsequently reviewed by the public during the preparation and review of the plan. The findings are summarized below. Strengths of Hopkins 1. Sense of Community 5. Access Hopkins exudes a sense of community that is found in few Metropolitan Area communities by virtue of its population size, geographic size, stable, cohesive residential area, identifiable downtown retail and civic area, community celebration (notably the Raspberry Festival), and families that have lived in the city for decades. The school district is geographically focused on Hopkins. A sense of pride and identity exists. 2. Identifiable Downtown Downtown Hopkins is one of a small number of established central shopping districts in Metropolitan Area communities. Although its strength in the retail market has declined, it remains well known and identifiable on a small scale, and a focus of the community. Several private and public improvements have occurred in recent years. 3. Employment Base Hopkins has a relatively high number and diversity of jobs for a community of its size. 4. Location Hopkins is strategically located relative to the City of Minneapolis and other western suburbs. The City has excellent access via federal, state, and county roadways, freight railroads, and the planned light -rail transit system. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 3 0 6. Variety of Housing Types Hopkins has a wide variety of housing for people in every stage of the life cycle and income category. 7. Variety of Development Types The Community is composed of several types of housing, retail and service businesses, and industry, public parks, and private golf courses. 8. Attractive Residential Neighborhoods There are a number of distinct and identifiable residential neighborhoods defined by roadways, golf courses, parks and creeks. 9. Strong School District The school district has a strong reputation and is a compelling reason to live in the city. 10. Good Municipal Service Delivery Community opinion surveys have typically indicated a high level of satisfaction with the delivery of municipal services such as snowplowing, parks, police, and fire protection, and trash collection. Survey updates should occur on a regular basis. 11. Excellent Community Facilities Hopkins offers an excellent array of public facilities from parks to special uses. The City's collaboration with the school district and the City of Minnetonka in the Lindbergh Center is an example of wise use of public resources. Another example is Shady Oak Beach, which is also collaboration with the City of Minnetonka. The Art Center and the Hopkins Pavilion are other examples of facilities that meet the needs of residents as well as Metropolitan Area residents and visitors. 12. Active Citizen Participation Hopkins' government actively involves the people of the community. The City includes citizen participation in the establishment of policy and the assembly of specific plans. Examples include the assembly of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study and the assembly of the Hopkins Strategic Plan. 13. A Tradition of Community Celebrations Hopkins gathers every year to celebrate the Raspberry Festival. This highly successful event fosters a sense of community pride and enhances the image of the community. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 4 Weakness of Hopkins 1. Aging Housing Stock Most of the Hopkins housing stock was built prior to 1960 and some of it prior to 1930. The city has a significant number of small, post -war houses that lack many features and amenities that families and individuals desire in the contemporary market. As these structures continue to age, their desirability may decrease more rapidly and owners may not be eager to reinvest in them because their potential is limited by their size, floor plan, and garage and closet space. 2. Negative Effect upon Housing of Industry, Business, and Traffic In some areas, the land use pattern subjects several residential neighborhoods to the negative effects of adjacent industry and other businesses, and, especially, traffic associated with business and high- density housing. 3. Downtown in Need of Continued Improvement In recent years, downtown Hopkins has made great strides in re- establishing its sub - regional prominence as a commercial and entertainment center. In order to see continued improvement, Downtown Hopkins will need to continue to promote a stable mixture of retail and service businesses, offices, government offices, entertainment, and attached housing. Some buildings still need physical improvement and a number of auto - oriented uses need to be cleaned up or removed. 4. Major Roadway and Industrial Areas Divide the Residential Community The community is divided by TH 169, Excelsior Boulevard (County Road 3), and TH 7. In addition, the industrial area along Excelsior Boulevard separates two major residential neighborhoods from the rest of the community. 5. Image of the Community in the Minds of Non - Residents Some non - residents may have a negative image of Hopkins as a result of their limited but unfavorable impression of the community as they drive along Excelsior Boulevard or Blake Road north of Excelsior Boulevard. Several high quality Hopkins residential neighborhoods are located in this area and are sometimes assumed to be part of Minnetonka. 6. Physical Appearance along Certain Major Traffic Corridors As mentioned above, the image of the Excelsior Boulevard is negative because of its deteriorated buildings, outdoor storage, lack of landscaping, overhead wires, intensive business operations, and visual noise. Because it is the dominant image that many people have of the community, this impression takes away from the many positive aspects of the Hopkins Comprehensive Plan -- Draft 3 (10/99) Page 5 community. At the present time, Excelsior Boulevard from Shady Oak Road to 11 Avenue is being reconstructed. Over the next few years, the remainder of the roadway will also be improved. 7. Tax Base Constraints Because the city is nearly fully developed, there is little opportunity to expand the tax base without redeveloping property. Recent project such as the Supervalu distribution center demonstrate that redevelopment efforts can lead to increases in the community's tax base. Opportunities for Hopkins 1. Access to and from Minneapolis via Light -rail Transit Historically, two light rail stations were planned to serve Hopkins. At the present time, there is a great deal of regional debate on the future of light rail transit. Current options under consideration include light rail and commuter rail, which would utilize existing tracks on a shared basis. The rail line that passes through Hopkins roughly parallel to Excelsior Boulevard is still a candidate rail line. In order to preserve future options, the Comprehensive Plan update will continue to accommodate a light rail station along Excelsior Boulevard. If a light rail system is built in the future, this station would bring many people into Hopkins daily and improve access not only from Hopkins to Minneapolis but also from Minneapolis (and other locations) to Hopkins. 2. A Resurgent Downtown Downtown Hopkins is clearly on its way back to economic health. It has accomplished several changes in its economic structure, physical design, and administrative organization and appears ready to take the next steps toward revitalization. 3. The Future of the Retired Landfill in Southwest Hopkins This site could be used for public or private recreation and/or open space. However, it may be many years before the contamination on the site is remediated to the degree that the property could be accessed by the general public. 4. Improvement of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor and Associated Industrial Areas These locations have very good access and visibility along with numerous buildings and sites, which are in need of improvement or redevelopment. 5. Capitalizing on Hopkins' Self - contained Small -town Image This image is, perhaps, Hopkins' strongest long -term asset and opportunity as it is a Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 6 characteristic of which few other communities can boast. Threats to Hopkins 1. Housing Deterioration and Disinvestment A high percentage of Hopkins housing units are over 50 years old and many were built in the same era. Thus, there is the possibility of many houses deteriorating at the same time. Preserving Hopkins' housing stock and its neighborhoods should be a prime consideration of the City. 2. Industrial Obsolescence A few of Hopkins' industrial plants are aging and /or have physical site constraints that limit expansion and modernization. 3. Downtown Economic and Physical Decline Although it appears that Downtown Hopkins is on a steady improvement trend, the threat remains that businesses might not prosper and buildings could deteriorate. 4. Loss of Families The threat of widespread physical decline in the housing stock coupled with the small size and lack of certain amenities in many local houses could lead to fewer families in Hopkins and more singles or childless couples. 5. Rising Local Tax Rate Hopkins has few opportunities to easily increase its tax base, and rising costs in local, county, and school district governments could increase local tax rates and property taxes. 6. Deterioration of Public Infrastructure Hopkins is over 100 years of age, and most of its streets and sewer and water lines were constructed many decades ago. Deterioration of these facilities is, thus, a threat. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 7 • Analysis of Population, Households, and Employment This section describes and analyzes the major demographic and employment trends in Hopkins, which may influence municipal policy. Table 1 presents data regarding historic and future counts. Average Persons/ Year Population Households Household Employment 1940 4,100 1950 7,595 1960 11,370 3,245 3.50 1970 13,428 3,583 3.75 1980 15,556 7,061 2.17 19,100 1990 16,529 7,973 2.07 12,252 2000 16,800 8,200 2.05 12,400 2010 17,200 8,300 2.07 13,750 2020 17,800 8,300 2.14 14,200 Notes to Table 1: Table 1 Population, Households and Employment Trends Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Metropolitan Council • Much of the population growth that occurred prior to 1950 was a result of annexations of developed or developing property to the City. ® The number of housing units is increasing in Hopkins but the population is declining as a result of a shrinkage in the average number of persons per household. This decline has been occurring since approximately at least 1970 and is judged to be the result of the departure of children from families residing in detached housing units ( the "empty - nester" syndrome), a national trend toward later marriage and smaller families, and an increase in the proportion of attached housing units in the total housing stock. This change was forecast as far back as 1965 in Hopkins and is being experienced by many older communities. By 2010 and 2020, the Metropolitan Council projects a small increase in household size. • The slow but steady increase in the number of jobs in Hopkins reflects the redevelopment of certain properties, some of which has been assisted by the City, and a general increase in intensity of non - residential land use, including office developments. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (W/99) Page 8 Population Characteristics — 1980 and 1990 The following is a tabular summary of the major population characteristics of the City of Hopkins for both 1980 and 1990 as compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau: Characteristics Number of Persons Number of Households Table 2 1980 and 1990 Characteristics Persons by Race White 98% Non -White 2% 1980 1990 15,336 16,534 Persons by Gender Female 55% 45% Male 54% 46% Number of Families 3,765 3,827 7,061 7,973 Number of Persons by Age 0 -9 10% 11% 10 -19 12% 8% 20 -29 28% 28% 30 -44 17% 24% 45 -59 18% 10% 60+ 19% 19% 95% 5% Households by Person 1 Person Female Householder 23% 25% Male Householder 12% 14% 2 or More Persons Married Couple Family 41% 35% Other Family Female Householder 10% 10% Male Householder 2% 3% Non - Family Household Female Householder 6% 6% Male Householder 5% 7% Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 9 • Characteristics Households with Persons under Age 18 Married Couple Family 69% 62% Other Family Female Householder 26% 31% Male Householder 4% 6% Non - Family 1% 1% Population Conclusions and Predictions 1980 1990 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau The major conclusion and predictions about the population structure in Hopkins are set forth below: 1. The average household size and average number of persons per housing unit in Hopkins has been dropping over the past 30 years and is less than the comparable figures for the Metropolitan Area. 2. The average household size and the total population of the City will continue to decline slightly, then population will rise slightly. 3. The percentage of adults over the age of 65 will increase steadily through the turn of the century and accelerate sharply after 2010, when the first Baby Boomers reach that age, and peak just after 2025. 4. The percentage of adults under the age of 30 in Hopkins will remain relatively steady. 5. There will be an increase in the number and percentage of non - traditional (two parents, children) households. 6. The percentage of women in the work force will continue to increase, as will the number and percentage of two -wage earner households. Points #5 and #6 will place greater strains on the school system, the social service delivery system, and on businesses such as daycare. 7. The number and percentage of adults with post - secondary education degrees will increase in Hopkins. 8. The number and percentage of minority -group households will increase in Hopkins. 9. The regional market demand for low -cost, low -skill workers will outstrip the supply. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 10 10. There will be an increasing need for workers to update and change their job skill and education throughout their careers. Population and Employment Issues • What should be the response of the city to the expected demand for much more specialized housing, social services, and transportation for the elderly after the Year 2000, a phenomenon which may peak and decline like the school construction wave that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s? ® As one of its goals, should the City attempt to retain and /or increase the percentage of families in the community? If so, what should be its approach to this goal? • Are the City's land use plan and policies adequate to allow it to respond to the changing nature of the post- industrial market? Will the community have a high quality and diversity of jobs and a low rate of unemployment? Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 11 • Land Use and Development Land Use and Development Issues Overall Pattern The land use pattern of Hopkins has evolved over the last century and is now well established. Redevelopment is ongoing in some sectors, especially in the Downtown and industrial areas. Examples include the recent construction of downtown attractions such as the movie theaters and the Center for the Arts. Recent industrial redevelopment includes the former Hennepin County Public Works garage, which is now the home of a new SuperValu distribution center. Only a few undeveloped parcels of land presently exist. Underdevelopment of sites and more particularly, inappropriate use of land are the major issues now confronting the community. Residential Neighborhoods Perhaps Hopkins' greatest asset is its neighborhoods of single- family homes, which accommodate a mixture of young singles, young families, mature families, and elderly couples and singles. These neighborhoods give Hopkins its character and cohesiveness. However, acceptance of some of the smaller, post -war homes may wane as time goes by and long -time residents move out. Protecting these neighborhoods from inappropriate development and the effects of aging and evolution as well as preserving a strong social fabric will continue to be major challenges for the community. In the future, redevelopment may threaten existing single - family homes. The City needs to consider means to restrict the loss of single- family housing. Downtown Hopkins The Downtown has changed over the years from an important and vibrant retail center to one that serves local convenience needs and certain specialty market niches. The dynamics of consumer marketing and the transportation network have caused such shifts in many older central shopping areas. Downtown Hopkins still, however, possesses a special character. The character of the area can be used to help reposition it to respond to contemporary market challenges and opportunities but not without the combination of private and public efforts. There has been considerable public investment and interest in Downtown in the recent past, and that trend is continuing. Without question, Downtown Hopkins is one of a half dozen or so recognizable central community shopping areas in the Metropolitan Area. It is an asset worth protecting. The community recognizes the importance of the Downtown and has a strong positive emotional response to the location. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 12 500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet Scale 1 " = 2000' .■■ City of ffopkins Comprehensive Plan Apni 20. 1999 i.s.mzegaos Km*: Gimp. hric : North Thud Street_ Some 100 Vrneleapohs, MN ' Existing Land Use Land Use Categories Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential 1.11 Business Ili Industrial UM Public/Semi-public MI Open space • Industrial and Commercial Areas Hopkins has long been an important center of employment and commerce in the western suburbs as a result of its streetcar, highway, and railroad service. Industrial development and redevelopment continue to be important to the community for purposes of tax base and employment. The City has invested staff time and financial resources to leverage private investment and is committed to an ongoing effort of business recruitment and development. Natural Protection Areas There are two locations of special natural significance in Hopkins: Nine -Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek. Each is protected by the rules and regulations of a Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. In addition, the City of Hopkins has approved zoning regulations to complement the efforts of those non - municipal agencies. The Nine -Mile Creek basin in southeast Hopkins is being protected for purposes of flood protection, wildlife protection, agriculture, natural beauty, and passive recreation. The Minnehaha Creek basin does not include agriculture but does include active recreation such as canoeing. Other natural areas include Meadowbrook and Oak Ridge golf courses, Central Park, and the Blake School athletic fields. Housing and Residential Neighborhood Issues • Through the course of the City's growth, several small neighborhoods were created, each with a distinct character. A number of neighborhoods today are separated from one another by non - residential uses, roads, etc. Is the integrity and attractiveness of the residential neighborhoods being adequately maintained? Is the single - family character of these neighborhoods being sufficiently protected? ® Should Downtown growth be allowed to encroach into adjacent residential neighborhoods if it makes for a stronger central business district? Are there some locations where such encroachment would be acceptable? ® Are housing maintenance regulations properly enforced? • Should commercial development be allowed along Highway 7? ® Should or can the City increase its financial role in maintaining housing quality? • Are single- family homes adequately protected from redevelopment pressures? ® Making the zoning ordinance flexible enough to allow homeowners on small lots to initiate improvements providing such improvements are not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 14 Downtown Issues • Should the area included in the Downtown be enlarged? • How should downtown fringe areas be redeveloped? • Is there a commitment by the City to continue to utilize public resources where warranted in order to support appropriate redevelopment efforts? • Can additional attached housing be allowed in limited locations on the perimeter of Downtown Hopkins while protecting the integrity of nearby single - family housing? Industry and Business Issues • What should be the role of the City in protecting housing, which abuts or views industrial or commercial development? ■ Along Excelsior Boulevard ® Around the Downtown • Near industrial areas south of Excelsior Boulevard ® Near industrial areas northeast of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 169. • What should be the role of the City in promoting commercial and /or industrial development and redevelopment, especially along Excelsior Boulevard, east of TH 169? • How can the City improve the appearance of its existing industrial areas, especially along Excelsior Boulevard? • Is there a need to increase the amount of industrial land? If so, are there any such locations that would not have a negative impact on nearby housing quality? • How can the City take advantage of a possible future light rail transit station? Overall Community Structure Issues • How will the community maintain its family- oriented, small -town single- family- housing character and image as the bulk of the housing that forms this character ages and /or becomes less attractive in the market? Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 15 • How will the City adequately protect the character of existing single - family neighborhoods? Other Land Use Issues • Should the closed landfill site in southwestern Hopkins be used as a public park? Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 16 Land Use and Development Plan Hopkins' planned land use pattern is illustrated on the Future Land Use Plan. Because Hopkins is a fully developed community, this plan includes only minor changes from the present development pattern. Planned changes are outlined below. The principal emphasis of the Land Use plan is not to make wholesale changes in the pattern of development but, rather, to achieve better quality site planning and use the land in a way that reflects its very limited availability and good access. The policies identified on the following pages support that position. 1. Existing single - family and two - family housing on the fringes of downtown between First Street North and Excelsior Boulevard will be maintained as single - family and two - family housing. The only exception is the small area of single- family housing lying east of 12 Avenue South and south of First Street South. This area is designated as high density residential on the Future Land Use Plan. If higher density housing is developed in this area, it should be owner occupied units. 2. The commercial property along both sides of Shady Oak Road should be redeveloped. Shady Oak Road north of Excelsior Boulevard contains a mix of restaurant, retail and service commercial businesses that have inadequate parking and access. Redevelopment of this area should be done concurrent with planned roadway improvements and will require the cooperation of the cities of Hopkins and Minnetonka since the common municipal line meanders through the area. Redevelopment of this area may even require "trading" land between the two cities in order to create parcels that can accommodate appropriate uses. This area should be considered as a gateway to downtown Hopkins and accordingly, should have design elements that echo the improvements along Mainstreet. 3. The former landfill site south of Seventh Street is designated as open space. If the land becomes suitable for public access, the site could be designated as a future park. 4. A portion of the industrial site west of Highway 169 and north of Third Street South is planned for use as a major LRT or commuter rail station and parking area. 5. The industrial parking lots located north of Second Street Northeast on either side of Tyler Avenue should be redeveloped into single family housing. The land lying west of Tyler should be developed into traditional single - family neighborhood lots. The parcel east of Tyler might be developed with smaller lots accommodating single - family detached uses. 6. The trucking site east of Blake Road south of Minnehaha Creek is expected to continue as an industrial use. The property at the comer of Blake Road and 2n Street Northeast that is contiguous to the industrial property may support a commercial use. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 17 Scale 1" = 2000' 500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet City of .-Lop ins Comprehensive P(an April 20, 1999 1111111 1111.111 Land Use Plan Land Use Categories [ - Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential IN Commercial NI Business Park IN Industrial Public /Institutional NI Open Space/Trail III Park Hotstngton Koegler Group, Inc 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 gig Minneapolis, MN 55401 4 ■■ \■I MEM 1t11111f 1111111 M II 1:: ii ii ii ii ii i 111111 . �� i. i■ ■ �� ■ i ME 1- !� ■■ ■� ■■ ii �� ■.� SE EE MIN MIN MN MEM MIN - 7 — ) a l a 1 * A a inal 1 %Ur 41111/a -1 111Ve L 41 500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet Scale 1" = 2000' [ItEDILlu g 0411 . 11 *Q 111 l Imo 111 • E-- ffraDIPCCI r len gait& irgb As • s .lvL R► .lb Ift �3 v 1I11IIr te e: � — city of7fo'plijns Comprehensive P(an Land Use Plan Land Use Categories Low Density Residential L i Medium Density Residential High Density Residential � Commercial 1111 Business Park 111111 Industrial - Public /Institutional 11111 Open Space/Trail 11.11 Park April 20, 1999 SWINNI1111111: 11111111111111111■ Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 7. The SuperValu North Annex site should be redeveloped as a business park accommodating a mixture of office, office showroom and light industrial uses. The area should be developed consistent with the City's business park zoning criteria and performance standards. 8. The area north of Excelsior Boulevard and east of the railroad tracks should be redeveloped to include commercial uses along Excelsior Boulevard and industrial uses along the railroad tracks. When Excelsior Boulevard is reconstructed between the railroad tracks and Blake Road, a detailed redevelopment plan for this area should be prepared. Residential Neighborhood Policies • The City will work to protect the integrity and long -term viability of its low- density residential neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative effect of nearby commercial or industrial land development through zoning, site plan reviews, and code enforcement. ® The infilling of vacant parcels and the rehabilitation of existing developed land will be in accordance with uses specified in the Comprehensive Plan. ® Incompatible land uses will be improved or removed where possible and the land reused in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. ® The City will work to assure a strong and well - maintained neighborhoods in order to foster an overall positive economic development climate in Hopkins. e The City will work to provide an overall mixture of residential land use in the City. ® The City will work to correct the disproportional amount of multiple family land uses within the City. A The City will work to provide a balance of land uses within the City. • The City will seek to provide housing opportunities for people in all segments of the life cycle. O The City will protect the visual integrity of the Highway 7 corridor through Hopkins by not allowing new commercial uses along the roadway. ® The City will examine the existing Zoning Code in order to determine if more flexibility is required for provisions regulating residential properties. Downtown Policies ® On a limited basis, the City will continue to leverage private investment in the redevelopment of the Downtown through judicious use of tax increment financing revenues and local capital Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 19 improvement funds. • The City will work with Downtown landowners and merchants to improve parking, access, appearance, and the land use pattern. • The Downtown will be kept in a compact arrangement in order to increase its commercial function and also to protect adjacent residential areas. Expansion of the commercial area will generally be limited to areas that do not displace single family housing. • The City will continue to offer its commercial structure and sign rehabilitation loan program targeted to downtown Hopkins as long as it financially feasible to do so and the need is there. • On a limited basis, the City will allow the conversion of older single - family homes in Downtown Hopkins as noted in the Plan to attached, owner occupied housing (townhouses, condominiums, etc.,) Industry and Business Policies • The City will continue to actively promote the development and redevelopment of its industrial areas through marketing and public relations efforts, land use planning, and careful financial incentives, including tax increment financing. • The City will strive to leverage its valuable locational assets and create industrial areas, which have attractive building and grounds, no visible outdoor storage, high floor -area ratios, and high levels of employment, especially employment in the professional and technical job areas. • The City will attempt to improve the appearances of all businesses in the Excelsior Boulevard area through public - private landscaping and fencing partnerships and local code enforcement. • The City will carefully study the implications for commercial redevelopment of the planned reconstruction, widening, and realignment of Shady Oak Road. The objective will be to create new commercial sites which are appealing to the contemporary commercial market, which have good access, parking, and service docking, and which can be well landscaped. • The City will participate in the redevelopment of deteriorated and /or obsolescent industrial and commercial areas when public financing is determined to be feasible and necessary. • Industrial zoning will be expanded only where and when it would not have a detrimental effect on a nearby residential neighborhood. • The City will set and enforce high standards for all non- residential design. New business site plans will be carefully reviewed for building orientation, parking placement, access, traffic impact, landscaping, screening of storage, and general architectural appearance. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 20 ® The City will assist owners of new businesses with the process of obtaining funding such as Small Business Administration loans and tax increment financing when determined necessary and appropriate. • When commercial property abuts residential property (especially across a street), extensive landscaping, fencing and /or berming should be used to protect the housing. Community Structure Policies ® The City will work to unite the core of the City with those neighborhoods that are separated by highways or non - residential development. Approaches will include bicycle and pedestrian paths or lanes and bridges. 6 The City will protect the long -term viability of its greatest asset - -its residential neighborhoods -- through zoning, land use planning, rehabilitation assistance, traffic engineering, parks improvements, and replacement and infilling with compatible housing styles. Other Land Use Policies • The closed landfill in southwestern Hopkins will be maintained as open space. If it is to be used as a park in the future, local residents will be actively involved in its programming and design. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 21 • Solar Access Protection State legislation enacted in 1978 requires local comprehensive plans to address solar access protection. The law requires that communities make efforts to ensure that direct sunlight access to solar panels is not subjected to shading from nearby trees, buildings or other structures. In the 1980s, energy prices and potential fuel shortages focused attention on both passive and active solar collection systems. Since that time, however, lower energy prices have diminished interest in active solar energy collection systems. While solar energy issues are seldom discussed during subdivision reviews today, it is possible that conditions will change in the future. Accordingly, the City of Hopkins will take the following measures to ensure protection of solar access where appropriate: 1. Examine the existing Subdivision Ordinance to ensure that it adequately includes solar energy protection measures. 2. The City will assist homeowners in finding information pertaining to design criteria for solar access. 3. Consistent with State Statutes, the city will consider variances in circumstances where hardships are imposed because of the inability of structures to obtain direct sunlight for solar energy systems because of existing zoning and subdivision ordinance provisions. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 22 Aviation There are no aviation facilities in the City of Hopkins, however, the City is within the region's general airspace that needs to be protected from potential obstructions to air navigation. The closest airport facilities to the City of Hopkins is Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie and the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport near Bloomington. The City of Hopkins has a responsibility to protect airspace as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Under Minnesota Statues 360, the State regulates the height of structures as they are defined and enforced under Aeronautics Rules and Regulations 8800.1200 Criteria for Determining Air Navigation Obstructions. Subparagraph 4(B) states: "objects more than 200 feet above the ground or more than 200 feet above the established airport elevation, whichever gives the higher elevation, within three nautical miles of the nearest runway of an airport, and increasing in the proportion of the 100 feet for each additional nautical mile of distance from the airport but not exceeding 500 feet above ground", is a general obstruction. Notification to Mn/DOT Aeronautics is required when any object as defined above would affect general airspace. Notification: Any sponsor who proposes any construction or alteration that would exceed a height of 200 feet above ground level at the site, or any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending upward and outward at a slope of 100:1 from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public airport shall notify the Commissioner at least 30 days in advance. Local reporting is in addition to any Federal permitting /review process (FAA Form 7460 -8) involving a sponsor /proposal. Aviation Policy It is the policy of the City of Hopkins to: 1. Notify Mn/DOT Aeronautics of any structure 200 feet above the ground that could affect airspace. 2. Work with the Metropolitan Airports Commission in locating needed airport navigational facilities. 3. Include both Federal and State safety standards when planning the design of any object related to or affecting transportation facilities. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 23 • 40 Downtown Hopkins Introduction Downtown Hopkins has changed substantially since the City last updated its comprehensive plan in 1989. The most significant recent improvements include construction of the Hopkins Center for the Arts and the Hopkins 6 movie theater complex. These two developments have dramatically changed the visual appearance of the downtown core and they bring substantial numbers of visitors into the community. Movie Theater and Restaurant Development Completed in 1997 Analysis of Downtown Hopkins Past studies have identified the following assets and liabilities of Downtown Hopkins. Assets • Downtown Hopkins presents a strong sense of place. • Large shares of people who are found in Downtown Hopkins are likely to be shoppers. • There is a strong base of existing establishments, such as auto dealers and other Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 24 special purpose retailers, who draw people from outside the Core Trade Area. • There is a strong local employment base that draws people to the city. • There is a strong interest and commitment to the community. • The business community is service oriented. • Downtown Hopkins "cuts across" a broad range of lifestyle and income groups. • Local residents are supportive of local business establishments. • The City government is active in community development. Liabilities • Downtown Hopkins lacks image and appeal to people outside the immediate area. • The district lacks a "critical mass" of store types and sizes. • Downtown Hopkins does not operate as a unified business district. • Shopping activity is not related and lacks focus. • The commercial area's configuration is inconsistent and does not support consumer behaviors. • Competing shopping areas are strong. • Downtown Hopkins does not adequately tap the existing base of potential customers. Recent public and private projects in downtown Hopkins have strengthened the area's assets and improved issues that have been identified as past liabilities. The strong employment base in Hopkins has always served as means to attract people into the downtown area. The private and public theater developments bring substantial numbers of visitors into the central business district expanding the base of customers for local businesses. I- lopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 25 e Hopkins Center for the Arts In recent years, other improvements have also served to help further unify the business district. New retail construction on the east end of Mainstreet and renovations of old buildings have allowed business expansions as well as opportunities for new retail and service businesses. If there is a negative side to the recent developments in downtown Hopkins, it is that the success of the area has caused an increase in the need for additional parking. With events in the Hopkins Center for the Arts and Friday and Saturday evening crowds at the movie theaters, parking is in short supply. Overflow parking from these events impacts the surrounding neighborhood areas. The City is currently working on interim solutions to the periodic parking shortage and needs to formulate a plan for long term improvements. The long term solution may lie in the construction of an additional parking ramp. Plan For Downtown Hopkins Based on past marketing studies and current conditions, the following general recommendations are offered for downtown Hopkins: ® Development efforts should be targeted toward encouraging growth and expansion of commercial establishments that address two market orientations: (1) the local convenience and specialty market, and (2) the destination specialty market. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 26 • Primary efforts should be to encourage the development of retail establishments that meet the convenience retailing needs of the local resident and working populations. • Secondary efforts should be targeted to encourage the growth and development of merchants that service the destination specialty market. • The store mix in Downtown Hopkins should be expanded to address the two market orientations discussed above. The following types of businesses should be recruited to locate in Downtown Hopkins: • For the local convenience specialty market: convenience specialty retailers, food stores, and entertainment establishments. • For the destination specialty market: auto - related products and services, professional services, maintenance and repair services, and miscellaneous destination specialty retailers. • Encourage commercial development to be clustered close to the central core of the business district where it reinforces and is consistent with existing establishment types. • Reinforce the convenience- oriented behaviors of Downtown Hopkins consumers through physical design. • Initiate a comprehensive review of long term parking needs and formulate a plan to address those needs. Attempt alternative solutions to employee parking problems. • Build upon the area's strong sense of place, and improve the surrounding market area's awareness of the community. • Expand joint advertising and promotions for the businesses in the district. Physical Plan Downtown Hopkins is planned to continue its tight -knit pattern of commercial development along either side of Mainstreet. Commercial activity is targeted in the vicinity of (but not limited to) the four - block -long core area from 8th to 12th Avenues. The plan envisions that the present pattern of commercial, residential, and public land uses will be continued. If St. Joseph's Church and School determines that all or part of its parking and playground between 12th and 13th Avenues is not needed, the City will consider other options for this property including parking. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 27 • Insert Downtown Land Use Map Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 28 Urban Design Guidelines The following guidelines will be used by the City in reviewing new development and redevelopment. The overall intention is to maintain the appearance and character of the historic buildings throughout the commercial area, both in the historic core and in the supportive nearby areas. Buildings • Buildings should be kept held to a relatively small scale consistent with the historic Downtown. • Building heights in the historic core should match those of adjacent structures, with two or three stories being the desired height in that area. Building heights outside the historic core may vary. • Maintain as much building line along Mainstreet as practical. Where buildings must be setback, a strongly landscaped edge should be established to maintain some visual line along the street. • A window line should be maintained in the building facades along Mainstreet. • All commercial buildings along Mainstreet should have rear entries designed to be attractive, functional, and identifiable. • All building entries, front and rear, should make provision for the protection of users from the elements by overhangs, recessed doorways, and /or awnings. • New buildings along Mainstreet should attempt to imitate the window proportions and placement established in the Historic Core. • Exterior building colors along Mainstreet should be in the red -brown spectrum so as to be consistent with those of the historic core. Parking • The City should continue to revise and refine the Downtown Parking Plan. The Parking Plan should be utilized whenever development of redevelopment occurs and its recommendations should be continuously pursued. • Parking lots should be kept small and close to the businesses served. Larger parking lots should have visual breaks of four - season landscaping treatments. • Parking areas directly abutting the rear of commercial buildings should be paved and landscaped. These spaces should be reserved for customers and not occupied by employees. Emphasis should be placed on easy and pleasant customer use in all Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 29 • seasons. • All parking lots should have perimeter landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs selected to withstand the harsh conditions. • All parking lots must be paved with asphalt or concrete and properly maintained, striped, and landscaped. • Wherever possible, east -west rear alleys should align with one another so that circulation parallel to Mainstreet is promoted. • The exterior design of any new parking ramps should be supportive of the appearance of the Historic Core. No parking ramp should be allowed to abut Mainstreet. • As redevelopment occurs, the City will explore the possibility of removing and relocating the parking which exists along the south side of the north frontage road of Excelsior Boulevard between 5th and 9th Avenues and replacing those parking bays with landscaping consistent with the master plan for Excelsior Boulevard. Sign age Future Parking Needs May Require Construction of an Additional Parking Ramp • Signage should be carefully controlled, Signs on the historic buildings should be wall - mounted and places in the historic sign band, materials should be compatible with the building (i.e., wood or metal rather than plastic), and plastic panel signs Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 30 should not be allowed on these buildings. Streets • The City will work to upgrade alleys and utilities in Downtown. • Fifth Avenue will be renamed Hopkins Avenue. • The City will explore whether there are alternative locations for snow storage rather than the open space along the south edge of Excelsior Boulevard. Identity • Downtown Hopkins will continue to be identified through entry monuments, street lighting, and street landscaping. • Continue to emphasize the link between the eastern and western portions of Mainstreet. The focus in the western area should be on the expansion of traditional downtown businesses and on improving the appearance of existing automotive repair service businesses. Site Plan Review • All new construction along Mainstreet should be subject to site plan and architectural review by the City Planning Commission to ensure consistency with these guidelines. • Any new multiple- family housing in the Downtown will be subject to careful site plan review, especially for traffic access. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 31 • TRANSPORTATION Transportation Issues The transportation network of Hopkins, like the land development pattern, is established and has few opportunities for major restructuring. However, the planned light -rail transit (LRT) line to the center of the community represents one significant change. One LRT station is planned in Hopkins, immediately north of Second Street South near the new SuperValu warehouse facility, west of State Highway 169. ISSUES • What, if anything, should the City do in response to the LRT station? • What will be the impact of the proposed reconstruction of Shady Oak Road? • Several roadways, such as Highway 169, Excelsior Boulevard, and Highway 7, divide the community. What can be done to reduce the devisive effect of those roadways? • Where should the LRT station planned west of Highway 169 be located, north of Third Street South? What would be the effect of this decision on land development and expansion opportunities for SuperValu? • What should be the City's role and response in reducing congestion on the metropolitan highway system? • How can access be improved to /from the SuperValu site and between the north and south halves of the SuperValu site? • Should Second Avenue South be connected to Westbrooke Way? Transportation Plan The planned system of major roads in Hopkins is illustrated by Figure 00 along with the light rail transit route and station site being identified by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority. No major changes to the road system are planned for Hopkins with the exception of the reconstruction and upgrading of Shady Oak Road and Excelsior Boulevard by Hennepin County. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 32 ROADWAY SYSTEM POLICIES • The City will continue to design and maintain its roads and review site plans according to the functional classification system of roads illustrated by Figure 00 in order that they serve the needs of the community and enhance regional efforts to reduce traffic congestion. • The City will monitor whether excessive non -local traffic uses residential streets and, if so, explore means to minimize it. • When Hennepin County widens Shady Oak Road, the City will work with the County and the adjacent landowners to ensure that there remains adequate landscaped setbacks along its edge. • Westbrooke Way is not planned to be connected to Second Avenue South because of the anticipated impact on a major wetland in that vicinity and because of the excessive traffic that would be added to Second Avenue. T VEL DEMAND AGEMENT POLICIES Travel demand management (TDM) aims to increase the number and proportion of people who share rides and who travel outside of rush hours. These techniques are expected of communities in the metropolitan area served by congested portions of the metropolitan highway system and of cities that have regional business concentrations, both of which include Hopkins. It has been proven to be far more cost - effective to promote TDM and transit than to try to build more highway lanes. • Hopkins will review the site plans of major new business developments to ensure that they contain provisions for preferential parking for ride - sharing vehicles. • Hopkins has a mixture of low -and high- density housing and industrial and office businesses, which may help, reduce travel on the metropolitan highway system by allowing people to live near their place of work. The Land Use Plan continues that pattern. • The City is in the process of working with Metro Transit to provide a new park - and -ride site. The site currently being studied is west of Highway 169. Access to the site will be from Fifth Avenue South. The current park- and —ride will be abandoned. