Loading...
2019/03/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA MARCH 25, 2019 (City Manager Harmening out) 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community room Discussion items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning 2. 6:35 p.m. Outdoor parking lighting ordinance 3. 7:05 p.m. Affordable housing strategies and tenant protection tools 4. 7:35 p.m. Crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup applications 5. 8:20 p.m. 2019 Market value overview 9:20 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 9:25 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 6. Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program 7. SWLRT update 8. February 2019 monthly financial report 9. Update to private activity revenue bond policy 10. Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the administration department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Future study session agenda planning Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on April 8, 2019. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the special study session on March 18, 2019 and the regularly scheduled study session on March 25, 2019. Also attached to this report is: - Study session discussion topics and timeline -Proposed topic for future study session discussion: o Placemaking for the Dakota Park Bridge - proposed by councilmember Rog Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – April 8, 2019 Study session discussion topics and timeline Study session topic proposed for future study session discussion Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Reviewed by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning April 8, 2019. 6:15 p.m. – Convene Local Board of Appeal & Equalization -- Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. – Study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes) 2.Community center project – Ops and Rec / Administrative services (60 minutes) Council requested this item come back for further discussion on whether to continue to pursue a community center project in St. Louis Park. 3.Ground floor transparency requirements – Community development (30 minutes) A discussion with the Planning Commission regarding the commission’s recommendation of denial for zoning regulations for ground floor window transparency requirements. 4.2019 work plan for planning commission – Community development (30 minutes) The city council has requested a meeting with the chair of each board/commission to review 2019 work plans. Planning commissioners will attend the study session on April 8 to discuss their 2019 work plan. Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written reports 5.Dakota Bikeway and Bridge Project No. 4019-2000 6.Food security/access study update 7.Proposed property purchase – 5643 Minnetonka Blvd 8.Zero waste packaging ordinance revisions End of meeting: 8:40 p.m. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning Study session discussion topics and timeline Discussion topic Comments Date Scheduled Crime free ordinance/affordable housing strategies Discussed 5/14/18. 1st reading housing trust fund 10/1/18; Other affordable housing strategies/Crime Free Ordinance – Nov/Dec, 12/10 and 12/17/18 and 1/14/19 council discussion; Certain provisions of crime free ord. suspended; Work group being formed CFO work group to be discussed March 25, 2019 Zoning guidelines for transparency requirements Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. April 8, 2019 Community center project 60 min. discussion scheduled April 8, 2019 Firearm sales Discussed 5/21/18 & 7/23. Written report provided at 9/24 study session. PC currently reviewing ordinance options. Policy on city facilities adopted 10/15. Going to PC April 15 or May 6, 2019 C-1 zoning district retail and service use restrictions Discussed on 6/11/18; referred to PC. Discussed 11/26/18; SS report 2/25/19; Discussed 3/11/19 –further discussion requested by council April 22, 2019 Revitalization of Walker Lake area Part of preserving Walker building reports: 8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, design study 2/12/18, update 4/23/18, design study update 8/27/18; SS report 2/11/19 May, 2019 Immigration & supporting families Discussed 8/6 and referred to HRC. HRC held comm. mtg. in Oct. Council/HRC discussion on 12/10; referred back to HRC for refinement of recommendations. May, 2019 Accessory dwelling units/home-based businesses June, 2019 Discuss and evaluate our public process TBD Easy access to nature, across city, starting with low-income neighborhoods TBD Utility pricing policy TBD Westwood Hills Nature Center Access Fund *On hold pending discussion with school district. *On hold STEP discussion: facilities Discussed on 1/14/19; *On hold until community center is discussed. *On hold SEED’s community greenhouse/resilient cities initiative *On hold until Food Access and Security study is complete and recommendations have been made.*On hold Discuss Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; adoption postponed on 5/21/18. Discussed at Jan. Retreat; discussed on 3/18/19 Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Future study session agenda planning Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Outdoor parking lighting ordinance Recommended action: No formal action at this time. Please review the ordinance summary and provide direction to staff. Policy consideration: Does the proposed zoning ordinance amendment promote safe and effective lighting for parking lots, and protect neighboring properties from nuisance lighting? Summary: An ordinance was presented to the council on January 7, 2019 that established standards for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) and revised lighting requirements for parking lots. The council approved the (EVSE) standards, but tabled the parking lot lighting revisions. Staff reviewed the Illumination Engineering Society (IES) recommendations and determined that less significant modifications to the current regulations could be supported and still provide lighting that is both safe and has minimal impact on adjacent properties. Therefore, staff revised and reduced some of the light levels recommended in the previous draft ordinance. Staff provided a summary of these changes in a March 11, 2019 study session report. The changes are summarized again in the attached discussion. The purpose of the proposed changes is to provide safe, secure and effective lighting for users of parking lots in the city. The changes reconcile conflicting provisions in the current ordinance. The changes allow for more lighting during business hours in order to address the needs of all users, require lighting to be reduced after business hours, and continue to protect neighboring properties from nuisances that can be caused by outdoor lighting. Next steps: If the revisions are acceptable to the council, then staff will prepare an ordinance to be brought back to the council for approval of the first reading on the April 15, 2019. Financial or budget considerations: No considerations. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Table comparing the changes to the lighting ordinance Definitions to key terms Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Outdoor parking lighting ordinance Discussion Background: The zoning ordinance includes lighting standards for parking lots and parking structures to ensure safe lighting levels for users of all ages. It also includes controls to reduce or eliminate spillover lighting and glare onto nearby properties. These standards are reinforced by studies conducted by the IES. Below is a summary of the proposed changes. There is also a table that compares the various proposals that have been shown to city council. Additionally, definitions to some key terms are provided at the end of the report. Summary of issues and proposed changes. Staff reviewed the council comments received at the January 7, 2019 meeting, and revisited the IES standards. Staff made adjustments to the proposed ordinance to better address the concerns expressed by the council, while remaining consistent with IES recommendations. A summary of the revisions is as follows: 1.Adjacent to residential. City code limits lighting to a maximum of 0.5 footcandles at the property line adjacent to residential. No changes are proposed. The city’s existing regulations have been effective to address community concerns. 2.Adjacent to non-residential. City code limits lighting to a maximum of 1.0 footcandles at the property line adjacent to non-residential properties, including public right-of-ways. No changes are proposed. The city’s existing regulations have been effective to address community concerns. 3.Maximum average allowed. City code has conflicting regulations. Section 6-361(k)(8) which regulates parking lots requires between 0.4 and 1.0 footcandles. Section 36-363(d)(2), which regulates lighting, requires the IES recommended light levels (which are higher than 0.4 – 1.0 footcandles). The staff recommendation is to resolve this conflict by using the lowest IES recommendation, which is 3.0 footcandles for persons of all ages. This light level acknowledges that some people need more light than others, including older people and people with vision impairments. 4.Minimum/maximum levels. The previous ordinance added minimum and maximum light levels as reflected from asphalt and concrete surfaces. This is not in the current code, and it is an alternative method of measuring light, making it redundant and unnecessary. Therefore, staff removed it from consideration in the revised ordinance. 5.After hours. The previous draft ordinance added maximum light levels after business hours, which does not exist in the current code. Staff reviewed the maximum light levels, and revised them to lowest levels recommended by IES for maintaining safety and security. 6.Parking structures. Staff revised the structured parking lighting to differentiate between fully enclosed structures and structures that are open to the sides. Fully enclosed is proposed to stay at a maximum average of 5.0 footcandles. Partially enclosed was reduced to an average of 3.0 footcandles, which is consistent with parking lots. The code already includes provisions that control light spill and glare. No changes are proposed to these provisions. The city’s regulations have been effective for staff to address community concerns related to these two issues. The code requires all outdoor parking lighting fixtures to be shielded and/or downward cast and mounted at a certain (maximum) height. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Outdoor parking lighting ordinance Site Visit: In the previous report, staff provided two sites as opportunities to visit and see how light levels are perceived. For reference when reading the chart below, please note that both Miracle Mile and the portion of the Shoppes at Knollwood parking lot located between the new Chick-fil-A and the mall meet the requirements below. Table comparing changes to the lighting ordinance Parking Lot: Existing Code Previous Proposal Revised Proposal Maximum light levels at property line adjacent to residential 0.5 fc No change No change Maximum light levels at property line adjacent to non- residential and right- of-way. 1.0 fc No change No change Maximum average light level allowed. 1.0 fc and as recommended by IES* 5.0 fc 3.0 fc which is consistent with IES Maximum light levels in parking lot. Does not address. 7.0 fc on asphalt 14.0 fc on concrete Removed from proposed ordinance. Minimum light levels in parking lot. Does not address 0.5 fc on asphalt 1.0 fc on concrete Removed from proposed ordinance. Light levels after business hours. Does not address Maximum average between 0.2 and 2.8 fc. Maximum average of 1.0 fc which is consistent with IES. Structured parking: Existing Code Previous Proposal Revised Proposal Maximum average. 1.0 fc 5.0 fc 5.0 fc fully enclosed. 3.0 fc covered, but open sides. Top deck Does not address. Treat as parking lot No change. Motion detectors Does not address. Lighting shall be between 0.2 and 2.8 fc when no motion detected. Lighting shall not exceed 1.0 fc when no motion detected. Light level at entrance/exit Does not address 1.0 to 14.0 fc 5.0 fc for all structures. * The current code has conflicting regulations. The parking section of the code states a maximum average of 1.0 fc. The lighting section of the code requires lighting not to exceed the IES recommendations, which is 3.0 fc for persons of all ages. fc = Footcandles Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: Outdoor parking lighting ordinance Definitions to key terms Below are some key terms in the ordinance and IES recommendations as they relate to the parking lot lighting discussion. Parking structures include underground and above ground parking structures where the parking surface is not open to the sky. Parking lots include any parking surface that is open to the sky, such as a typical parking lot constructed on the ground and the upper level of a parking ramp when it is open to the sky. Footcandles. The basic unit of illuminance or the amount of light falling on a surface. One footcandle is approximately equal to the illuminance produced by a light source of one candle in intensity, measured on a surface at a distance of one foot above grade. Footcandles can be measured both horizontally and vertically by a footcandle or light meter. Light Spill. Light that falls beyond the boundaries of the property on which the lighting installation is located and because of quantitative, directional or spectral content causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. Glare. The sensation produced directly by a light source or indirectly from reflective surfaces within the visual field that is sufficiently brighter than the level to which the eyes are adapted, which can cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. The magnitude of glare depends on such factors as the size, position, brightness of the source, and on the brightness level to which the eyes are adapted. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Affordable housing strategies and tenant protection tools Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to review several proposed strategies and tools with the council that will further the creation and preservation of affordable housing opportunities and advance tenant protections. Policy consideration: Does the council support amending the inclusionary housing policy to expand the eligibility criteria and include a one-for-one NOAH unit replacement requirement? Does the council support a tenant protection policy requiring owners to provide a notice to tenants prior to filing an unlawful detainer eviction action for nonpayment of rent and adding an annual reporting requirement of eviction filings as part of the yearly rental licensing process? Summary: At the study session, staff will review two proposed amendments to the inclusionary housing policy that will further support the creation and preservation of affordable housing units, a policy to promote tenant protection for all rental residents in St. Louis Park and a rental licensing reporting requirement. The proposed initiatives include: •Expanding the inclusionary housing policy eligibility criteria to include developments seeking Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use approvals or developments requesting a comprehensive plan amendment. •Adding a one-for-one replacement requirement in the inclusionary housing policy for NOAH units demolished or eliminated during the development of a new multi-family rental property. •Implementation of a Notice of Eviction policy that would require a notice be provided to tenants prior to the filing of an unlawful detainer eviction action for nonpayment of rent. •Require annual reporting of the number of evictions filed and the reason for the action as part of the yearly rental licensing renewal process. Financial or budget considerations: Implementation and ongoing management and monitoring of these policies/programs will require additional city staff time, as well as direct costs related to educating rental property owners of the new requirements. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, CD Deputy Director and Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session Meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Affordable housing strategies and tenant protection tools Discussion Background: Inclusionary housing policy The inclusionary housing policy was initially approved in June 2015 and amended in May 2017 and again in August 2018. The policy requires new market-rate multi-family residential rental properties with ten or more units, receiving financial assistance from the city, to include a specific number of affordable units in the development per the policy. In an effort to increase the production of affordable units and ensure that any NOAH units lost due to multi-family residential development are replaced, staff is proposing the following two amendments to the policy: •Expanded inclusionary housing policy compliance criteria: expand the eligibility criteria to include developments seeking PUD land use approvals and/or developments requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, even if they are not receiving financial assistance from the city. •One-for-one replacement policy: developments that are required to comply with the inclusionary housing policy must include a minimum number of affordable units in the development equal to: 1) the percentages established in the inclusionary policy; or 2) the number of naturally occurring affordable housing dwelling units being removed, whichever is greater. NOAH units that are demolished or converted to a use other than lower-income dwelling units in connection with construction of the development will be required to be replaced within the development. Tenant protection strategies Recent studies have shown that most evictions occur for non-payment of rent and that by providing tenants additional notice before an unlawful detainer action is brought, the tenants are often able to access financial resources and avoid eviction. In an effort to provide additional time to St. Louis Park tenants facing potential eviction for non-payment of rent, staff is proposing that a Notice of Eviction be provided by the property owner to the tenant prior to filing of an unlawful detainer. •Notice of eviction: before bringing an unlawful detainer eviction action alleging a material breach of the lease for nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations, a property owner must provide written notice to the residential tenant specifying: 1) the allegations of nonpayment of rent or other unpaid financial obligations; 2) the total amount due along with a specific accounting of the total amount due; and 3) that property owner may proceed with filing an unlawful detainer eviction action if the material breach of the lease or the rent delinquency is not corrected within 14 days of the delivery or mailing of the notice. The notice must be delivered personally or mailed to the residential tenant at the address of the leased premises. The landlord must attach a copy of the notice to the complaint, if filed. •Annual report of unlawful detainer actions: as part of the annual rental licensing renewal process, rental property owners will be required to report the number of unlawful detainer eviction actions that were filed on any of their residential tenants throughout the year and the reason for filing. Currently, the Housing Authority provides a similar notice of eviction to tenants of the city’s public housing, per HUD requirements. Study session Meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Affordable housing strategies and tenant protection tools Also of note in relation to this tenant protection proposal, a bill was introduced at the Minnesota State Legislature this session that would have required a related notice be provided to tenants prior to filing an unlawful detainer eviction action. Unfortunately, the bill failed to obtain a hearing in the senate and will not be moving further this legislative session. Staff has consulted the city’s legal counsel on both the inclusionary amendments and the notice prior to eviction. Counsel’s opinion is that the city has the local authority to implement the new policies and impose new requirements but cautioned that there is always a risk that they could be challenged. Next steps: Based on council’s direction, staff will work with legal counsel to amend the inclusionary housing policy and return for formal council approval. Implementation of the notice of eviction policy will require a codification to the city ordinance, most likely in the tenant protection ordinance. Staff will work with legal council and return to a future meeting to review the proposed ordinance. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Discussion item: 4 Executive summary Title: Crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup applications Recommended action: Council to review the applications of persons interested in serving on the crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup and recommend appointment of the workgroup members. Policy consideration: Does the council wish to appoint the crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup members from the applications received? Summary: The crime/drug free rental housing ordinance took effect in 2008 in response to concerns from residents who lived in or adjacent to rental properties experiencing disorderly or criminal activity. Discussions were held by council on the crime/drug free housing ordinance in May and December, 2018. At the December 17, 2018 city council meeting, council adopted a resolution to suspend sending notices of violations of city code Section 8-331 to the owners of rental properties to allow time for further study. The council also gave direction to staff to prepare a report with recommendations from community development/housing staff regarding the convening of a workgroup of key stakeholders to review and evaluate the crime/drug free ordinance for the purpose of providing recommendations to the city council on possible modifications to the ordinance. Staff presented an outline of a proposed process for convening the workgroup at the council’s January 14, 2019 study session meeting and a revised workgroup process at the January 28, 2019 meeting that incorporated the comments and suggestions received from the council. Staff advertised for and solicited applications for workgroup members between February 1, 2019 and March 15, 2019. Staff received 25 applications, consisting of renters, rental property owners, neighbors, community members, and advocates. Financial or budget considerations: No specific budget for the study has yet been developed. However, it is estimated that meeting facilitation and miscellaneous expenses including transportation, daycare and refreshments for the workgroup process should not exceed $5,000. The funding resource for this expense will be the Housing Rehab Fund. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Workgroup process outline Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup applications Discussion Background: Application process: Applications were accepted from February 1 through March 15, 2019. In an effort to reach key stakeholders that are most impacted by the crime/drug free ordinance, the city employed a broad public outreach process, which included: •Postings on the city’s web site, Facebook page, Twitter, Next Door, and gov delivery •An announcement and request for applications was mailed to all housing choice voucher participants and public housing tenants. •An email seeking applicants was sent to rental owners on the city’s St. Louis Park Area Rental Coalition (SPARC) distribution list. •An article was run in the Sun Sailor regarding the city’s efforts to convene a workgroup and soliciting applications. •Staff contacted a number of affordable, supportive and market rate multi-family housing developments. •Staff enlisted STEP and the St. Louis Park Housing team to assist in recruiting applicants, including referrals and recommendations. •Staff contacted a number of individuals directly, even facilitating taking applications over the phone for persons unable to access the application on-line or otherwise. •Council contacted a number of individuals seeking applicants and referrals. •Staff consulted with the city’s race equity staff. A total of twenty-five applications were received. Applicants were asked which stakeholder group they most identified with and whether they had been directly impacted by the ordinance. Applications were received from the following stakeholder groups: •Renters:4 •Owners:6 •Neighbors:2 •Community members:12 •Advocates:1 Proposed selection process: In an effort to select a final workgroup roster that includes demographic diversity and an equitable representation from each of the various stakeholder groups it is suggested that a process be used in which each council member identify ten candidates from the twenty-five applications submitted to serve on the workgroup. Copies of the applications and a ballot were provided to the council in an email sent out last week. Council is requested to review the applications and bring their completed ballot to the meeting, the votes will be tallied and presented when the item is discussed. Staff suggests the council choose ten members for the workgroup and two to three alternates in the event a member is unable to serve. Staff also suggests the council consider having a majority of the members (6) from the stakeholder groups most impacted: renters and property owners. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup applications Council can choose to appoint the final workgroup members based on the selection results, or choose to discuss further and consider applicants outside the ten applications receiving the most votes. This approach may be appropriate to ensure equitable representation from the various stakeholder groups. Next Steps: A contract has been executed with Cathy Bennett, Bennett Community Consulting, to facilitate the workgroup process. Staff is working with Ms. Bennett to draft the agenda for the first meeting and the meeting process beyond. Upon confirmation of the workgroup members, staff will contact all the applicants to inform them of the council’s decision. Based on the availability of the selected workgroup members, the first meeting will be scheduled within a few weeks of the council selection. As requested by the council, a listening session for community members and advocates to testify to the workgroup will be scheduled early in the process. Staff will keep the council informed through periodic updates and will plan to return at the end of the process with recommendations. Staff is anticipating the process will take approximately 6 months. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup applications Crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup outline: •Purpose The workgroup’s purpose is to 1) conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the impact of the crime/drug free ordinance; 2) determine the effectiveness of the ordinance; 3) identify any unintended consequences or concerns; and 4) make recommendations to the council on possible modifications to the ordinance, up to and including possible repeal, to help promote safe, livable rental properties that are responsive to the needs of tenants, property owners/managers and the community. •Workgroup composition Staff proposes that workgroup representatives include key stakeholders. Key stakeholders are defined as those groups most affected by the ordinance, including rental property owners/managers, tenants and other members of the community. •Workgroup size To allow for productive, positive interactions among members, staff proposes the workgroup include a maximum of 10 members. •Meeting facilitation Staff proposes using an outside, impartial party to facilitate the workgroup, so as to conduct the process in an unbiased manner. Staff recommends Cathy Bennett, Bennett Community Consulting, for this role. Cathy facilitated the city’s NOAH preservation workgroup discussions, works with the Urban Land Institute MN, is a former community development department staff person for the City of Roseville, and is a facilitator for both the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) housing committee and the regional NOAH preservation workgroup. Having an impartial party facilitate the meetings will also allow for confidential communications between the facilitator and the participants to then be shared anonymously with the work group, if needed/desired by the work group members. Meetings will be held at times and locations in the community that are responsive to the needs of the workgroup members. •City staff role St. Louis Park housing staff will oversee the workgroup process. At the discretion of the workgroup, city staff representing housing, inspections and the police department will attend the workgroup meetings to listen, answer questions and provide requested data. Workgroup meetings will be conducted in a manner to encourage member participation and involvement in an environment where workgroup members feel safe to express their thoughts, opinions, ideas and experiences or knowledge related to the impacts of the ordinance. •Workgroup member application process An application process will be created for individuals interested in serving on the workgroup. Applicants will be asked which stakeholder group they identify with, to describe the reason they would like to serve on the workgroup, and to specify if and how they have been directly affected by the ordinance. The final workgroup roster should include demographic diversity and an equitable representation from each of the various stakeholder groups. Staff will work with communications and the community Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Title: Crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup applications engagement workgroup to develop a broad and inclusive public process for seeking member applications. Once the application process is complete, staff will present the applications to the council for final selection and confirmation of the workgroup members. • Workgroup meeting process o Facilitated workgroup meetings will be held at least monthly, and more often if workgroup member’s schedules allow. Meeting agendas will include review of data related to the ordinances impact, identification and analysis of unintended adverse impacts, a presentation and discussion session with a panel of industry experts, and development of conclusions and recommendations for potential modifications to or repeal of the ordinance. o The workgroup will host two public listening sessions. Early in the process, the workgroup will host a session that will offer an opportunity for special-interest group representatives and community members to provide testimony to the workgroup related to the crime/drug free ordinance. The public testimony will provide an opportunity for the workgroup to be informed on the benefits and effectiveness of the ordinance as well as concerns and issues. Later in the process the workgroup will host a 2nd public listening session at which the workgroup’s preliminary conclusions will be presented. The 2nd session will provide an opportunity for the workgroup to receive input and comments on the draft conclusions and recommendations. Testimony from this listening session will be considered by the workgroup prior to finalizing the conclusions and recommendations. o The workgroup has the discretion to decide if holding additional listening sessions, seeking input from a focus group or seeking information from a specific resource or expert is needed for a comprehensive evaluation of the ordinance. • Workgroup report conclusions and recommendations Once the workgroup has finished its review and evaluation of the ordinance, its conclusions and recommendations will be presented to the council. Racial equity and inclusion will be taken into account as part of the workgroup’s activities. This process is expected to take approximately six to eight months. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Discussion item: 5 Executive summary Title: 2019 Market value overview Recommended action: No action needed. This summary report is provided for informational purposes to update Council on the local real estate market dynamics and preparing for the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization process that begins in April. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: The assessed market valuation and classification for each property determines their individual tax capacity and thus the overall tax capacity of the community. In addition to fiscal budgeting and property tax implications, the composition of value and trending are important for Council to understand as they focus on overall governance of the community. This review is being made to give the Council additional information on how the community’s real estate is reacting to the significant evolution of the housing stock (single-family, condo, cooperatives, townhomes and apartment complexes), market performance trends for commercial- industrial space, thoughts on the current market cycle, and the foundation to look forward. The appeal process will be reviewed briefly with additional outline of the Board duties to be published in the packet for the April 8 Board convene date. The Department of Revenue has directed changes to the adjustment of sales (time) as well as procedures for the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. The St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes its organizational meeting on Monday April 8, 2019 with the follow-up meeting scheduled for April 22. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: 2019 Market value overview Discussion Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System Minnesota law establishes a specific process and timeline for the entire property tax system, including the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows: 1.All real property is valued at market value annually and classified according to usage. In addition, there are a multitude of sub-classifications which are applied administratively. The owners are notified, generally in March, with multiple options for discussion and appeal. 2.State law defines how the value is translated into tax capacity via class rate structures, subsidies, exclusions and credits (e.g. blind, disabled, homestead, veteran exclusion, et al). 3.Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction are set annually. Funding sources include the property tax levy, voter approved market value referendums, bonding, special assessments, user fees, grants and programs in a variety of operational sources which vary among jurisdictions. 4.Each property tax levy is divided by the total capacity of each jurisdiction (city, county, school district and others) to determine the respective total levy extension multipliers. The multiplier is applied to each individual property to calculate property taxes. It is essential to understand that the property tax “rate” as used in the Minnesota system is simply a math equation and not a reflection of performance. The Assessing function deals with the first step above as staff renders an opinion of market value and classification annually for 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park as of January 2 each year. The assessment must comply with standards established by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Minnesota statutes and with review/approval by the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office. Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as “the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction. The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.” Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The following table presents a summary example of the two dominant property types and their associated class rates: Base Homestead Non-Homestead e.g. Tax Capacity at Taxable Values Property Type Value Base Over-Base Base Over-Base 250,000 500,000 1,000,000 Comm & Industrial 150,000 N/A N/A 1.50% 2.00% 4,250 9,250 19,250 Residential 500,000 1.00% 1.25% 1.00% 1.25% 2,500 5,000 11,250 As can be seen above, the class system greatly favors residential properties in translating the assessed market value into initial tax capacity. This difference widens further as commercial properties are subject to fiscal disparities and state based levies while residential properties are reduced by subsidy factors such as the homestead value exclusion. Voter approved referenda levies are more commonly market based and taxed equally on each dollar of property value. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: 2019 Market value overview The assessment process The purpose of the assessment is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the properties being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic market forces at work, the individual property location, use and physical characteristics play a significant role in the valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of every property in the city including its size, location, physical characteristics and condition. As there are 17,000+ taxable parcels in the city, it is virtually impossible to have complete knowledge of each property, which may or may not sell in a given year. The Minnesota property tax system therefore requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of inspection is on a five year rotating schedule (known as the quintile) which may be altered due to physical change of the property due to new construction, renovations, additions and damage. The goal of the periodic and interim inspection process is to assess the characteristics and corresponding market value of each property as closely as possible versus the property’s competitive position. It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of Minnesota is based on mass appraisal. The valuations are modeled by the use of a computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for each property are maintained in a large database which calculates the individual valuations based upon the location, style and physical characteristics for each property. While often seen by the public as a mathematical equation to be manipulated, a truly functional CAMA system is not linear math but instead is focused on modeling selected individual parcels and their competitive niche for valuation movement. The purpose of modeling is to produce a mirror image of market performance using the competitive properties that have sold during the comparison time period (fact based modeling). Minnesota requires almost all sales to be recorded in an electronic Certificate of Real Estate Value (e-CRV) data system. In all cases, the sales information is scrutinized and qualified. Initial clerical screening occurs at the city and county level. The sale information is then frequently augmented with more detail from a variety of professional data services and staff may follow-up with direct buyer/seller verifications and re-inspections in the case where the sale indicates that we may have imperfect information. Evidence suggesting anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, etc.) results in the sales information being excluded from study. This is important as the market information constitutes the measurable database for the statistical comparisons necessary to make the property assessment. The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks, mortgage companies and others. For example, the mass appraisal system for residential properties involves the comparison of thousands of properties with the fact-based market transactions from the same or closely competitive neighborhoods, and market sales of the same quality and type of property throughout the city. In the appeal process, the assessing staff looks to both the mass valuation models and a current individual appraisal analysis for further review. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Title: 2019 Market value overview The appeal process We receive inquiries and questions about market value, the assessment process and how the property tax system operates throughout the year. An open dialogue between staff and the property owner is a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. We recognize that some properties receive statistic-based adjustments to market value and owners may have differing degrees of knowledge and perspective on both their own real estate and market performance. Three important points are stressed in the informal and formal appeal processes: • By statute, the assessing staff utilizes the traditional market in setting valuations. We do not disregard the impact of the distressed sub-market or value-in-use transactions, but we do emphasize the use of open market and arm’s length sales. This is not only by legal precedent but also good appraisal methodology. All assessed market values are set on a similar competitive basis which allows for a better understanding of the nuances of (often) highly localized sub-markets. • Transactions are the facts which define the market. Appeals on the basis of comparative assessment can be problematic. While a valid rationale from the owner perspective, the neighbor’s assessment is (also) an opinion. Assessment equity via the mass assessment is measured with distinct performance metrics as published by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The post assessment “report cards” are relied upon by the Tax Court. • The mass assessment is time adjusted. When re-appraising individual properties for an appeal review, we apply similar time trends to the comparable sales. This allows a look forward ability up to the date of assessment (January 2) and slightly beyond. Questions are common during informal appeals. The assessing staff will check the last date of interior inspection as condition can evolve over time. Inspections are often requested to re-verify property attributes and public record sales information is often discussed. A very large majority of property owner concerns can be resolved through this informal review. Assessing staff will review and adjust the assessed market value as warranted prior to the Boards during the informal review process. If needed, the next step is the appeal process. Formal appeal steps are summarized as: 1. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization: The St. Louis Park Board convenes April 8, 2019. The first meeting is brief with overview of the process, set roster of appellants, call for any additional appeals and setting date/time for the reconvene. The owner is the appellant and they are notified of the Board process including the need to present information as to the basis of appeal. Assessing staff serves as the respondent and prepares a report of sales and related market information to be presented at the re-convene meeting. The Board hears the respective points and makes the determination on value and/or classification. 2. County Board of Appeal and Equalization: To be eligible, the owner must first appeal at the Local Board. The Hennepin County Board convenes on June 17, 2019. The County Board determines their own process which includes appointed appeal board members. The process is essentially similar in that the owner makes their case and county staff serves as the respondent – and the Board makes the determination. 3. Tax Court: Property owners may appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court. Petitions regarding the 2019 Assessment may be filed until April 30, 2020. This method of appeal is more formal and often takes a lengthy period of time to resolve. This avenue of appeal is much larger in the number of cases, their complexity and the valuations/classifications in dispute. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Title: 2019 Market value overview Big picture of the residential market – realtor perspective Before discussion of the 2019 assessment, we want to provide a big picture overview from the perspective of Realtors. The broad spectrum of residential real estate peaked in 2006-2007 and bottomed out around 2011. The market fully rebounded by (circa) 2016 and continues to advance to the present time. The following chart is an aggregate of single-family homes, condos and townhomes from 2011 through 2018. This provides a comparative reference for St. Louis Park and our immediate neighbors through the roller coaster ride of recent history. Historic median sale price – aggregate of single-family homes, condos and townhomes 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Change St. Louis Park 185,600 198,950 219,000 230,000 239,700 245,000 265,000 287,150 54.7% Edina 345,000 349,000 351,000 380,000 399,900 441,500 465,000 450,000 30.4% Golden Valley 199,450 218,000 247,700 248,700 264,200 290,725 308,950 309,950 55.4% Hopkins 126,250 160,500 181,500 182,000 213,500 215,000 217,900 250,000 98.0% Minnetonka 233,750 255,400 280,000 273,984 300,550 310,000 335,000 348,000 48.9% Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR) In contemplating the historical figures above, all of the primary owner-based housing options are included. This aggregate price structure gives an interesting but incomplete perspective for each community. The variation from year-to-year depends on which market segment has more sales as well as the volume of sales with new construction/major renovations. The chart below breaks out the dominant mix of options available and their sale performance in the past year. Annual 2018 Market Performance: Sale Volume – Median Sale Price – Days on Market Single-Family Condominiums Townhomes # Median Days on # Median Days on # Median Days on Sales Sale Price Market Sales Sale Price Market Sales Sale Price Market St. Louis Park 668 310,000 18 202 155,000 23 74 207,500 17 Edina 596 588,750 39 287 175,000 26 47 379,000 31 Golden Valley 326 330,000 22 29 239,250 22 45 207,750 29 Hopkins 125 283,500 19 62 85,000 19 52 220,000 15 Minnetonka 566 408,000 28 163 170,000 26 151 265,000 22 Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR) Several facts in the above table are notable. First and often surprising (to outsiders) is that our annual transaction volume is generally high in terms of turnover rate. This is due in part to our pricing structure, the housing options available, the mix of options available, and the balance between single-family, condo and townhome stock. The most significant fact in the table above, however, is timing of market exposure (Days on Market). All of the local communities are clearly showing short exposure times with limited inventory available. The move to a seller’s market has been particularly emphasized in the lower bracket stock. While prior value appreciation has been modest and relatively stable, the current market has continued the trend of value compression between the more rapidly moving lower price points and the relatively slower pace for the upper value stock. Whether that supply/demand equation is influenced by increasing interest rates, stable (jobs) economy and household income remains to be seen. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 6 Title: 2019 Market value overview Summary of the St. Louis Park 2019 Assessment Roll The Notice of Valuation and Classification commence mailing in March of each year. Each notice reflects the property value and classification for a two year period with the format as required by the MN Department of Revenue. As of January 2, 2019, the total valuation of the city stands at $7.73 billion versus 2018 ending at $7.17 billion. Valuations advanced throughout the spectrum of uses in a robust manner. Apartments again led the way along with commercial-industrial uses. Both of these sectors have exhibited a combination of market appreciation and new improvement valuations. Ownership based residential (single-family, condos and townhomes predominantly) have also seen strong market growth and generally favorable re-investment leading to new improvement value. Further understanding of the value composition and year-over-year trending is explored in the following chart. Assessed market value change for dominant sectors (comparing 2019 to 2018 assessment) Single-Family Residential + 6.7% Market Basis versus + 7.4% with Improvements Condominium + 6.4% Market Basis versus + 6.5% with Improvements Townhomes + 9.5% Market Basis -same- + 9.5% with Improvements Apartments + 8.2% Market Basis versus +11.4% with Improvements Commercial + 7.7% Market Basis versus + 9.7% with Improvements Industrial + 8.8% Market Basis versus + 9.1% with Improvements St. Louis Park total + 7.3% Market Based versus + 8.5% Gross Change Source: St. Louis Park Assessing Office. The “total” line is subject to 0.8% refinement as the state assessed rail and utility values are assumed and not available at report writing. The market driven appreciation reflects a roughly apple-to-apple comparison. This measure is inherently the primary focus for the mass appraisal methodology reflected by review of transactions. There are also factors relating to use change, divisions and exemption changes. Gross change reflects the total valuation change and includes improvement values arising from new construction, additions, renovations and use repositioning. This metric reflects the full scale of economic activity as assessed for 2019. The total value change will also be reflected in tax capacity change as it relates to the payable 2020 tax period. Each of the above categories will be explained at further length in the following report sections which outline the assessment as fashioning a mirror image of the market. It has included the traditional sales review, extensive qualification review, on-market listings at multiple points throughout the year, accessing listing data, quintile inspections (approximately 20% of the stock is reviewed each year) and new construction and renovation permit reviews. We begin our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into the three dominant categories: low density (single-family homes); mid-to-high density ownership based (condos and townhomes) and apartment units. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 7 Title: 2019 Market value overview Single family homes: Approximately one-half of the total housing units are single family homes. The city of St. Louis Park is broken down into 35 distinct neighborhoods which are configured to local history rather than cohesive competitive influences. Of the 32 neighborhoods with single- family properties, all are stable or increasing in valuations for the 2019 assessment. The neighborhood adjustments ranged from 0.6% to +18.3% with most neighborhoods between +4.0% to +8.0% which is quite similar to the 2018 assessment. Much of our attention has been on reviewing the price brackets (stratifications). Our single-family stock can be well scribed as a heavy bell curve style of pricing with emphasis currently moving into the $275,000 to $325,000 range. When combining market appreciation, a low volume of distressed properties, an active renovation/addition sub-market and the sales, there would normally be an indisputably wider degree of variation in the stratifications over the past year. This is relatively healthy in an advancing market as it reflects a growing array of housing options. The market movements are not fully balanced, however, as the lower priced brackets are proceeding at a faster rate of appreciation which is illustrated as the median (mid-point) assessed value advanced at 8.4% while the total stock value increased at 7.4%. These value compressions are driven by the market which in turn tightens the selection array of potential buyers more so than in prior years. Condominiums: There are 46 distinct condominium complexes in the community. The complexes are a decidedly diverse stock in terms of structural vintage, design format (apartment conversions, row-house, lo-rise, hi-rise and most everything in between). As noted in prior years, condos and townhomes tend to be considerably more volatile in valuations. This is generally due to four major factors: condos tend to have an in-complex sub- market which can swing quickly; the complexes compete locally and more readily into nearby cities; perceptions of value differ between the owner-occupant buyer versus the investor/rental buyer; and sale pricing can be affected in a significant manner by association assessments. The local market exhibits a very wide pricing structure. Time reference on the market adjustments can be illustrative: the 2013 assessment was at -7.5%; the 2014 assessment was at +7.8%; the 2015 assessment was at +8.5%; the 2016 assessment was at +8.2%; the 2017 assessment was at +5.8%; the 2018 assessment was at +9.1% and the 2019 assessment stands at 6.5%. There are considerable variations among the complexes with four adjusting down (due to market and equalization factors) while six complexes are adjusted upward at 15+/- % this year. Townhomes: There are 19 distinct townhome complexes in the community. About one-half of them are relatively small with fewer than 20 units in the complex. The other half are predominantly in the 20-50 unit count bracket with three larger complexes. In general, the market forces at play in this property type are similar to that of the condos with several mitigating factors. They include a higher average unit value which is more consistent in terms of a lower degree of value variability. It is also our perception that the physical designs tend to be less problematic with few exceptions, while the rate of distressed transactions and on-market listings have tended to be less dramatic. The following charts provide additional overview for the 2019 assessment. The first page reflects the single-family neighborhoods over the past five years. The next two pages provide the complex based breakdown of the condos and townhomes also over five years. Both charts include a parcel count reference and median market value which allows insight and perspective of the local housing market over an extended market expansion. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 8 Title: 2019 Market value overview St. Louis Park -- Single Family Residential Properties Historical Change of Assessed Market Values (Quintile Cycle) Year of Assessment 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 a. Median Assessed Value: 227,500 240,100 254,200 274,900 297,950 b. City-Wide Static Change: 4.0% 4.4% 5.0% 6.9% 6.7% # Neighborhood Reference 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Parcels Median 1 Shelard Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 2 Kilmer 3.8% 0.8% 8.3% 6.4% 8.2% 243 256,400 3 Crestview 9.4% 4.3% 6.9% 0.2% 4.4% 67 395,200 4 Westwood Hills 4.9% 5.6% 4.9% 11.6% 0.6% 291 448,200 5 Cedar Manor 2.9% 6.5% 7.5% 7.9% 8.5% 563 296,100 6 Northside (x) Willow Park 3.0% 5.3% 10.4% 12.2% 6.1% 302 313,900 7 Pennsylvania Park 8.6% 2.2% 5.4% 0.0% 4.2% 298 269,900 8 Eliot 0.0% 5.6% 7.9% 6.9% 8.2% 505 275,900 9 Blackstone 1.9% 6.8% 1.5% 4.2% 9.5% 95 213,500 10 Cedarhurst 2.1% 4.1% 1.3% 4.2% 18.3% 48 265,500 11 Eliot View 9.6% 6.0% 6.8% 8.5% 7.0% 164 270,500 12 Cobblecrest 6.2% 5.6% 2.9% 7.2% 10.2% 378 338,400 13 Minnehaha 0.6% 8.8% 0.6% 4.9% 7.8% 126 403,400 14 Amhurst N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 15 Aquila 6.3% 6.7% 4.5% 10.7% 5.3% 496 238,900 16 Oak Hill 8.4% 4.5% 7.5% 6.8% 11.0% 622 269,300 17 Texa Tonka 8.7% 2.9% 9.6% 7.8% 7.4% 381 257,400 18 Bronx Park 7.7% 4.0% 3.4% 7.2% 6.9% 979 274,200 19 Lenox 2.0% 5.0% 5.4% 8.1% 7.5% 810 274,300 20 Sorenson 0.0% 6.4% 2.4% 11.5% 8.1% 442 298,300 21 Birchwood 4.6% 4.5% 3.7% 11.5% 7.0% 618 299,850 22 Lake Forest 4.7% 3.6% 0.7% 5.9% 3.3% 190 645,150 23 Fern Hill 3.1% 3.2% 2.9% 5.2% 4.4% 946 433,300 24 Triangle 0.0% 0.7% 7.0% 5.7% 10.3% 99 264,300 25 Wolfe Park 6.7% 5.0% 5.1% 10.5% 3.8% 18 278,400 26 Minikada Oaks 8.7% 0.9% 11.1% 0.9% 2.3% 76 407,100 27 Minikada Vista 2.7% 2.9% 5.4% 3.9% 5.1% 789 466,400 28 Browndale 2.9% 3.7% 4.2% 6.2% 7.9% 544 430,000 29 Brookside 0.0% 6.7% 9.2% 7.6% 6.1% 324 303,000 30 Brooklawns 0.0% 5.0% 12.1% 6.2% 2.6% 148 304,500 31 Elmwood 6.0% 6.4% 7.1% 7.8% 3.7% 264 322,500 32 Meadowbrook N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 33 South Oak Hill 2.5% 4.9% 1.9% 2.9% 11.4% 288 244,900 34 Westdale 10.2% 1.3% 4.5% 7.0% 14.9% 106 290,800 35 Creekside 3.6% 7.6% 2.3% 8.1% 4.4% 170 342,150 Quintile Counts 2,246 2,439 2,902 1,350 2,527 11,390 a: Median assessed market values for all single-family parcels - including improvement values. b: The % change is market driven value change and does not include improvement values. Three neighborhoods do not include single-family residential parcels. Source: Annual Compilations by the St. Louis Park Assessing Office Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 9 Title: 2019 Market value overview St. Louis Park -- Condominium Properties Historical Change of Assessed Market Values Year of Assessment 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 a. Median Assessed Value: 113,800 125,700 143,500 155,100 169,900 b. City-Wide Static Change: 9.7% 10.6% 7.1% 9.2% 6.5% Code Complex Reference 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Units Median MO Monterey Coop 2.9% 2.1% 4.5% 6.4% 6.6% 8 98,800 AC Aquila Commons Coop 3.9% 6.2% 8.3% 6.5% 6.6% 106 221,400 33 3300 On The Park 8.2% 20.7% 1.8% 13.9% 4.4% 128 169,900 35 35th St Condos - Apt Conver 1.7% 2.4% 4.9% 5.7% 0.0% 11 125,200 55 55+ Condos 1.1% 9.5% -7.7% 8.0% 21.1% 60 221,850 BK Brookside Lofts - 4100 Vernon 1.8% 20.2% -6.6% 0.0% 15.5% 27 247,100 BK Brookside Lofts - 4132 Vernon 1.8% 19.6% -6.3% 0.0% 15.5% 14 N/A BR Bridgewalk - Conversion 4.0% 15.7% 11.5% 9.5% 12.0% 92 122,700 CA Calhoun Hill N/A N/A 3.8% 6.5% 4.9% 7 348,900 CH Coach Homes -2.0% 17.7% 5.2% 7.5% 13.7% 128 142,100 CS Cedar Trails - (South Condo Twnhme) 9.1% -3.1% 11.2% 6.7% 9.9% 32 198,700 CT Cedar Trails - (North of CLR) 17.7% 15.2% 11.6% 5.9% 8.6% 280 137,800 CW Cedar Trails - (S-West Condo Twnhme) 9.1% 7.0% 4.6% 4.4% 9.9% 48 203,250 EV Elmwood Village 9.0% 6.5% 5.3% 4.5% 6.8% 77 332,300 FH Fern Hill 4.5% 2.8% 9.5% 0.0% -2.9% 30 187,350 GR Greensboro Condos - HIA 23.4% 8.7% 27.4% 8.8% 2.1% 164 91,800 HV Harmony Vista (Hoigaards) 20.3% 2.8% 5.1% 6.4% 6.7% 74 214,900 IB Inglewood Boutique 0.0% 5.0% 16.6% 6.5% 3.0% 6 367,150 LN Lynn Ave Condos - Apt Conver 3.1% 5.0% 5.0% 6.3% 7.4% 12 201,600 LY Lynwood Condos 2.8% 4.9% -4.1% 4.5% 8.9% 11 165,900 MC Monterey Pl - Apt Convers 9.6% 3.5% 5.9% 5.0% 6.9% 30 263,200 MR Murphy Ridge Condo Twnhme - Rental 0.0% 4.9% 5.3% 5.9% -5.9% 4 154,300 MW Monterey West - Condo Twnhme Coop 2.9% 5.0% 0.5% 0.0% -9.0% 7 219,800 NP Natchez Pl 6.1% 12.7% 5.0% 0.0% 14.9% 27 176,500 OX Oxford Gardens - Apt Convers 12.5% 4.8% 4.7% 0.0% 6.6% 12 97,600 P0 Parkside Urban Lofts - 460 Bldg 8.4% 12.3% 7.6% 9.1% 2.2% 24 318,600 P2 Parkside Urban Lofts - 462 Bldg 8.4% 11.1% 3.0% 9.9% 6.4% 22 296,000 P4 Parkside Urban Lofts - 464 Bldg N/A 8.6% 4.0% 11.3% 2.2% 22 284,300 PP Pondview Park - Apt Conver 0.0% -4.9% 14.8% 4.6% 6.7% 30 129,600 PW Pointe West Condos 13.5% 2.9% 7.9% 5.0% 10.3% 86 345,600 S1 Sungate 1 - East of Alabama (North) -6.0% -3.2% 17.2% 17.1% 6.6% 20 141,800 S2 Sungate 2 - East of Alabama (South) 1.1% -3.2% 1.5% 20.0% 14.9% 26 175,900 S3 Sungate 3 - West of Alabama 3.4% -3.2% 17.3% 2.4% 6.7% 14 214,800 SR Sunset Ridge - HIA 29.6% 6.5% 25.5% 3.2% 9.7% 240 139,800 TF Twin Fountains 4.6% 7.3% 14.3% 15.5% 10.3% 88 129,900 Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 10 Title: 2019 Market value overview EL Excelsior Lofts (T Joe Site) 8.0% 10.8% -4.6% 10.6% 8.4% 86 272,600 GW Grand Way (NE Bldg) 8.7% 9.1% 0.8% 9.8% 0.4% 122 345,600 TG The Grand NW @ Excelsior 4.2% 10.2% 3.3% 9.8% -4.2% 96 417,200 VL Village Lofts 0.0% 9.4% -4.0% 9.0% 9.7% 60 204,400 WE Westmoreland - HIA 16.2% -1.3% 5.5% 22.6% 7.1% 72 99,800 WF Wooddale Flats N/A N/A 41.1% 4.0% 1.0% 33 470,200 WL Wolfe Lake 5.9% 5.7% 19.0% 31.6% 3.8% 131 186,700 WM Westmarke Condos 7.6% -1.7% 5.0% 6.4% 6.6% 64 209,000 WO West Oaks 0.0% -1.8% 1.8% 21.4% 10.5% 75 262,900 WV Westwood Villa - HIA 11.7% 0.3% 0.3% 30.3% 19.5% 66 113,600 WY Wynmoor -2.6% 5.0% 0.4% 34.2% 11.2% 56 121,800 Quintile Counts 693 435 440 546 437 2,820 St. Louis Park -- Townhome Properties Historical Change of Assessed Market Values Year of Assessment 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 a. Median Assessed Value: 156,100 165,200 174,900 190,200 211,200 b. City-Wide Static Change: 10.6% 6.6% 4.0% 9.5% 9.5% Code Complex Reference 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Units Median BG Brunswick Gables 17.7% 6.1% 7.5% 7.1% 7.9% 7 258,400 DB Dan-Bar Rental Twnhme 5.0% 5.1% 2.7% 4.0% 8.0% 4 207,300 EW Excelsior Way Rentals 8.9% 21.0% 25.7% 26.5% 14.0% 38 201,500 GR Greensboro - HIA 26.8% 12.1% 7.0% 10.0% 15.2% 96 200,400 HE Hampshire Estates 5.2% 5.1% 4.9% 10.2% 15.2% 8 185,300 HH Hampshire House 5.2% 5.0% 0.0% 8.6% 14.3% 13 178,300 LL Lamplighter Park 3.8% 5.6% 3.6% 6.9% 8.7% 5 414,100 LA Lohmans Amhurst 10.4% 5.9% 6.0% 12.8% 7.0% 276 208,100 ME Medley Row 35.0% 6.1% 3.4% 7.9% 11.0% 22 319,600 MP Montery Park 5.0% 3.1% 2.4% 7.0% 2.5% 18 389,150 PC Princeton Court 12.4% 3.1% 3.0% 4.8% 1.8% 13 432,700 QC Quentin Court 12.3% 3.1% 2.9% 17.5% 2.3% 10 427,100 SH Shamrock 6.0% 3.0% 2.2% 7.6% 18.8% 16 181,700 SK Skyehill 6.0% 7.4% -6.1% 11.5% 9.4% 31 277,800 SW Sungate West -2.4% 17.6% 6.5% -0.1% 11.5% 48 182,800 VP Victoria Ponds 10.1% 3.5% 1.2% 5.2% 7.7% 72 405,700 WT Westwood 5.7% 9.0% -3.5% 3.7% 19.2% 38 225,200 ZA Zarthan Apt Twnhomes 4.0% 2.5% 4.0% 8.4% 16.0% 18 225,000 ZP Zarthan Park 4.1% 2.6% 4.0% 10.3% 16.7% 16 235,000 Quintile Counts 30 18 276 132 293 749 a: Median assessed market values for all Townhomes - including improvement values. b: The % change is market driven value change and does not include