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 33 • • Hopkins will urge the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT) and the Metropolitan Council to conduct an ongoing educational program to encourage ride-sharing, staggered work hours, and off-peak travel. Such campaigns can be most effectively mounted at the metropolitan level. TRANSIT POLICIES Effective use of transit, which is defined as all forms of riding together, can make a significant difference in the level of congestion in certain corridors. Hopkins is currently served by Metro Transit regular bus routes, a 56-car MN/DOT park-and -ride lot along Excelsior Boulevard, demand responsive service for the elderly and disabled through Metro Mobility and Hopkins Hop-A-Ride, and the Minnesota Rideshare carpooling program. The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) is planning to build a light rail transit route through Hopkins with one station in the community. Hopkins is committed to fostering an environment supportive of transit and ridesharing because it recognized the benefits which good access can have on economic development and general quality of life in this community, not to mention the fuel savings and reduced air emissions. Light Rail Transit O The City will encourage the HCRRA to construct the Minneapolis Southwest Corridor light rail transit line as soon as feasible, including the planned station in Hopkins. The LRT line is included in Figure 00. The City, through its representatives, will continue to participate actively in the system planning • The City supports the proposed locations for the light rail transit station in Hopkins and will work with the HCRRA on station planning and design. The station location is shown on the Land Use Plan, Figure 00. Once the station plan has been finalized the City will respond by amending the landscaping and sidewalk plans from the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor design to complement and support the LRT station area. • The City will publicize the expected location of the LRT station in the community in order to promote the use of this new travel mode and also to make the general public aware of the easy access Hopkins enjoys to the central city (and from the central city outward) ® The City will attempt to maximize its benefits from the major LRT station near TH 169. Additional mid-and-high density housing is planned on the fringes of the Downtown near the LRT station. Also, sidewalks and bike trails are being constructed along Excelsior Boulevard that could connect to the station site as part of an overall improvement of that corridor. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 34 Metro Transit Bus Service • The City is part of a three -city study with Metro Transit to review the transit system and to implement changes. Each City will review the recommendations for changes in the fall of 1999. The recommendations are for both long and short term. • The City has worked with the Metro Transit to create new or improved bus waiting stations along its routes through Hopkins, especially along Excelsior Boulevard and in the Downtown. Transit facilities will be implemented as part of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor improvement project. Additional transit facilities are recommended in the transit study. • The City will review major new developments for the inclusion of bus shelters and pullouts if such sites are along MTC bus routes. • The City will coordinate its sidewalk plans for Excelsior Boulevard with bus waiting areas. Demand - Responsive Service • The City will continue to do what it can to facilitate Metro Mobility and Hopkins Hop -A -Ride. BICYCLIST AND PEDEST N POLICIES • The City along with St. Louis Park is in the process of constructing a bicyclist and pedestrian path parallel to and just east of Highway 169 right -of -way from Second Street NE to Highway 7. This path will be built in an abandoned railroad right -of- way and will connect to a path to be built by the City of St. Louis Park. • The City will continue to build sidewalks along all local and collector streets and along certain minor arterial street such as Excelsior Boulevard and Blake Road. • Hopkins will urge Hennepin County to build or maintain paved shoulders along Shady Oak Road, Minnetonka Boulevard, and Highway 7. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 35 2020 Met Council TAZ Data TAZ 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 Totals POPULATION 2020 1189 1231 4187 841 2424 3 4456 17000 HOUSEHOLDS 2020 510 500 2180 341 1337 1 2188 8200 EMPLOYMENT 2020 580 739 2994 1562 1242 2720 1158 13235 Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 36 Housing Analysis of Housing Stock Current Housing Considerations The housing stock of the City of Hopkins is described by the following data from the 1990 U.S. Census of Housing and by the subsequent text. Table 3 Housing Characteristics Characteristics Hopkins Metro Area Total Units 8,572 988,735 Occupied Units 7.973 935,516 Vacancy Rate 7.0% 5.4% Owner Occupied 32.7% 65.0% Renter Occupied 60.3% 29.6% Single Family Units 3,063 (35.7 %) 647,697 (65.5 %) In Buildings with 5+ Units 4,957 (57.8 %) 242,752 (24.6 %) Condominiums 1,106 (12.9 %) 49,093 (4.9 %) Year Structure Built Median Year Built 1968 1966 Decade Most Built 1970 -1979 1980 -1990 Built in 1939 or Earlier 808 (9.4 %) 202,998 (20.5 %) Housing Values and Rent Owner Occ. Units -Avg. Value $103,422 $102,822 Median Home Value $86,100 $88,300 Average Rent $533 $494 Median Rent $520 $479 Housing Stock Source: U.S. Census Bureau Overall, the housing stock in Hopkins is in good condition and there is no section of the community that has a noticeable concentration of physically deteriorated units. Although the older units located between Downtown and Highway 7 do tend to have more defects and Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 37 economic obsolescence than the newer units, there is apparent pride in ownership of these single- _ family structures, and they are generally well maintained. A great number of rental apartments and townhouses have been built since the 1950's in Hopkins, and proper maintenance of these units is a concern of the City. The City does have standards for the maintenance of rental housing that go beyond the Building Code. The provisions of the code require periodic inspections of rental units and repair of identified deficiencies. Tenure One of the unusual facts about the Hopkins housing stock is the high percentage of renter - occupied units compared to owner - occupied units. According to data from the Metropolitan Council from 1996, 65% of the housing in Hopkins was renter - occupied and 35% of the units were owner - occupied. Housing Affordability The median home value in Hopkins in 1990 was slightly above the metropolitan area mean. The median rent was also slightly above the median rent cost. Purchase by first -time buyers of housing in Hopkins frequently occurs because of the numerous small, older homes in Central Hopkins and modest ranch -style homes in the East End Neighborhood. Parts of the Interlachen Neighborhood, Park Valley and the Peaceful Valley Neighborhoods are also affordable. Interlachen, Park Valley, and Peaceful Valley also offer opportunities for move -up buyers. Much more expensive homes are available in the Bellgrove and Knollwood Neighborhoods. The relatively large number of rental apartments and townhouses also offer choices for households who do not wish to or cannot afford to purchase homes. The City of Hopkins owns and maintains 86 dwelling units rented to low- income households. They are in two buildings near Downtown (76 units in one building, 10 in the other). A small percentage of low income individuals in Hopkins receive rent assistance through the Federal Section 8 Rent Assistance Program administered by the Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority. This program, however, does not meet the need for housing affordability in Hopkins or elsewhere as levels of funding have been reduced annually throughout the past two decades. Market Response to the Hopkins' Housing Stock Despite the aging of much of Hopkins' housing stock and the shortage in older units of some contemporary conveniences, houses generally sell relatively quickly in Hopkins and rental vacancy rates are very low. In 1999, local apartment unit managers reported vacancy rates of approximately .5 %. However, there is a growing concern that the size and design of many Post - War houses may combine with the physical deterioration to produce a downward spiral of conditions, values and market response. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 38 Presently, Hopkins' convenient location and the numerous job opportunities and social /cultural amenities of the western suburbs seem to be keeping the housing market strong. The City must take efforts to protect its housing stock from influences such as excessive traffic or incompatible land uses which could threaten neighborhoods. Residential Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program In response to the need to promote private reinvestment in the aging housing stock, the City has been administering a program of grants and loans to owner - occupants with lower incomes. For the past 25 years, this program has assisted in the improvement of over 200 housing units in all parts of the City. The program is funded by the City's share of County administered Community Development Block Grant funds. Development Standards The Hopkins Zoning Ordinance includes five districts that allow detached housing on parcels ranging in minimum size from 6,000 to 40,000 square feet. Five other districts allow attached housing including duplexes, four -unit buildings, townhouses, and apartments at densities ranging from 3,500 to 1,000 square feet of lot area per unit (12 to 43 dwelling units per net acre). The R- 4 and R -5 districts allow for very urban uses with minimal amounts of open area. Housing Construction Since 1980, 1,354 new housing units have been built in Hopkins as the City has become nearly fully developed in its residential areas, and only a modest number of new units have been created through land redevelopment. The focus of the community is now on housing maintenance. In a few areas, new construction on infill lots will continue to occur. Expected Housing Market Trends In 1992, the City of Hopkins completed a detailed housing analysis. Many of the projections found in that report are still valid today. Factors still likely to effect the housing market in Hopkins include: Rental Market Increases in the older population group (over 75 years old) as well as single - parent families with lower incomes will create a demand for lower cost rental units and a greater demand for services. First -tine Home Buyers • An expected decrease in first -time homebuyers may cause housing prices to fall based on supply and demand. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 39 Move -up Market • Continued increases in the middle age group may result in continued demand for move -up housing. However, the significant decrease in the quantity of first -time homebuyers may cause problems for those trying to sell their homes to move up. • If it becomes difficult to sell existing housing, middle age owners may find it necessary to remodel their existing homes rather than acquire new housing. Young Seniors Market • This group tends to use a variety of housing options such as existing single - family homes, condominiums, and rental housing. Older Seniors Market • The older seniors, over 75 years old, will grow significantly in the next 10 to 20 years. This group, whether remaining in single - family homes or moving into other forms of housing will demand additional services such as personal care, home maintenance and transportation. • A significant percentage of the older seniors population has low incomes. Housing Issues The following housing issues were identified from observations and from discussions with City staff and community representatives. • What will need to be done to maintain overall housing quality Hopkins? • What should be the role of the City in helping to maintain the quality of housing in Hopkins? • Should additional renter - occupied housing be discouraged in Hopkins? • Should the City reduce the allowable densities of multiple- family residential development? • How can the City preserve its single- family housing stock? Housing Plan The objectives of the Hopkins Housing Plan are as follows: 1. Preserve the quality of the community's residential neighborhoods. 2. Participate in the development of affordable housing for the elderly so that people who have lived in the community for decades can remain and also to make single - family Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 40 houses available for young families. 3. Participate in programs to provide the City's fair share of housing for the economically disadvantaged. 4. Preserve the supply of existing single- family homes. Neighborhood Preservation • The City regards the preservation and protection of its existing residential neighborhoods as its most important task. Therefore, the City will work to protect the integrity and long -term viability of its neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative impacts of nearby commercial or industrial land development through zoning, site plan reviews, and code enforcement. ® The City will strictly enforce its municipal regulations pertaining to housing and yard maintenance so as to protect residential property. ® The City will support housing maintenance through continued administration of applicable programs. e The City will continue to enforce its maintenance code for multiple - family housing. • To protect residential areas adjacent to downtown Hopkins, the Downtown will be kept in a compact arrangement. • The infilling of vacant parcels in and near residential neighborhoods and the rehabilitation of existing developed land will be in accordance with uses specified in the Comprehensive Plan. • Land uses that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and incompatible with housing will be improved or removed where possible and the land reused in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. • The City will enforce high standards for all multiple - family residential development. Included will be the aspects of building massing, parking location, access, traffic impact, landscaping, exterior architectural design, fencing, trash handing, and parking ratios. • Both stability and growth of neighborhoods are keys to the success of any economic development efforts of a city. Neighborhoods provide employees for existing and potential businesses, a market for the retail sector, and create an image of the community, which is a reflection upon the local business. Neighborhoods are also a reflection upon a community's social and economic standards of living and overall quality of life, which in turn impacts economic growth. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 41 Housing Redevelopment There is a limited number of locations in the community where it may be appropriate to allow and encourage housing redevelopment. In these locations, the City has indicated its land use intentions through the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Map. The City will allow the private market to respond to those local controls and will, on a case -by -case basis, consider financial participation in housing redevelopment projects when that is the only means of achieving needed and demonstrable public benefits consistent with this Comprehensive Plan. Housing for the Elderly Hopkins will monitor the number of elderly households in the City and will gauge the demand for elderly rental and elderly owner - occupied housing units by monthly cost through surveys conducted by the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority. When it is determined that there is a significant housing market in Hopkins and the immediate surrounding community of elderly households that is not likely to be properly served by the private sector, the Hopkins HRA will consider establishing a process to meet that demand. The HRA will check the availability of outside and local funds with which to assist a private developer in leveraging private financing for such a project. Prospective sites for new housing for the elderly should have transit service nearby and be within walking distance of convenience shopping. Housing Assistance • The City will participate in the rent assistance program of Hennepin County and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Housing Authority and advertise those programs locally. • The City will consider using such tools as revenue bonds, tax increment financing, and Community Development Block Grants (along with other public funding sources as may be available) to provide its "fair share" of rental housing for low- income households, especially the elderly. The City will enter into such partnerships to improve the quality of such housing and /or ensure that rents remain perpetually within low- income target limits. The City will not jeopardize the quality of existing housing and neighborhoods through the siting of subsidized housing. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) was adopted by the State Legislature to address housing affordability issues facing the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Hopkins chose to participate in the LCA, which makes the City eligible for financial assistance programs not open to communities who choose not to participate. As a part of the LCA program, the Metropolitan Council established a set of housing benchmarks and noted the current index of the community. The following applies to the City of Hopkins: Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 42 Category Affordability Ownership Rental Table 4 LCA Benchmarks City Index Benchmark 81% 45% Life -Cycle Type (non -sf detached) 72% 37 -41 % Owner /Renter Mix 35/65% (64- 67)/33 -36)% Density Single - family Detached 3.2 /acre 1.8 — 2.9 /acre Multifamily 18 /acre 14 — 15 /acre As Table 3 shows, Hopkins has already met the goals of the Livable Communities Act. Hopkins' housing stock is more diverse, more affordable and developed at a higher density than other communities of similar location and stage of development. As a fully developed city, Hopkins realizes that the mix of its housing stock cannot be altered significantly. Therefore, the City is committed to preserving the existing housing stock and enhancing it when appropriate with new or redeveloped properties which meet the needs of Hopkins' residents. Housing Principles As a part of the LCA program, Hopkins adopted the following principles: ® A balanced housing supply, with housing available to all income levels. ® A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the housing life- cycle. 60 -77% 37 -41% Source: Metropolitan Council ® The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. • A community of well - maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. ® Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 43 • The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. Housing Goals In participating in the LCA program, the City of Hopkins has agreed to the goals identified in Table 4. Additionally, the City of Hopkins has adopted action steps related to the overall goal of assuring strong and well maintained neighborhoods as part of the Strategic Plan for Economic Development and the 1992 Housing Analysis. The following are activities identified in those documents that are pertinent today. a Work within the provisions of the Housing Special Service District Legislation to continue improving properties in the Westbrooke area. • Continue and /or expand existing housing programs. • Examine and improve housing maintenance codes and actively enforce these codes. • Utilize the resources of the City's Community Relations Coordinator to improve the perception of the City's multi- family housing. • Facilitate development that will help meet "special housing needs" such as handicapped units, three- bedroom units, housing for empty- nesters and high market value housing. • Maintain and improve public infrastructure in neighborhoods. • Monitor the effectiveness of the Truth in Housing Ordinance to ensure that it is helping to maintain and upgrade residential housing stock. • Encourage the use of existing rental rehabilitation and single - family housing loan programs available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). • Continue to investigate possible sources of funds for the local rental rehabilitation loan program. • Continue to offer first -time home buyer mortgage funds through MHFA. • Continue to offer the Residential Rehabilitation Loan/Grant Program and promote the program extensively. • Continue to locally administer the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. • Identify those properties that should be demolished and determine the proper approach to ensuring their removal. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 44 6 Aggressively enforce the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance /Housing Code in regard to dilapidated housing units. In order to meet these goals over the next decade, the City of Hopkins will utilize a variety of assistance programs. Programs are detailed in the Implementation Section of the Comprehensive Plan. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 45 Parks, Open Space and Trails Introduction Hopkins is a fully developed community with an established park and open space system. From small parks like the Park Valley Playground to community parks like Central Park, public facilities offer diverse activities for residents of all ages. Since there is very little vacant land left in Hopkins, any existing park expansions or new park sites will result from redevelopment activities. It is not likely that redevelopment activities will result in any significant expansion of the existing park system. Since park expansion and new park construction is not the focus of Hopkins' future park planning efforts, the emphasis will be placed on maintaining and enhancing the existing system. Part of the enhancement of the existing system will focus on expanding existing trail connections. Hopkins is a regional hub of recreational trails. In the future, it may be possible to expand local trails to provide better links to regional trails as well as to connect local park facilities and local points of interest. Park, Open Space and Trail Policies 1. Continue to provide a park and recreation system that satisfies the needs of a diverse population. 2. Provide a park and recreation system that supports community identity and serves as a gathering space for community and neighborhood events. 3. Provide local links to the regional trail system. 4. Establish a trail system that interconnects the city and offers an alternative means of transportation. 5. Emphasize maintenance and enhancement of existing parks. 6. Continue to collaborate with the City of Minnetonka, the Hopkins School District, Hennepin Parks and other agencies to provide recreational opportunities for Hopkins residents. 7. Utilize the park system to protect natural resources. Classification System Hopkins has a variety of parks that are components of the overall park system. In order to examine existing parks and to project future park needs, a uniform classification system is used in this plan. The following categories have been established: Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 46 Classification: Neighborhood Park Description: Neighborhood parks are the basic unit of the park system and serve as the recreational focus of neighborhoods. Neighborhood parks emphasize informal active and passive recreation. Location Criteria: '/ to 1/2 mile distance and uninterrupted by non - residential roads and other physical barriers. Size Criteria: Usually between 5 and 10 acres. Classification: School -Park Description: Combining parks with school sites can fulfill the space requirements for other classes of parks such as neighborhood, community, sports complex and special use. Location Criteria: Determined by location of school district property. Size Criteria: Variable Classification: Community Park Description: Serves a broader purpose than neighborhood parks. Focus is on meeting community -based recreational needs as well as preserving unique open space. Location Criteria: Determined by the quantity and usability of the site. Size Criteria: Usually between 20 and 50 acres. Classification: Sports Complex Description: Consolidates heavily programmed athletic fields and associated facilities to larger and fewer sites. Location Criteria: May either be freestanding or located in community -wide facilities. Size Criteria: Determined by demand, usually a minimum of 10 acres. Classification: Special Use Park and Recreation Facilities Description: Special Use park and recreation facilities may be privately or publicly owned. Private facilities can offer either indoor or outdoor recreation opportunities, usually on a membership or fee basis. Location Criteria: Variable, depends on specific use. Size Criteria: Variable Classification: Natural Resource Areas Description: Lands set aside for preservation of significant natural resources, remnant landscapes, open space and visual aesthetics. Location Criteria: Depends on resource availability and opportunity. Size Criteria: Variable Classification: Linear Trail Connections Description: Land used to effectively tie park system components together to form a continuous park environment and to connect to points of interest outside of community boundaries. Location Criteria: Depends on resource and availability and opportunity. Size Criteria: Variable Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 47 Facility Inventory Local recreational facilities are provided by a number of sources. Public parks are perhaps the most obvious of these sources, however, parks and recreational opportunities provided by other entities need to be considered in assessing the total park and recreation system. Other entities providing park and recreational opportunities in the Hopkins area include adjacent communities, schools and private facilities. Schools Name: Eisenhower Elementary School/Community Center Size: 22.6 acres Type: School -Park Facilities: Tennis Courts Ball Fields Play Area Open Field Soccer Football Field Name: Alice Smith Elementary School Size: 9.7 acres Type: School -Park Facilities: Ball Field Play Area Open Field Name: Katherine Curren Elementary School Size: 6.6 acres Type: School -Park Facilities Play Area Basketball Name: Blake School Size: 52.6 acres Type: Special Use Facility Facilities: Ball Fields Soccer Ice Arena Track and Field Open Field Tennis Courts Note: Blake School is a private school facility. As such, its facilities are generally not available for public use and therefore, should not be included in examining the total supply of public recreation areas in Hopkins. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 48 Hopkins Parks Name: Buffer Park Size: 2.4 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Facilities: Ball Field Open Field Name: Burnes Park Size: 7.0 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Facilities: Tennis Courts Basketball Play Area Restrooms Ball Fields Horseshoes Picnic Shelter Open Field Name: Central Park Size: 17.9 acres Type: Community Park Facilities: Hockey Arena Ball Fields (Lighted) Soccer Fields Play Area Picnic Area Name: Cottageville Park Size: 1.5 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Facilities: Undeveloped Name: Downtown Park Size: .5 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Facilities: Walkways Seating Areas Downtown Gathering Space Name: Elmo Park Size: 1.0 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 49 Facilities: Ball Fields Hockey Rink Sledding Hill Play Area Picnic Shelter Restrooms Tennis Name: Park Valley Playground Size: 1.2 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Facilities: Play Area Picnic Shelter Basketball Open Field Name: Shady Oak Beach Size: 12 acres Type: Community Park Facilities: Swimming Beach Play Area Trails Canoe Launch Fishing Note: Shady Oak Beach is a facility that is jointly run by the cities of Hopkins and Minnetonka. The facility is administered by a joint park and recreation board. The park is located in Minnetonka near the Hopkins border. Name: Shady Oak Nature Area Size: 3.8 acres Type: Special Use Facility Facilities: Picnic Tables Off -road Parking Note: This park site consists of a drainage pond area adjacent to Shady Oak Road. Most of the site is occupied by the open water pond and associated wetland vegetation. Name: Valley Park Size: 14.5 acres Type: Community Park Facilities: Archery Range Family Garden Plots Trails Volleyball Picnic Shelter Basketball Play Area Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 51 Facilities: Play Area Basketball Name: Harley Hopkins Park Size: 3.0 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Facilities: Open Field Ball Field Hockey Rink Note: Harley Hopkins Park is on the city's south border. Alder Park, which is an Edina neighborhood park, is immediately across the street. Alder park contains a play area and other neighborhood park facilities. Name: Hiawatha Oaks Size: 2.0 acres Type: Natural Resource Area Facilities: Undeveloped Note: Hiawatha Oaks was acquired by local residents and deeded to the City in order to protect mature trees on the property. Name: Hilltop Park Size: 3.5 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Facilities: Ball Field Open Field Picnic Area Play Area Name: Interlachen Park Size: 2.4 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Facilities: Play Area Restrooms Ball Field Basketball Name: Maetzold Field Size: 10.0 acres Type: Sports Complex Facilities: Ball Fields Play Area Picnic Shelter Name: Oakes Park Size: 5.7 acres Type: Neighborhood Park Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 50 Hockey Rink Soccer Ball Fields Restrooms Open Field Other Park and Recreation Facilities Name: Meadowbrook Golf Course Type: Special Use Facility Facilities: Golf Course Note: Meadowbrook Golf Course is operated by the Minneapolis Park Board. A portion of the course is located in the city of Hopkins. Name: Oak Ridge Golf Course Type: Special Use Facility Facilities: Golf Course Note: Oak Ridge is a private golf course located in the northern portion of Hopkins. Name: Minnehaha Creek Preserve Type: Special Use Facility Facilities: Undeveloped Note: The Minnehaha Creek Preserve area is land owned by the City of Hopkins and used for outdoor public works storage. The site could be used as a park in the future if the public works storage is relocated to another site. Name: Minnehaha Creek Corridor Type: Special Use Facility Facilities: Undeveloped Note: This area includes land owned by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District immediately abutting Minnehaha Creek. Park System Needs A common tool for analyzing a local park system is the application of a population ratio standard. This standard is expressed as a number of acres of park land per one thousand people and is used to provide a general guideline for the assessment of existing and future park needs. For the Hopkins Comprehensive Plan, a standard of 7 acres of municipal park land per 1000 people has been used as a benchmark for planning purposes. This standard is consistent with a range of standards offered by the National Park and Recreation Association. Additionally, the overall standard has been broken down into the following components: Neighborhood Park — 2 acres per 1000 people Community Park/Sports Complex —5 acres per 1000 people Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 52 Standards have not been directly applied to the other classifications used in this plan including school - parks, natural resource areas, trails, or private park and recreation facilities. Neighborhood and community park needs can be satisfied in combination with the development of school facilities provided that facilities are available to both groups. Trail corridors are very site specific and are not included in overall acreage calculations because they serve as links between various components of the park system. Private facilities are also not included in the overall standard because in many cases, they do not have the same longevity enjoyed by public park uses. Application of these standards yields the following results: Assessment of Future Need — 2000 (Population 16,800) Component Park System Neighborhood Park Community Park School - Park Natural Resource Area Private Parks Component Park System Neighborhood Park Community Park School - Park Natural Resource Area Private Parks Existing Acreage 82.6 ac 28.2 ac 54.4 ac Assessment of Future Need — 2010 Standard Existing Acreage Standard 7ac/1000 2ac /1000 5ac /1000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Po ;s ulation 17 200 82.6 ac 7ac /1000 28.2 ac 2ac /1000 54.4 ac 5ac /1000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Std. Applied to 2000 Pop. 117.6 ac 33.6 ac 84 ac Std. Applied to 2010 Pop. Net 2010 120.4 ac 34.4 ac 86.0 ac Net 2000 <35 ac> <5.4 ac> < 29.6 ac> <37.8 ac> <6.2 ac> <31.6 ac> Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 53 O P- - minnehaha Creek Preserve Shady Oak Nature Area Shdpa Beath LandFill Site — /C) lemen BVter Park I -// LL1 NI ark 1 N 1 1 mn r- - - Playg Valley Park 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet Head r - — Harley Hopkins School and Playground " . AiLit • ; • City qi comprehensive Pran Parks and Recreation Plan r City Parks School Playgrounds Open Space and Trail Systems Golf Courses Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 giu Minneapolis, MN 55401 June 1999 Minnehaha Creek atershed District Area L Li L _ L Interlachen Park Assessment of Future Need — 2020 (Population 17,800) Component Neighborhood Parks Standard: 2 acres per 1000 people Community Parks Standard: 5 acres per 1000 people Existing Std. Applied Acreage Standard to 2020 Pop. Net 2020 Park System 82.6 ac 7ac /1000 124.6 ac <42 ac> Neighborhood Park 28.2 ac 2ac /1000 35.6 ac <7.4 ac> Community Park 54.4 ac 5ac /1000 89 ac <34.6 ac> School - Park Not Applicable Natural Resource Area Not Applicable Private Parks Not Applicable Comments: Neighborhood parks are recreational facilities that are intended to serve populations