improvement values. Source: Annual Compilations by the St. Louis Park Assessing Office Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 11 Title: 2019 Market value overview Apartments: This sector is largely driven in the historic sense by tenant supply/demand, the income stream and owner return expectations. To begin, a brief review of recent assessment adjustment for market change and total value change including new construction are below: - For 2012 – market change at + 4.9% which included very little new construction value. - For 2013 – market change at + 8.2% and +13.9% including new construction. - For 2014 – market change at + 8.2% and +20.2% with multiple new complexes on-line. - For 2015 – market change at +12.1% and +13.3% for the next phase of new complexes. - For 2016 – market change at +12.0% and +17.8% including new construction. - For 2017 – market change at + 6.4% and + 9.5% including new construction. - For 2018 – market change at + 7.5% and +13.3% including new construction. - For 2019 – market change at + 8.2% and +11.4% including new construction. Looking at the above historical pattern from the perspective of both market appreciation and new value arising from multiple new construction projects presents a clear picture of an extended period of robust growth in the multi-family stock. This can be attributed to our location and proximity to downtown Minneapolis as well as major employers in the west metro area. Value appreciation has been seen throughout all classes of apartments, from Class A to Class C. St. Louis Park is somewhat unusual in being among the highest suburban class A values while also having a median value for the C stock at slightly under the suburban norm. This wide array of stock can be traced to our past history of a very large class C sector being continuously augmented with multiple new construction complexes over the past seven years. The economy in general has been strong for an extended period with additional people having a desire to reside in multi-family dwellings throughout the metro. St. Louis Park has seen a number of new projects including Ellipse, E-2, Siena Apartments, the Verge, Millennium at West End, The Curtis, The Shoreham, Parkway 25, Central Park West and 4900 Excelsior to name the most recent. There are also a number of new units set to come on line this year and beyond. These new projects are adding to what has been the under-built sector of Class A and B stock as this sector last saw a boom in construction in the mid-1980 to mid-1990 time periods. The expansion of Class A units has helped to diversify our housing stock in that the total units are now distributed with approximately half on the units being class C stock (typically less than 3 stories, built circa 1960-1975) and half being Class A and B stock. While new construction is expected to continue into the short term future, there are signs of the multi-family sector being very late in the expansion cycle for both valuation appreciation and new construction. A number of sales transactions have occurred over the last sales periods which have set and reset high water benchmarks. This has occurred in virtually all classes to differing degree. Cap rates seems to have stabilized for the most part. For the Class A and B (typically institutional) investor this is due to the fact that the lower yield rate here is still better than what they could get on properties in other parts of the country (the coasts). The Class C market is seeing more market driven value growth for this assessment than in years past which had been quite stable. In conclusion, the apartment sector remains strong. Vacancy rates, alternative housing choices and a continued job growth trend are the primary contributors. We have noted the extreme length of the current growth cycle – St. Louis Park’s location and the development of light rail are expected to foster an extension of growth beyond what may be expected in other suburban locations. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 5) Page 12 Title: 2019 Market value overview Commercial and industrial: This sector has exhibited continuous market appreciation and new construction growth over the past six years. Value changes year over year are dependent on how these uses are performing in a range of national, regional and immediately local economies. Major use categories in the commercial grouping include auto (dealerships, gas stations, auto centers), restaurants (quick services as well as stand-alone), grocery stores, hotel/motel, a variety of office uses in the A-B-C sectors (stock and medical/dental) and retail. Major sectors in the industrial sector include light, heavy, flex, storage cross-over and industrial condos. Commercial and industrial properties are valued across jurisdictional boundaries to a significant extent with the specific use dictating how large of an area the competitive market occupies. The overall market adjustment for the 2019 valuation on the commercial properties was 9.7% inclusive of new construction and 7.7% net of improvements. This represents a continued trend of extended growth above metro norms. This is largely attributed to our location, the strong economy, an interesting mixture of uses and the pace/volume of redevelopment. The overall market adjustment for the industrial stock was 9.1% inclusive of new construction and 8.8% net of improvements. Looking at these figures brings three observations to mind. The first is that value changes in this use category become tricky as demand for buildings previously viewed as functionally obsolescent is varying due to the economy. A significant volume of the current industrial stock are located near the future light rail station areas which is also a driver of value change in terms of use, alterations and interim holding. The two preceding issues brings us to the economic reality of under-lying land values. As a mature inner ring suburb – also actively engaged in redevelopment – our land value can be a limiting factor for industrial users. The reason being that industrial uses are land intensive and low-rise while our location and associated land values are a self-reinforcing premium driven by density. To close, both the commercial and industrial sectors are at or near record high level with multiple signs that the metro market is beginning to slow the growth curve. While the fundamentals remain sound it is a reasonable expectation that commercial expansion will continue locally as redevelopment projects are contemplated in the market. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Written report: 6 Executive summary Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Recommended action: No action required. Report to inform the EDA of the proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District loan program. Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to proceed with the establishment of a new low interest loan fund to facilitate further business investment in the Historic Walker Lake area in conjunction with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers? Summary: Last summer, staff began developing a new financing program designed to provide a low cost loan program to small businesses in the Historic Walker Lake district. The program aims to make it more financially feasible for businesses to invest in the Historic Walker Lake area in an effort to further enhance its character and economic vitality. Staff has been working with the non-profit Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) and the EDA’s legal counsel to formulate the structure of the proposed low interest loan program, establish loan guidelines and determine the necessary approvals required for the program’s implementation. Under the proposed loan program, MCCD would provide loan funds at its standard interest rate and the EDA would match those funds up to $100,000 at a 2% interest rate to assist small businesses expanding or locating within the Historic Walker Lake area. Financing would be available for purchase or renovation of a building, exterior upgrades, equipment, and leasehold improvements. To streamline the lending process, loan decisions would be based on criteria pre-established jointly by the MCCD and the EDA. Guidelines for the proposed loan fund program are attached. As part of the Open to Business program MCCD would administer the program, conduct the underwriting and loan servicing, collect loan payments, and provide quarterly financial reports. Staff would make the final determination on any loan application and would report to the EDA on any loan approvals. Financial or budget considerations: The loan program would be capitalized with a $400,000 annual set aside within the Development Fund. MCCD’s administration of the loan program would be rolled into its existing Open to Business contract with the EDA. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Guidelines Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager & EDA Deputy Director Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Discussion Background: In an effort to assist entrepreneurs and small businesses and to facilitate the revitalization of the Historic Walker Lake area, staff, in conjunction with MCCD developed the proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District loan program. Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District loan: The Historic Walker Lake Business District loan program would provide low interest loans to small businesses expanding or locating within the Historic Walker Lake business district. This program is designed to enhance the vibrancy of the area by expanding financing opportunities for local and new businesses, while enhancing the overall economic vitality and historic character of the area. The program would be administered through MCCD, whom the EDA currently contracts for the Open to Business program. Under the proposed loan program MCCD would provide the loan funds which would then be matched by the EDA up to $100,000 at 2% interest. A total of up to $400,000 would be available annually from the EDA to lend on a first-come, first-serve basis. Following is a general outline of the proposed program. Program guidelines Eligible projects Financing would be available to businesses in Historic Walker Lake for purchase or renovation of a building, façade improvements, lease holder improvements, and machinery and equipment. Financing for working capital would not be eligible through the fund. Minimum and maximum loan amounts The minimum EDA loan amount for eligible projects would be $10,000 and the maximum would be $100,000. Loan principle and interest rate MCCD or a private lender provides at least 50% of a loan at the lender’s rate considering loan type, term and risk factors. The EDA provides the rest of loan principal, up to half, but no more than $100,000, fixed at two percent interest. Terms Loan terms are set by MCCD or private lender and can be for up to 10 years. All balances would be due if the loan recipient sells their interest in the property. Condition Applicants must meet with an “Open to Business” business advisor at least twice a year for the first three years of the loan term and annually for the remainder of the term for ongoing business counseling. Application procedure: Similar to the St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund, the Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program would be governed by the St. Louis Park EDA and all credit decisions would ultimately be made by the EDA. Fund management services would be provided by MCCD which includes loan packaging, underwriting, and marketing services. Loan decisions and recommendations would be based on criteria pre-established jointly by the EDA and MCCD. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program MCCD management and fees: MCCD is a non-profit neighborhood-business advocate, adviser and lender working to build strong stable communities through housing and economic development initiatives. Partnering with MCCD allows the EDA to streamline the loan application process for applicants and provide ongoing business support. MCCD’s administration of the loan program would be included as part of the general Open to Business contract with the EDA. A three year contract between the EDA and MCCD was recently executed at an annual rate of $12,500. The city’s annual portion of this is $6,250. Hennepin County pays for half of the program fee. There would be no other direct charge to EDA for MCCD’s management services. At closing borrowers will be required to pay a .5 percent origination fee for the loan funds provided by the EDA. Borrowers will be required to pay all other loan fees, legal and closing costs. Funding source: The proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District loan would be capitalized by an annual $400,000 set aside within the Development Fund. These funds would remain in the city’s possession until a loan is authorized. Next steps: Staff will finalize implementation of the program with MCCD and begin marketing the program. Efforts will be made to specifically target and encourage businesses owned by women, people of color and veterans to apply for funds. Staff has already received strong interest in this loan program from existing businesses within the Historic Walker Lake area (including persons of color and indigenous owned businesses) and anticipates ongoing interest and support from the businesses and property owners in the area. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Adopted , 2019 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 4 Table of contents Historic Walker Lake Business District loan program guidelines I The program Page 1 II How the program works (terms and conditions) Page 1 III Eligible applicants Page 2 IV Eligible activities, costs Page 2 V Ineligible activities Page 3 VI Loan terms and conditions Page 3 VII Guidelines for application, approval and servicing Page 5 VIII Right of refusal Page 6 IX Post approval process Page 6 X Delinquency Page 8 XI Default Page 8 XII Recaptured funds Page 8 XIII Historic Walker Lake Business District map Page 10 Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 5 1 Historic Walker Lake Business District loan program I.The program St. Louis Park’s Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program provides low cost financial assistance to small businesses locating or expanding within the Historic Walker Lake area of St. Louis Park. The program assists new or expanding businesses in this area by reducing the interest rate on loans for qualifying projects. Designed to enhance the vibrancy of the Historic Walker Lake commercial corridors thorough business attraction, retention and building improvements this loan program aims to expand financing opportunities for local businesses, while enhancing the overall economic vitality and historic character of the Walker Lake area. This program is designed to accomplish the following: •Support the location, growth and expansion of businesses within the Historic Walker Lake Business District. •Assist businesses within the Walker Lake area to grow and become more successful. •Foster a sense of place, and attract commerce to the area. •Promote an attractive environment for new investment and business activity in Historic Walker Lake. •Incentivize the economic revitalization of the Historic Walker Lake Business District through the purchase, improvement and repair of area buildings, reduction of vacancy rates and by attracting new investment and business activity. •Retain local jobs and /or increase the number and quality of jobs in the area. •Further diversify and enhance the city’s tax base. •Fulfill the strategic directions outlined in St. Louis Park’s Vision 3.0. II.How the program works (terms and conditions) •Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD), a private lender, or combination of the two, provides at least 50% of the loan at the lender’s rate considering loan type, term and risk factors. •St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) provides up to half of the loan principal, or an amount not to exceed $100,000, at two percent interest. The minimum loan amount is $10,000. •All work financed by the loan must comply with all state and local laws and regulations pertaining to licensing, permits, building codes, zoning and environmental requirements. •Loan term is set by MCCD or private lender, and can be for up to 10 years. •Applicants must repay the loan and be an acceptable credit risk. •Applicants agree to meet with an “Open to Business” business advisor for ongoing business counseling at least twice a year for the first three years of the loan term and annually for the remainder of the loan term. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 6 2 III.Eligible applicants •All businesses located within the Historic Walker Lake business area (see map) particularly women, veteran, and minority owned businesses. •The applicant may be individual owners, partnerships, corporations, tenant operators, non-profit organizations (on a case by case basis) or contract for deed partners. •In the case where the leaseholder is the applicant, written permission of the property owner is required for physical alterations to the building along with a valid lease that covers the term of the loan. IV.Eligible activities; costs The following activities and costs are eligible for financing under this Program. •Purchase and/or renovation of a building •Building construction. Construction of a new building and/or an addition to an existing building •Lighting •Windows •Walls, ceilings, floors •Roofing •Plumbing •Electrical •Mechanical Systems and air conditioning •Sustainable building improvements such as energy efficient windows and doors, HVAC and renewable energy equipment as well as low flow plumbing fixtures, •All work on the front and sides of business buildings facing public streets •Masonry repairs and other façade improvements •Repairing or replacing of cornices, entrances, doors, windows, decorative details and awnings •Sign removal, repairing or replacement •Architectural design services for plans and specifications •Parking lots, including lighting, surfacing and landscaping •Building identification/signage •Handicap access improvements •Streetscape costs not financed by special assessment •Other items that are viewed necessary to complement the exterior of the building •Purchase of machinery and equipment. Purchase of major items of machinery and equipment independent of land and buildings (These items must be defined to have a useful life of at least 10 years.) •Leasehold improvements. Loan funds may be used for certain leasehold improvements provided the lease is equal to, or greater than, the term of the loan * Exterior façade and streetscape activities shall follow the recommendations of the design guidelines created for the Historic Walker Lake District. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 7 3 V.Ineligible applicants, activities and costs The following applicants, projects, activities, and costs are ineligible for financing through the Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Fund. A.Ineligible applicants: Applications from the following entities will not be considered for financing: •Businesses outside of designated area (see attached map) •Home-based businesses •Auto repair and gas stations •Check cashing businesses •Gambling organizations •Gun shops •Pay day loan businesses •Off sale liquor stores •Pawn shops •Sexually oriented businesses •Tattoo parlors •Tobacco shops, vapor shops or hookah lounges •Warehouses B. Ineligible activities: Applications to finance the following activities will not be considered for financing: •Any work started prior to loan closing. •Activities that place extraordinary demands on city services. •Activities that are inconsistent with St. Louis Park Vision 3.0 including those considered to create environmental concerns in the opinion of the local, state, or federal governments due to the type of operation or processes involved in the business operation. •Activities that continue and/or expand nonconforming uses. •Any activity deemed illegal by federal, state, or local law or ordinance. C.Ineligible costs: Ineligible costs include, but are not limited to, developer fees, management fees, financing costs, franchise fees, debt repayment or consolidation, moving costs, refinancing, operating costs, work completed prior to loan closing, or rent payments. VI.Loan terms and conditions Loans provided under the Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program shall be subject to the following terms and conditions. A.Maximum and minimum loan amounts for eligible projects: 1.Maximum loan amount. The maximum loan available from the Program for each eligible project is limited to $100,000 or 50% of total project cost, whichever is less. 2.Minimum loan amount. The minimum loan amount available from the revolving loan fund for each eligible project is $10,000. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 8 4 B.Interest rate: MCCD and or bank financed portion of the loan will be determined at the time of the loan application and funding. Interest rates will fluctuate with the Prime rate, and will be subject to other factors (collateral, borrower credit/strength, etc.). The St. Louis Park EDA’s loan interest rate is fixed at two percent for the term of the loan. C.Term: The loan term is set by the private lender and can be for up to 10 years. 1.Balance due upon Sale. All balances will be due and payable if and when the loan recipient sells or otherwise transfers any or part or his/her interest in the property or fails to meet any of the guidelines established within this document before the maturity date of the loan or relocates any part or all of the business outside the City of St. Louis Park. 2.Should the business cease operations, reduce services, or significantly alter the improvements funded through this loan within one year of the date the loan agreement is signed, repayment to the EDA for the entire loan amount will be required. D.Equity participation: Total Financing for the purpose of acquiring fixed assets - including real property, equipment and leasehold improvements- shall not exceed 90% of total acquisition cost. E.Collateral requirements: All loan agreements will be secured by one or more of the following; 1.a promissory note, 2.mortgage, or 3.security agreement as required by the EDA. F.Letters of commitment: Letters of commitment from all funding sources must be submitted for the application to be deemed complete. G.Personal guaranty: Personal guaranties of persons with an ownership interest of 20% or greater are required. Personal guaranties of persons with ownership interest between 5% to 19% may be required by the EDA but are discretionary. H.Loan repayments: Loan payments must begin within one month of funding of the Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan. The EDA may make exceptions to this rule on a case-by-case basis. I.Loan prepayment: Prepayments are permitted where the borrower makes the EDA whole for any losses or costs associated with the prepayment. J.Notice of award or denial: Applicants will be notified by the EDA in writing not more than fourteen (14)business days after final action has been taken on their Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan fund application. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 9 5 K.Loan closing documents: The EDA will close in conjunction with MCCD loan closing. L.Post-closing amendments and modifications: Requests for amendments and modifications following award, closing or disbursement of funds to the underwriting of the original request require EDA approval. M.Loan denial: The EDA will not make a loan if it determines the loan amount would place an undue burden on the financial resources of the borrower or the borrower cannot demonstrate adequate financial capacity to repay the loan or the EDA determines that making the loan is not in the best interest of the city or EDA. N.Business subsidy: EDA loans of $75,000 or above are subject to the provision of the Business Subsidy Act. VII.Guidelines for application approval and servicing MCCD will administer the Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program. Loans will be made with a minimum 50% participation from MCCD, or other qualified lender. The process for application approval and servicing follows: A. All applicants shall first contact MCCD to obtain information about the Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program and discuss the project. B.The applicant shall work with MCCD to determine if additional financing from the EDA is needed to accomplish the project, and if so, how much. C.The applicant and MCCD shall then meet with EDA staff to discuss the project, and obtain application forms. D.The applicant shall complete and submit respective application forms to MCCD and EDA. E.At closing the applicant shall pay an origination fee of.5% on the portion of loan funds provided by the EDA in addition to any origination and/or other loan fees charged by MCCD or other lending partners. F.MCCD will administer the program and serve as underwriter for the Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program. The application will be reviewed by the MCCD and EDA staff to determine conformity to all city and EDA policies and ordinances and to consider the following: 1.The availability and applicability of other governmental grants and/or loan programs. 