residing within a 1/2 mile radius of the site. These facilities typically contain open space areas, which accommodate uses such as field games, court games, play equipment and other uses. Although five acres is generally recognized as a minimum size for neighborhood parks, smaller tracts of land can be used due to natural conditions or in areas where larger land parcels are not available. Existing Supply/Need: Hopkins currently has ten sites that are categorized as neighborhood parks ranging in size from .5 acres to 5.7 acres. Application of the recommended standard for neighborhood parks results in a deficiency of 5.4 and 7.4 acres in 2000 and 2020 respectively. The standards indicate the need for additional neighborhood park areas, however, closer examination of Hopkins reveals that the City probably does not need to add park areas to serve existing and future needs. Hopkins contains three public school sites that accommodate neighborhood park needs. These sites along with Alder Park in Edina provide convenient access for all residents. Almost every home in Hopkins is located within %2 mile of an existing neighborhood park. The only exception is the extreme northern portion of the community lying north of the Oak Ridge Golf Course. This area is completely developed precluding the potential of adding an additional neighborhood park. If the golf course is ever redeveloped in the future, an additional park site could be acquired at that time. Comments: Community parks are recreational facilities that serve as focal points of community recreational systems. As such, they typically provide facilities that appeal to a broad spectrum of users. Activities may include athletic complexes, archery, fishing, nature study, hiking, picnicking and other uses. Community parks commonly contain facilities that are designed to Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 55 appeal to both active and passive users within one park site. The location of community parks is usually established based on topography and other natural features and on accessibility via the local road network. Existing Supply/Need: Hopkins currently has four sites that are classified as community parks. They include Central Park, Maetzold Field, Shady Oak Beach and Valley Park. Central Park and Maetzold Field consist predominately of athletic field areas. Both of these sites are used intensively for adult and youth sports programs. Additionally, Central Park is the home of the Hopkins Pavilion that accommodates indoor ice hockey and indoor soccer. Valley Park contains passive and natural areas in addition to active pursuits such as volleyball, basketball and archery. Shady Oak Beach, a facility run jointly with the City of Minnetonka, is an area that accommodates swimming and fishing. In 1998/1999, the facility was totally reconstructed with new buildings, a new parking lot, and land and water oriented play areas. Application of the standard for community parks calls for an additional 29.6 to 34.6 acres of land from 2000 to 2020. Because of the developed nature of the community, adding community park land will be difficult. However, two future opportunities exist. The southern portion of Hopkins contains a landfill site that has been closed for a long period of time. At the present time the site has not been cleared by State agencies for any type of use. As a result, the property is fully fenced and it contains a methane collection system. At some point in the future, the property may become available for public use. When this occurs, the site could be developed as a community park. The second future opportunity involves the Minnehaha Creek Preserve Area that is owned by the City of Hopkins. If it becomes unnecessary to continue to use this property as a public works site, it could be incorporated as a new community park. Trails and Sidewalks Hopkins has a traditional pattern of development that many suburban communities across the country today are trying to emulate. Established "main street" businesses, high quality neighborhoods, and an excellent park system are all linked by an efficient roadway network. The City also has a strong interest in making all of these areas accessible by non - vehicular means. Accordingly, the Parks, Open Space and Trails section of the plan outlines appropriate locations for trails and sidewalks that accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and in -line skating activities. The purpose of the system is to accommodate recreational pursuits but also to allow people to have access to employment and retail centers without having to use motorized vehicles. Hopkins is a hub for the regional trail network. At the present time, the City is the location of the junction of two legs of the Southwest Hennepin LRT Trail. These trail segments follow 27 miles of abandoned railroad beds stretching from Hopkins to Victoria and from Hopkins to Chanhassen. The trail is ten feet wide and is surfaced with compacted crushed limestone. Grades along the trail are generally 5% or less which makes them ideal for biking, walking and running. Hennepin Parks operates the trail for spring, summer and fall usage. Currently, the park and ride lot along Excelsior Boulevard at 8 Street is used as a trailhead. The only significant deficiency in the existing regional trail system is the lack of a safe, convenient crossing of Excelsior Boulevard between 5 Avenue and TH 169. Until such a Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 56 crossing can be established, traffic signals at 5 Avenue and 8 Avenue allow controlled crossing points. Although difficult and costly, the City is continuing to investigate the feasibility of bridging the trail across the road at this location. The Southwest LRT Trail forms a spine that passes through Hopkins affording easy access to adjacent communities and more distant points of interest. The City has identified a sidewalk and trail plan that accommodates movement throughout the community providing numerous links to the regional trail spine. The system includes a network of sidewalks, off -road bike/hike trails and on -road bike lanes. The system is shown on the map entitled Sidewalk/Trail Plan. The plan includes the relocation of the existing trailhead that is adjacent to the park and ride lot along Excelsior Boulevard at 8 Avenue. The new location for the development of an expanded trailhead is east of the existing site near the old railroad depot that currently houses a coffee shop /youth gathering center. In the future, additional regional trail segments are planned east of TH 169. Plans call for the installation of a regional trail line through the City of St. Louis Park and then connecting to trails in the City of Minneapolis. The City also plans to extend the trail along Excelsior Boulevard as a local trail to the St. Louis Park border. Other local trails will also be added as road reconstruction projects occur in the future. Examples include Excelsior Boulevard, portions of which are now under construction, and Shady Oak Road. Park Recommendations Based on the analysis information presented in the Park System Needs section, input from the public and the Hopkins Park Board and considering the direction provided by the policies that are contained in the plan, the following recommendations are offered: 1. Develop the landfill site and /or the Minnehaha Creek Preserve area as community parks. Both of these sites have the potential to serve as community park areas. If the landfill becomes available for public use, it could accommodate needed soccer fields and other active facilities. Should the Preserve area become available, it could be used for a combination of both passive and active pursuits. The area adjacent to the creek could be used passively for trails and natural habitat. Other areas of the site could accommodate active facilities such as soccer fields. The City should prepare master plans for both of these potential park sites in order to identify appropriate uses. 2. Work with other governmental units to install a trail and pedestrian bridge over Excelsior Boulevard to provide a direct link between segments of the Southwest Hennepin LRT trail. 3. Work to establish a series of local trails that connect to the regional trails. Incorporate trails as part of all major road improvement projects such as Shady Oak Road and Excelsior Boulevard. Examine higher volume local roadways for potential off - street trail installation. 4. Upgrade and improve all park buildings to ensure ADA accessibility. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 57 5. Coordinate improvements for the Shady Oak Nature Area in conjunction with the pending roadway improvements. Examine the feasibility of installing a trail around all or portions of the pond area. 6. Pave hockey rink areas for summer use. 7. Preserve open space along major roadway corridors. Add landscaping along the Excelsior Boulevard corridor on city owned land along the south side of the roadway. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 58 Implementation Strategies Introduction The implementation plan presents a number of strategies that together, have the potential to positively shape growth and change in the City. Since resources are usually limited, it is unrealistic to assume that the City can undertake all of them simultaneously. Therefore, it will be necessary to focus on those that have the greatest potential to accomplish stated goals or those that respond to issues or problems that have been assigned the highest priorities. Eight strategy categories have been identified including land use, transportation, utilities, public services, parks, housing, image and redevelopment. Within each category, priorities are listed. Immediate priority items should be addressed within the next year and high priority items should be addressed in the next five years. Ongoing issues should be continually addressed. Collectively, the eight categories encompass all of the applicable issues identified in the planning process. The simultaneous pursuit of multiple strategies is possible because different groups in Hopkins will have responsibility for the implementation of different strategies. For example, the Zoning and Planning Commission may focus on land use while the Park Commission may address the implementation of park and recreation strategies. Land Use Strategies Strategies related to land use need to address a number of topics. Land use decisions that will be made over the next two decades will have a lasting impact on the community. Strategy #1 Protect the integrity of Hopkins' residential neighborhoods (Ongoing). Comment: Hopkins's residential neighborhoods are a major strength of the community. One of the principal goals of this plan is the continued maintenance and improvement of residential areas. The City should ensure that future land use changes and redevelopments respect existing neighborhood areas. Strategy #2 Cooperate with the City of Minnetonka on land use changes along the common border abutting Shady Oak Road (High Priority — 2000 - 2005). Comment: Improvements along Shady Oak Road, immediately north of Excelsior Boulevard are going to require land use changes in both communities. It may be necessary to adjust the municipal boundaries in this area in order to effectively pursue land use changes. Hopkins should initiate discussions with Minnetonka on this issue. Transportation Strategies Hopkins' transportation system accommodates the movement of people and goods in a variety of ways including automobiles, trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians. Because of the Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 59 developed nature of the community, Hopkins will not see any new major road construction. Therefore, it is important to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation network. Strategy #1 Maintain and improve the existing roadway system (Ongoing). Comments: The City should cooperate with Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and Hennepin County in maintaining and improving the existing roadway system. Hopkins should take a proactive role in analyzing and implementing local street improvements. Strategy #2 Assist in ways to reduce vehicular travel demand (Ongoing). Comments: Many of Hopkins' residents work outside of the community and commute, primarily via the local highway network, to other employment centers. The City should support efforts to encourage ride sharing as well as other travel demand management techniques. Large employers in the community should be encouraged to promote internal efforts such as vanpools to reduce traffic on local and regional roadways. The City should also continue its efforts to improve the regional trail system to accommodate non - vehicular forms of travel. Strategy #3 Improve the existing transit system (High Priority — 2000 — 2005). Comments: The City should work cooperatively with the Metropolitan Council Transit Operations and other agencies to improve mass transit. Transit service is a function of population and employment densities. Hopkins is a major employment center and accordingly, is being considered for future light rail transit (LRT) and /or dedicated bus way improvements. Strategy #4 Work with the City of Minnetonka to resolve joint transportation issues (Ongoing). Comments: Hopkins and Minnetonka share a number of transportation concerns that will require the close cooperation of both communities. Both cities need to work cooperatively with Hennepin County on the improvement of Shady Oak Road. Additionally, the two communities need to collaborate on improvements of the Cedar Lake Road and Minnetonka Boulevard intersection to find a solution that solves traffic movement problems while protecting the adjacent Hopkins' neighborhoods. Strategy #5 Continue improvements along Excelsior Boulevard (High Priority — 2000 — 2005). Comments: Excelsior Boulevard is one of Hopkins major roadways. The image that it presents is an important factor in the public's perception of the community. Improvements begun on the west end in 1998 need to continue eastward to the St. Louis Park border. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 60 Utility Strategies As a fully developed community, utility planning in Hopkins focuses on maintaining and improving the existing systems rather than on expanding systems to serve future growth. Major infrastructure improvements in the future will occur due to replacement of systems that have become outmoded or reconstructing utility systems to support specific redevelopment projects. When redevelopment projects occur, one of the major challenges involves effectively treating and removing stormwater. National, state and regional environmental standards have changed significantly since most of Hopkins was developed. Fitting new developments and new standards into an existing built environment may require creativity and new engineering technologies. (Add Utility Strategies) Public Service Strategies The City of Hopkins is instrumental in supplying public services within the community. In many cases, the City is the direct supplier such as its water distribution system, police, fire and public works activities. In other cases, it has less of a direct role such as education, electricity, natural gas, cable television and telephone. Since the City plays both a direct and indirect role, it is important that a comprehensive public services strategy be in place. Strategy #1 Provide efficient management and distribution of public services supplied by the City of Hopkins (Ongoing). Comments: Since Hopkins supplies local utilities and its own police and fire departments, future needs can be monitored and addressed by staff and the City Council. Strategy #2 Coordinate social service needs with Hennepin County and applicable State and Federal agencies (Ongoing). Comments: Hopkins plays a very limited role in the direct provision of social services. The City should establish itself as an information source and clearinghouse for resident's needs. Strategy #3 Annually update the City's capital improvement program to reflect required expenditures over the upcoming five year period of time (Ongoing). Comments: The City's annual capital improvement program contains an analysis of existing funds and specified needs for future equipment and facilities. The City should continue to use the CIP format to establish priorities for the allocation of funds and the initiation of purchases and projects. City staff should continue to coordinate its capital Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 61 improvement program needs with those of other impacting agencies such as Hennepin County and Mn/DOT. Strategy #4 Support education in the community (Ongoing). Comments: Hopkins has an excellent educational system in place. The City should meet periodically with the local school district to ensure that municipal public services meet their needs. Additionally, the City should continue joint programming of recreational activities with the school district and the City of Minnetonka. Parks and Open Space Strategies Parks and open space are important components of the land use pattern in the City. The park and recreation section of the comprehensive plan identifies needs for future park improvements. Assigning priorities to the identified needs will occur as part of the capital improvement program process. Strategy #1 Seek outside grants and funding assistance for major future park improvements (High Priority — 2000 — 2005), Comments: Although funding sources have been dwindling in recent years, programs such as TEA -21 still exist that can be used to fund recreational facilities, particularly trail segments and trail improvements. The City should continue to aggressively pursue outside grant funds. Additionally, the City should continue to work closely with community service groups that have funding and volunteer labor that can be used to improve the City's park system. Strategy #2 Involve the Hopkins community in future planning for the re -use of the landfill area. Comments: At some point in the future, the Hopkins landfill area will be cleared for re- use as a public open space area. At that time, the City should utilize a planning process that involves the community in determining how the area can best support the City's overall recreation needs. Housing Housing is influenced by national, state, regional and local policies and conditions. Hopkins has some impact on housing, principally through housing policies and land use planning and regulation. Strategy #1 Work to ensure that local actions do not unduly increase the cost of housing and maintain an ordinance structure that permits a full range of housing types (Ongoing). Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 62 Comments: Hopkins zoning and subdivision ordinances allow a broad range of housing types. As Hopkins reviews its zoning and subdivision standards as a follow -up to the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the Zoning and Planning Commission should strive to ensure that ordinances are designed to achieve locally identified goals without increasing the cost of housing. Strategy #2 Provide information to local builders and homeowners about available housing programs offered by both governmental and private entities (Ongoing). Comments: The City of Hopkins should provide information on available housing programs that could help continually improve the quality of the housing stock in the community. Programs are continually offered through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and other entities. The City should establish itself as a clearinghouse for information on current programs offered by these and other organizations. Strategy #3 Enforce code provisions that encourage long -term maintenance of existing housing (Ongoing). Comments: The City should rigorously enforce all structure and property maintenance codes. Maintaining quality neighborhoods is important in keeping Hopkins a desirable place to live. Community Image Strategies In order to foster community support and maintain Hopkins' traditional high quality image, the following strategies have been identified. Strategy #1 Emphasize high levels of maintenance of public improvements by all public agencies including the City, State and County (Ongoing). Comments: Maintenance of public areas helps promote maintenance of private property. Public agencies should maintain all buildings, property and right -of -way Strategy #2 Make community entrances attractive (Ongoing). Comments: Hopkins should construct attractive entrance signs at major entrances to the community to support community identity. Redevelopment Strategies Hopkins has a long history of promoting redevelopment efforts in the community. Over the past five years, the City has made substantial improvements that have supported the local economy and upgraded the City's image. Recent successes can serve as a catalyst for additional improvements. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 63 Strategy #1 Continue to improve downtown Hopkins (On- going). Comments: Streetscape improvements, construction of the Performing Arts Center and commercial theater complex on Mainstreet, new townhome construction and the reconstruction of Excelsior Boulevard and 11 Avenue have substantially improved the downtown area. The City should continually strive to improve the downtown environment by providing infrastructure support and other assistance to promote private investment. Strategy #2 Pursue the redevelopment of the old Red Owl North Annex site at the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and TH 169 (Immediate Priority — 2000 — 2005). Comments: The 40± acre site at the intersection of TH 169 and Excelsior Boulevard is one of the most significant redevelopment sites in the Twin Cities area. It has the potential to help define the City of Hopkins because of its prominence. The City should support the redevelopment of the site as a corporate headquarters or major office development location. Hopkins Comprehensive Plan — Draft 3 (10/99) Page 64 2000 BUDGET - DEPARTMENT REQUESTS • Initial Requests Attached to this report is a listing of department requests for the year 2000 budget. The initial requests were approximately $250,000 over our established limit for the 2000 budget. Departments were than requested to postpone projects, eliminate programs or reduce needs for the year 2000. After this process we are at a current request of the maximum established budget for the year 2000. This includes a small contingency amount for the unresolved salary and benefits agreement for the year 2000. After the contracts are settled we may need to return to the departments and ask for further cuts. Attached you'll find a list of items departments cut out of their 2000 program budgets. The new program budgeting has been established. Attached is a listing of programs with affiliated revenues. We are requesting departments to provide each program's activities and objectives. POLICE The police department shows an increase over last years' budget of 4 %. The police department is broken down into thirteen programs. The police administration program is accounted for separately but is allocated to the direct service programs on a prorated basis. The programs with brief descriptions of their activities are as follows: • Property Room Management — public service officer managing evidence ceased property. • Patrol — police officers, public service officers, sergeants and detectives, enforcing the law. • Heat Team — Special force team for high -risk entries and operations. • Reserves — Working with police volunteers to assist regular officers in civic events, community outreach, ect... • Investigations — Follows through on criminal cases to closure. • Metro Drug Task Force — Works with other agencies to investigate drug related crimes in metro area. • Pawn Shop Management — Records pawnshop activities and coordinates the disposition of recovered stolen property. • Police Outreach — Community awareness and school programs • Chemical Health Commission — Liaison for commission • Police Counter Act — Drug prevention program for grade school. • Public Safety Answering Point — Answering police calls for service (911) • Reception and Records Checking — walk in customer service and checking records for police officers. • Systems and Records Management — Maintain police computer and records systems. COMMUNITY SERVICES The community service department shows a 2.4% increase over last years' budget. Community service has sixteen programs. The programs and a brief description follows: • Reception — Greet public, answer phones and receipting. • Assessing Information — Provide assessing information to other departments and customers • Homestead Information — Provide homestead information and services to residents • Property Valuation — Appraisals of new and existing property in Hopkins • Special Assessments — File special assessments with county auditor and reconcile accounts • Charter and City Council Administration — Record minutes of meetings and update codes • Licensing — Issue licenses and permits • Purchasing — Purchase materials, supplies and capital according to state statute • Records Management — Retain and archive necessary documents for city records • Elections — Manage election activities for city and school district • Building Code Inspections — Inspect buildings to ensure minimum state building code requirements are met. • Fire Inspections — Inspect building to ensure minimum fire safety standards are met • Heating and Plumbing Inspections — Inspect through construction phases • Housing Inspections — Inspect to ensure rental properties meet housing code • Restaurant/Hotel Inspections — Inspect restaurants through contracted services • Miscellaneous Inspections — Inspect homes for sale, nuisance violations, hazardous items, ect... PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The planning and community development department shows a reduction of expenditures over last years' by (4) %. This reduction is from employees time being accounted for in other areas, which are supported by special revenue funds. The planning and community development department has five programs. The programs and a brief description follows: • Committee Liaison — Work with zoning and planing committee • Zoning Activities and Enforcement — Administer and enforce zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan • Sign or Fence Permits — Review and issue permits for signs and fences • Miscellaneous Planning — Prepare planning documents and reports for development and redevelopment of city • Community Development Activity — Coordinate and implement community development activity • • POLICE DEPARTMENT CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Intragovermental Chargebacks TOTAL REVENUE Federal Grants State Aids State Grants 911 Service Fee Licenses Current Services Contributions TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) Chief of Police Captain Admin. Services Manager Sergeants Patrol Officers Narcotics Officer Investigators Crime Prevention Officer Dispatchers Public Service Officers Records Clerks Receptionists Pawn Shop Technician TOTAL Actual Actual 1996 1997 1998 Actual $ 1,988,459 $ 2,044,429 $ 2,249,480 $ 2,196,623 $ 2,238,201 $ 2,317,220 288,194 312,055 309,823 431,433 360,261 752,907 32,545 28,431 191,265 179,107 171,855 164,650 (354,298) 2,309,198 2,384,915 2,750,568 2,807,163 2,770,317 2,880,479 12,324 148,315 11,860 6,077 82,127 22,687 283,390 321,659 280,178 289,838 $ 2,025,808 $ 2,063,256 $ 2,470,390 $ 2,517,325 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 12.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 6.40 2.00 2.00 36.40 FINANCIAL SUMMARY 55,091 128,969 11,702 8,355 91,806 22,961 2,775 5,681 138,386 1,281 7,448 97,388 21,614 8,380 PERMANENT STAFFING 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 12.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 6.40 2.00 2.00 0.50 36.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 12.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.50 6.40 3.00 1.00 0.50 37.40 Projected Actual 1999 17,433 135,862 1,204 9,608 105,262 19,469 1,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 13.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 0.50 37.50 Budget 1999 5,800 144,737 1,200 8,700 93,700 19,200 1,000 274,337 $ 2,495,980 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 13.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 0.50 37.50 Approved Budget 2000 5,800 153,500 1,800 9,000 88,200 21,550 1,000 280,850 $ 2,599,629 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 13.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 0.50 37.50 .- FUNID 101 Percent Change 3.53% 108.99% - 4.19% 3.98% 6.05% 50.00% 3.45% - 5.87% 12.24% 2.37% 4.15% DEPT 42100 POLICE - ADMINISTRATION FUND 101 FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent CATEGORY 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits $ 216,704 $ 235,483 $ 246,596 $ 206,870 $ 249,297 $ 239,196 -4.05% Materials, Supplies and Services 54,336 51,708 39,298 71,815 47,819 60,510 26.54% Capital Outlay 4,136 3,342 58,382 56,064 56,067 54,592 -2.63% Intragovermental Chargebacks - - - - (354,298) - TOTAL 275,176 290,533 344,276 334,748 353,183 - - 100.00% REVENUE State Aids 20,764 18,493 19,380 19,020 20,300 - 100.00% State Grants 993 1,024 603 600 600 - 100.00% Contributions - 2,000 - - - TOTAL 21,757 19,517 19,983 19,620 20,900 - 100.00% NET COST (RETURN) $ 253,419 $ 271,016 $ 324,294 $ 315,128 $ 332,283 $ - - 100.00% Chief of Police Captain Administrative Sergeant Admin. Services Manager TOTAL Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 2.85 1 DEPT 42140 POLICE - PROPERTY ROOM MANAGEMENT FUND 101 CATEGORY FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ 41,619 Materials, Supplies and Services - - - - 4,923 Capital Outlay - - - - - TOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 46,542 REVENUE NET COST (RETURN) $ $ $ $ $ $ 46,542 Public Service Officers TOTAL Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 69 0.90 0.90 DEPT 42200 POLICE - PATROL CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL REVENUE Federal Grant State Aid State Grants P.O.S.T. Reimbursement Metro Drug Reimbursement Licenses Current Service Contributions TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) Actual 1996 $ 1,136,345 $ 112,651 16,003 FINANCIAL SUMMARY Actual 1997 1,264,999 1,284,118 12,324 55,091 102,931 92,144 9,690 5,076 4,593 14,000 14,000 14,442 17,234 2,775 Actual 1998 1,151,141 $ 1,259,796 $ 1,288,016 $ 1,223,073 $ 1,168,543 121,326 132,863 190,033 159,539 362,522 11,651 74,553 76,200 69,895 67,455 1,467,212 1,554,249 96,027 5,681 14,000 13,993 4,800 Projected Actual 1999 11,397 94,182 6,036 28,125 13,269 1,000 Budget 1999 1,452,507 100,589 5,800 14,000 12,100 1,000 Proposed Budget 2000 1,598,520 113,000 1,200 5,800 10,500 13,000 1,000 153,387 190,913 134,502 154,009 133,489 144,500 FUND 101 Percent Change - 4.46% 127.23% - 3.49% 10.05% 12.34% 7.44% 8.25% $ 1,111,612 $ 1,093,205 $ 1,332,710 $ 1,400,240 $ 1,319,018 $ 1,454,020 10.24% Sergeants Patrol Officers Narcotics Officer TOTAL Sojourner Intervention Project West Suburban Mediation Services Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 3.50 3.50 4.50 12.00 12.00 13.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.50 16.50 18.50 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES $ 8,800 $ 1,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Proposed 61 Manager Proposed 4.50 13.00 1.00 18.50 Adopted Budget 4.50 13.00 1.00 18.50 4.10 12.80 16.90 DEPT 42210 POLICE - HEAT TEAM FUND 101 EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay REVENUE State Grants TOTAL TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) $ FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent CATEGORY 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change - $ - $ - $ $ - $ 45,206 - - - 12,151 57,357 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 57,357 Sergeants Patrol Officers Investigator TOTAL Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 61 0.40 0.10 0.10 0.60 DEPT 42220 POLICE - RESERVES FUND 101 Projected Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent CATEGORY 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay REVENUE State Grants TOTAL TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) $ FINANCIAL SUMMARY - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 16,906 - - - - 7,748 24,654 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 24,654 Sergeants Patrol Officers TOTAL Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 61 0.15 0.10 0.25 I DEPT 42300 POLICE - INVESTIGATIONS CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL REVENUE Licenses, Liquor State Aid State Grants Current Serivces TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) Actual Actual 1996 1997 $ 182,575 51,181 233,756 68,127 20,467 979 89,573 FINANCIAL SUMMARY $ 184,978 $ 238,426 67,495 55,079 847 13,862 253,320 307,367 76,100 18,332 1,009 95,442 101,546 Projected Actual Actual 1998 1999 81,340 19,103 603 500 $ 171,720 $ 66,980 8,940 247,640 298,657 75,590 19,020 604 500 Budget 1999 233,090 56,622 8,945 78,000 19,969 600 95,714 98,569 Proposed Budget 2000 $ 225,165 103,592 8,680 FUND 101 Percent Change - 3.40% 82.95% - 2.96% 337,437 12.98% 76,000 -2.56% 19,000 -4.85% 600 500 96,100 -2.50% $ 144,183 $ 157,878 $ 205,821 $ 151,926 $ 200,088 $ 241,337 20.62% Sergeant Investigators TOTAL Care & Boarding of Prisoners Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 0.50 0.50 0.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES $ 43,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Proposed 63 Manager Proposed 0.50 3.00 3.50 Adopted Budget 0.50 3.00 3.50 0.50 2.80 3.30 1 DEPT 42310 POLICE - METRO DRUG TASK FORCE FUND 101 REVENUE State Grants CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL $ FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 63,838 - 11,253 TOTAL - - - - 75,091 NET COST (RETURN) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 75,091 Officer TOTAL Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 63 1.00 1.00 • / s DEPT 42320 POLICE - PAWN SHOP MANAGEMENT FUND 101 CATEGORY FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ 15,537 Materials, Supplies and Services - - - 7,156 Capital Outlay - - - TOTAL - - - 22,693 REVENUE Licenses, Pawn Shop - - - - - 17,800 TOTAL - - - - - 17,800 NET COST (RETURN) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 4,893 Pawn Shop Clerk Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 0.50 0.50 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 69 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 I DEPT 42400 POLICE - OUTREACH FUND 101 CATEGORY FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits $ 77,896 $ 49,813 $ 49,748 $ 51,376 $ 53,054 $ 50,264 -5.26% Materials, Supplies and Services 6,322 7,736 11,906 15,822 21,033 28,093 33.57% Capital Outlay - 3,375 478 1,468 466 498 6.87% TOTAL 84,218 60,924 62,132 68,666 74,553 78,855 5.77% REVENUES State Aids 4,153 - 3,876 3,640 3,880 3,700 -4.64% State Grants 198 - 75 - - - Contributions - 1,580 - - Other Miscellaneous 173 - 100 100 NET COST (RETURN) TOTAL 4,351 - 5,704 3,640 3,980 3,800 -4.52% $ 79,867 $ 60,924 $ 56,428 $ 65,026 $ 70,573 $ 75,055 6.35% Crime Prevention Officer Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 1.00 1.00 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 65 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 I DEPT 42410 POLICE - CHEMICAL HEALTH COMMISSION FUND 101 CA'I`EGORY REVENUES Other Miscellaneous TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,053 Materials, Supplies and Services - - - - - 1,995 Capital Outlay TOTAL - - - 8,048 $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ 8,048 Crime Prevention Officer Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 65 0.10 DEPT 42420 POLICE - COUNTER ACT FUND 101 CATEGORY REVENUES State Grants Other Miscellaneous TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ 6,157 Materials, Supplies and Services - - - 5,373 Capital Outlay - TOTAL - - - - 11,530 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ 11,530 Investigator Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 65 0.10 I DEPT 42500 POLICE - DISPATCH EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay REVENUE 911 Service Fee CATEGORY TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) Actual 1996 $ 198,672 24,149 6,077 FINANCIAL SUMMARY Actual 1997 8,355 1998 $ 211,576 $ 221,203 23,182 26,877 - - 34,202 222,821 234,758 282,282 287,261 7,448 Projected Actual 1999 $ 226,887 28,403 31,972 Budget 1999 $ 209,872 $ 170,206 28,235 56,311 31,976 29,945 9,608 8,700 Projected Budget 2000 9,000 FUND 101 Percent Change - 18.90% 99.44% -6.35% 270,083 256,462 -5.04% 3.45% $ 216,744 $ 226,403 $ 274,834 $ 277,653 $ 261,383 $ 247,462 -5.33% Dispatchers Public Service Officers TOTAL Radio Service Contract 9 -1 -1 Equipment Lease Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 1.00 3.20 4.20 1.00 3.20 4.20 $ 5,400 $ 11,845 CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Proposed 67 4.50 ■ 4.50 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES Manager Proposed 4.50 Adopted Budget 4.50 5.00 ■ 5.00 3.75 0.20 3.95 DEPT 42600 POLICE - RECEPTION/RECORDS CHECKING CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL REVENUE Animal License Animal Control Fees Current Services TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) Projected Actual Actual Actual Actual 1996 1997 1998 1999 $ 29,991 $ 8,133 3,113 41,237 4,108 4,108 FINANCIAL SUMMARY 44,205 $ 49,383 $ 6,739 5,713 953 3,599 51,897 58,695 1,706 2,048 1,355 1,248 548 1,876 3,609 5,172 46,505 $ 6,966 53,472 1,547 1,209 1,000 3,756 Budget 1999 Proposed Budget 2000 83,956 $ 73,860 8,198 19,052 92,154 92,912 1,700 1,700 1,000 1,200 2,000 1,500 4,700 4,400 FUND 101 Percent Change - 12.03% 132.40% 0.82% 20.00% - 25.00% -6.38% $ 37,129 $ 48,288 $ 53,523 $ 49,716 $ 87,454 $ 88,512 1.21% Dispatchers Police Secretary Records Technician Public Service Officers TOTAL Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 1.00 3.20 4.20 1.00 3.20 4.20 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Proposed 69 1.50 3.20 4.70 Manager Proposed 1.50 3.20 4.70 Adopted Budget 2.00 2.00 1.25 0.15 0.45 1.85 I DEPT 42700 POLICE - SYSTEMS AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT REVENUE Current Services CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) Actual 1996 $ 146,276 $ 167,233 $ 185,093 31,424 33,869 38,087 9,293 8,263 6,189 186,993 209,365 4,137 FINANCIAL SUMMARY Actual 1997 3,824 $ 182,856 $ 205,541 Projected Actual 1998 1999 Actual 229,369 3,824 $ 186,308 $ 48,198 4,463 238,969 3,491 Budget 1999 Proposed Budget 2000 185,859 $ 194,670 38,815 72,228 4,506 3,480 229,180 4,000 FUND 101 Percent Change 4.74% 86.08% - 22.77% 270,378 17.98% 3,750 -6.25% $ 225,545 $ 235,478 $ 225,180 $ 266,628 18.41% Records Technician Receptionist Public Service Officer Pawn Shop Technician TOTAL Office Supplies Equipment Maintenance Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 2.00 1.00 3.00 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES $ 15,000 22,000 2.00 1.00 3.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Proposed 63 3.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 Manager Proposed 3.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 Adopted Budget 3.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 2.55 0.85 0.90 4.30 DEPT: COMMUNITY SERVICES FUND 101 CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Receptionist Assessing Information Homestead Information Property Valuation Special Assessments Charter & Council Administration Licensing Purchasing Records Management Elections Building Code Inspections Fire Inspections Heating and Plumbing Inspections Housing Inspections Restaurant/Hotel Inspections Miscellaeous Inspections TOTAL FINANCIAL SUMMARY $ Proposed Budget Budget Percent 1999 2000 Change $ 44,775 86,397 32,594 85,060 19,981 16,100 8,532 9,440 7,954 29,672 109,351 34,221 68,807 45,738 33,976 74,221 690,125 706,819 2.42% REVENUE Assessing Information 300 Licensing 7,200 Elections - Building Code Inspections 85,875 Fire Inspections 28,625 Heating and Plumbing Inspections 57,250 Housing Inspections 28,625 Restaurant/Hotel Inspections 28,625 Miscellaneous Inspections 57,250 NET COST (RETURN) TOTAL 286,115 293,750 $ 404,010 $ 413,069 2.24% • * 0 COMMUNITY SERVICES BUDGET Revenues and Expenditures Projected Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change Revenues Licenses $ 31,332 $ 34,030 $ 36,825 $ 29,885 $ 45,700 $ 28,000 - 38.73% Permits 222,311 232,429 181,053 225,000 198,300 220,000 10.94% Current Services 59,380 51,833 43,612 79,830 41,915 45,500 8.55% Miscellaneous 391 - 477 350 200 250 25.00% Total Revenues 313,414 318,292 261,967 335,065 286,115 293,750 2.67% Expenditures Salaries, Wages and Benefits Salaries and Wages 428,150 461,293 464,420 468,992 465,093 491,124 5.60% Fringe Benefits 98,625 100,556 102,290 116,797 122,475 131,954 7.74% Materials, Supplies and Services Professional & Technical Services 4,755 5,867 5,627 9,162 21,813 23,888 9.51% Utilities and Maintenance 7,865 8,045 7,724 12,361 11,314 10,910 -3.57% Operations 18,830 17,233 22,493 17,429 23,366 25,332 8.41% City Support Services 1,355 2,226 22,181 21,321 18,300 - 14.17% Supplies and Materials 9,213 11,356 11,357 12,173 # 11,500 11,800 2.61% Capital Outlay Office Furniture and Equipment 4,287 14,703 3,803 1,106 21,900 3,500 - 84.02% Computers 6,487 20,400 - Equipment Allocation - 11,000 14,331 14,343 13,509 -5.81% Total Expenditures 571,725 620,408 637,427 694,932 713,125 730,317 2.41% Reimbursed Expenditures (19,550) (20,000) (22,125) (21,960) (23,000) (23,500) 2.17% Net Total Expenditures 552,175 600,408 615,302 672,972 690,125 706,817 2.42% Indirectly Funded Amount 520,843 566,378 578,477 643,087 644,425 678,817 5.34% DEPT RECEPTION FUND 101 REVENUE CATEGORY NET COST (RETURN) FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits $ 78,356 $ 73,060 $ 79,540 $ 79,012 $ 41,993 - 46.85% Materials, Supplies and Services 1,355 2,226 4,548 3,627 1,472 - 59.42% Capital Outlay 663 2,144 3,678 3,886 1,310 - 66.29% TOTAL 80,374 77,430 87,766 86,525 44,775 - 48.25% $ 80,374 $ 77,430 $ 87,766 $ 86,525 $ 44,775 - 48.25% Assistant City Manager Receptionist TOTAL Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 45 1.50 1.50 0.50 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.05 DEPT ASSESSING FUND 101 CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL REVENUE Charges for Services Assessment Search Fees NET COST (RETURN) Actual 1996 $ 156,642 $ 10,343 1,621 180 FINANCIAL SUMMARY Actual 1997 166,531 10,842 2,860 168,606 180,233 120 Actual 1998 $ 178,020 $ 13,222 5,820 197,062 Projected Actual 1999 203,470 Budget 1999 181,073 $ 181,977 18,577 20,291 3,819 3,819 206,087 103 70 100 240 120 200 $ 168,426 $ 180,113 $ 196,822 $ 203,350 $ 205,887 Budget 2000 $ 197,959 21,938 4,135 224,032 100 200 $ 223,832 Percent Change 8.78% 8.12% 8.27% 8.71% 8.72% City Assessor Assistant City Manager Residential Appraiser Special Assessment Clerk TOTAL Travel, Conference, Schools - Communications - Subscriptions & Memberships - General Supplies - Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Proposed 47 1.00 1.00 1.00 Manager Proposed 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 Adopted Budget 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 3.10 DEPT: ASSESSING FUND 101 CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Assessing Information Homestead Information Property Valuation Special Assessments TOTAL TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) FINANCIAL SUMMARY $ Proposed Budget Budget Percent 1999 2000 Change $ 86,397 32,594 85,060 19,981 206,087 224,032 8.71% REVENUE Charges for Services 100 100 Assessment Search Fees 200 200 300 300 $ 205,787 $ 223,732 8.72% Assessing Information Homestead Information Property Valuation Special Assessments TOTAL PERMANENT STAFFING 1.20 0.55 1.05 0.30 3.10 DEPT CITY CLERK REVENUES Licenses Current Services CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay Intragovernmental Charges TOTAL TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) Actual 1996 $ 88,107 $ 3,985 (19,550) 72,542 12,424 2,009 14,433 $ 58,109 $ FINANCIAL SUMMARY Actual 1997 43,143 4,372 3,401 (20,000) 30,916 12,270 100 12,370 18,546 $ Actual 1998 $ 44,878 4,209 1,991 (22,125) 28,953 12,210 244 12,454 16,499 $ Projected Actual 1999 $ 50,279 $ 5,461 2,740 (21,960) 36,519 6,885 225 7,110 29,409 $ Budget 1999 41,651 6,453 2,920 (23,000) 28,024 Budget 2000 FUND 101 Percent Change $ 54,281 30.32% 6,525 1.12% 4,720 61.64% (23,500) 2.17% 42,026 49.96% 25,700 7,000 - 72.76% 200 200 25,900 7,200 - 72.20% 2,124 $ 34,826 1539.64% City Clerk Assistant City Manager Item Requested Total PERMANENT STAFFING 0.80 0.80 0.80 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Proposed $ $ 49 Manager Proposed $ 0.80 Adopted Budget 0.80 0.85 0.10 0.95 DEPT: CITY CLERK CATEGORY FINANCIAL SUMMARY FUND 101 Proposed Budget Budget Percent 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Charter & Council Administration $ $ 16,100 Licensing 8,532 Purchasing 9,440 Records Management 7,954 TOTAL 28,024 42,026 49.96% REVENUE Licenses 25,700 11,000 - 57.20% Current Services 200 200 TOTAL 25,900 11,200 - 56.76% NET COST (RETURN) $ 2,124 $ 30,826 1351.32% Charter & Council Administration Licensing Purchasing Records Management TOTAL PERMANENT STAFFING 0.35 0.15 0.25 0.20 0.95 DEPT ELECTIONS FUND 101 CATEGORY FINANCIAL SUMMARY Projected Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Percent 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits $ 21,760 $ 7,252 $ 22,419 $ 14,200 $ 18,445 $ 25,498 38.24% Materials, Supplies and Services 6,349 5,898 4,733 6,160 8,342 4,174 - 49.96% TOTAL 28,109 13,150 27,152 20,360 26,787 29,672 10.77% REVENUE Hopkins School District - 2,600 - 4,415 4,415 - - 100.00% NET COST (RETURN) $ 28,109 $ 10,550 $ 27,152 $ 15,945 $ 22,372 $ 29,672 32.63% City Clerk Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 0.20 0.20 0.20 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 51 0.20 0.20 0.15 DEPT INSPECTION FUND 101 REVENUES Licenses Permits Current Services Miscellaneous CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) Actual 1996 $ 260,266 19,986 2,666 282,918 18,908 222,311 57, 191 391 298,801 $ (15,883) FINANCIAL SUMMARY Actual 1997 $ 266,567 $ 248,333 21,389 25,037 7,779 11,335 295,735 21,760 232,429 49,013 303,202 $ (7,467) Projected Actual 1998 1999 Actual $ 260,697 38,560 25,600 284,705 324,857 24,615 23,000 181,053 225,000 43,025 75,000 477 350 249,170 323,350 $ 35,535 $ 1,507 Budget 1999 $ 266,483 $ 50,601 25,618 Budget 2000 Percent Change 303,347 13.83% 56,121 10.91% 6,844 - 73.28% 342,702 366,312 6.89% 20,000 198,300 37,000 200 21,000 5.00% 220,000 10.94% 45,000 21.62% 250 25.00% 255,500 286,250 12.04% $ 87,202 $ 80,062 -8.19% Assistant City Manager Fire Marshal Building Official Secretary Inspectors TOTAL Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 0.20 1.00 0.50 3.00 4.70 0.20 1.00 0.50 3.00 4.70 CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Proposed 0.20 1.00 0.50 3.00 4.70 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES Manager Proposed 55 0.20 1.00 0.50 3.00 4.70 0.20 1.00 0.50 3.00 4.70 0.15 0.20 1.00 0.50 3.00 4.85 Personal Services are a major part of this activity. Another large part is Travel, Conference, Schools. It takes a large share partially due to state continuing education requirements for the inspectors, and a substantial amount paid in mileage to inspectors using their own cars. Adopted Budget DEPT: INSPECTION FUND 101 REVENUE Licenses Permits Current Services Miscellaneous CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Building Code Inspections Fire Inspections Heating and Plumbing Inspections Housing Inspections Restaurant/Hotel Inspections Miscellaneous Inspections TOTAL TOTAL NET COST (RETURN) FINANCIAL SUMMARY $ Budget 1999 342,702 20,000 198,300 37,000 200 255,500 $ 87,202 $ Proposed Budget 2000 $ 109,351 34,221 68,807 45,738 33,976 74,221 366,312 21,000 220,000 45,000 250 286,250 Percent Change 6.89% 5.00% 10.94% 21.62% 25.00% 12.04% 80,062 -8.19% Building Code Inspections Fire Inspections Heating and Plumbing Inspections Housing Inspections Restaurant/Hotel Inspections Miscellaneous Inspections TOTAL PERMANENT STAFFING 1.45 0.45 1.00 0.70 0.45 1.00 5.05 DEPT 46100 PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY EXPENDITURES Salaries and Employee Benefits Materials, Supplies and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL Less Charges to Other Departments NET TOTAL REVENUE Permits and Licenses State Grants Other Grants Charges for Services Development fees Variances NET COST (RETURN) Actual 1996 $ 78,291 $ 9,558 87,849 87,849 2,202 FINANCIAL SUMMARY Actual 1997 121,168 $ 125,020 $ 125,431 $ 16,870 13,817 40,705 - 5,162 4,119 138,038 143,999 170,255 - - (9,900) 13 8,03 8 143,999 160,355 3,250 Projected Actual 1998 1999 Actual 2,013 2,500 6,903 350 5,500 1,465 399 1,600 Budget 1999 121,899 26,004 4,119 152,022 (9,900) 142,122 1,000 1,000 3,000 Budget 2000 $ 112,313 20,590 3,493 136,396 136,396 30,586 3,000 FUND 101 Percent Change - 7.86% - 20.82% - 15.20% - 10.28% - 4.03% 2,202 3,250 17,266 3,464 4,000 34,586 764.65% $ 85,647 $ 134,788 $ 126,733 $ 156,891 $ 138,122 $ 101,810 - 26.29% Plan. & Econ. Dev. Director Planner Secretary TOTAL Item Requested PERMANENT STAFFING 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.40 1.40 SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES 110 1.40 0.55 0.85 1.40 CAPITAL OUTLAY DETAIL Dept. Manager Adopted Proposed Proposed Budget 0.55 0.85 1.40 0.50 0.85 0.50 1.85 DEPT 46100 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND 101 CATEGORY FINANCIAL SUMMARY Proposed Budget Budget Percent 1999 2000 Change EXPENDITURES Committee Liason $ 9,430 Zoning Activities and Enforcement 61,789 Sign or Fence Permits 13,148 Miscellaneous Planning 23,340 Community Development Activity - 28,689 TOTAL 142,122 136,396 -4.03% REVENUE Permits and Licenses 1,000 1,000 Variances 3,000 3,000 TOTAL 4,000 4,000 NET COST (RETURN) 138,122 $ 132,396 -4.15% PERMANENT STAFFING Committee Liason Zoning Activities and Enforcement Sign or Fence Permits Miscellaneous Planning Community Development Activity TOTAL 0.05 0.85 0.20 0.35 0.40 1.85