2.Whether the proposed project will result in conformance with building and zoning codes. 3.Whether it is desirous and in the best interests of the public to provide funding for the project. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 10 6 G.MCCD will review each application for completeness and determine its consistency with the goals of the Historic Walker Lake Business District loan program as enumerated above. H.In the event there is ambiguity of an application’s conformance with the program’s guidelines, the proposed application will be brought to the EDA for further discussion. I.MCCD and EDA staff will evaluate the project application in terms of the following: 1.Project Design: Evaluation of project design will include review of proposed activities, timelines and a capacity to implement. 2.Financial Feasibility: Availability of funds, private involvement, financial packaging and cost effectiveness. •Appropriate ratio of private funds to Historic EDA funds. •Sufficient cash flow to cover proposed debt service as demonstrated by financial statements and projections. •Ability to demonstrate a positive net worth. •Letter of Commitment from applicant pledging to complete the project during proposed project duration, if the loan application is approved. •Letter of Commitment from other financing sources stating terms and conditions of their participation in the project if applicable. •Project compliance with all city codes and policies. •All other information as required in the application and/or additional information as may be requested by the EDA and MCCD. 3.MCCD will recommend the approval, denial, or request a resubmission to EDA staff. A recommendation from MCCD will be forwarded to the EDA staff for final action. VIII.R ight of r efusal The EDA may deny any project, at the sole discretion of the EDA and will deny financing for any project which, in its opinion, conflicts with or does not conform to the guidelines established in this document. IX.Post-approval process A.Approval: If approved, the applicant will be sent a written commitment letter that will outline the terms and conditions of the loan approval. A copy of the commitment letter will be signed by the borrowers and guarantors signifying acceptance of the terms and conditions of the loan proposal and the conditions for funding. Upon the return of the executed commitment letter, EDA staff will begin the loan closing process with the EDA’s legal counsel. B.Closing: The EDA’s legal counsel and/or MCCD’s legal counsel will prepare documentation and coordinate the closing with the borrower or the borrower’s counsel. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 11 7 C.Loan Servicing: The EDA will contract with MCCD for all loan servicing. When servicing EDA loans, MCCD will comply with loan program requirements and in accordance with prudent and commercially reasonable lending standards. MCCD is responsible for routine servicing including receipt and review of the borrower's or Operating Company's financial statements on an annual or more frequent basis and monitoring the status of the borrower and Historic Walker Lake Business District loan collateral. MCCD will respond to borrower requests for loan modifications following approval of the EDA. For any Historic Walker Lake Business District loan that is more than three months past due, MCCD will promptly notify the EDA that the loan should be placed in liquidation unless the Historic Walker Lake Business District loan has an EDA approved deferment or is in compliance with an EDA-approved plan to allow the borrower to catch up on delinquent loan payments. MCCD will work with the EDA and borrower to cure defaults and initiate workouts. 1.Monitoring: MCCD staff will monitor loans for compliance with the accepted terms and conditions including job creation statistics and wage and benefit levels. MCCD is responsible for monitoring that the borrower makes all required insurance premium payments and has paid all taxes when due. MCCD is responsible for filing renewals and extensions of security interests on collateral for the Historic Walker Lake Business District loan, as required. 2.Reports: MCCD will provide quarterly portfolio reports to the EDA. 3.Records: Computer files and conventional paper files will be maintained for the purpose of documenting, tracking, and monitoring program and loan activities and will be maintained by the EDA and MCCD staff a.Program records: The following program information will be maintained in the project file, including but not limited to: i.Environmental report; ii.Eligibility determination records; iii.Property inspection report; iv.Progress reports; v.Credit Memo; vi.Correspondence; vii.Loan documents; and viii.Executed loan agreement. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 12 8 b.Financial records: The following financial information will be maintained in each Loan file, including but not limited to: i.Copy of the executed loan agreement; ii.Disbursement data; iii.Progress reports; iv.Repayment data. 4.Record retention: All program and financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, environmental review records and other records pertinent to the Historic Walker Lake Business District loan program shall be maintained for a period of at least three (3) years from the final project report and project closeout date. X.Delinquency The following is the notification procedure for delinquent loans: A.The City Finance Department is responsible for the timely posting of all loan repayments. B.Thirty (30) day notice: Upon thirty (30) days delinquency, MCCD will notify the Chief Financial Officer of the delinquency and shall send the borrower a delinquency notice requesting payment within fifteen (15) days. A copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the EDA Executive Director. C.Forty-five (45) day notice: If payment has not been received by the 45th day a second delinquency notice will be sent to the borrower by MCCD requesting payment within fifteen (15) days. A copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the Chief Financial Officer and EDA Executive Director. D.Sixty (60) day notice: If payment has not been received by the 60th day, MCCD will attempt to contact the borrower by telephone to address the delinquency. MCCD shall also send a notice of default to borrower via certified mail requesting immediate payment and advising the borrower the delinquency will be placed on the EDA agenda for discussion at an upcoming meeting. E.Ninety (90) day notice: If no repayment plan is submitted by the borrower, or if there is no attempt by the borrower to negotiate the amount due, the MCCD will contact the EDA Executive Director and the EDA attorney prior to sending a 90 day letter calling due the loan in full. F.Negotiation: Throughout this process, every attempt will be made to preserve the company, the jobs, and the loan funds. XI.Default If the EDA determines a loan to be in default it may adopt a resolution declaring the borrower in default and convey the matter to the EDA legal counsel for disposition. XII.Recaptured funds Loan repayments shall be deposited into the city’s Development Fund. These recaptured funds are Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 13 9 available to other applicants for utilization as gap financing for certain approved economic development projects. The Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program shall be administered by a financial management system in compliance with all state and federal requirements. All Program guidelines are subject to change without notice. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 14 10 XIII.Historic Walker Lake Business District map Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed Historic Walker Lake Business District Loan Program Page 15 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Written report: 7 Executive summary Title: SWLRT update Recommended action: No action necessary at this time. Report is for information only. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: The following is an update on activities related to the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) project: Construction schedule Construction is expected to begin this spring, primarily related to staging. Heavy construction is anticipated to begin later this year. The construction schedule for the first phase is expected by the end of March and will be shared with cities after it is reviewed and finalized by the Southwest Project Office (SPO). The schedule will also be shared and communicated to the public immediately thereafter. Pre-construction building surveys SPO recently contacted approximately 40 property owners in St. Louis Park to schedule pre- construction building surveys to document building condition prior to construction. This will allow for quicker and more efficient review of any claims that may arise related to construction of the SWLRT. The city owns two of the buildings: the building that formerly housed Nash Frame on the Wooddale and 36th Street, and the Historic Depot in Jorvig Park. Staff is working with SPO to schedule the building surveys. Community Works The Community Works Technical Implementation Committee (TIC) staff group continues to meet monthly. The work plan for 2019 includes items related to bike facilities, communications, economic development housing, natural systems and parking in station areas. The Steering Committee (elected officials group) is meeting every other month during 2019. PLACES (Public Art and Community Engagement Southwest) Places is a committee created to place public art and community-engaged cultural programming along the SWLRT corridor. This effort was initiated by Hennepin County and is now being led by Forecast Public Art through a grant from the McKnight Foundation. Currently the committee is exploring funding needs, administration, and membership to determine a path forward. Financial or budget considerations: There is no financial or budget consideration at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Written report: 8 Executive summary Title: February 2019 monthly financial report Recommended action: No action required at this time. Policy consideration: Monthly financial reports are part of our financial management policies. Summary: The monthly financial report provides a summary of general fund revenues and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. Financial or budget considerations: At the end of February, general fund expenditures were at 15.3% of the adopted annual budget, which is approximately 1.5% under budget. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Summary of revenues and expenditures – general fund Budget to actual – enterprise funds Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: February 2019 monthly financial report Discussion Background: This report provides summary information of the overall level of revenues and departmental expenditures in the general fund and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. Present considerations: General Fund Actual expenditures should generally be at about 16.7% of the annual budget at the end of February. General Fund expenditures were at 15.3% through February. Revenues are harder to measure in the same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes, grants and State aid payments. A few comments on variances are explained below. License and permit revenues combined are at 40% of budget through February. Over 80% of the 2019 business and liquor license revenue has already been received, which is typical of prior years. Permit revenue is at 27% through February due to several large permits that have been issued including PLACE, Bridgewater Bank and Yeshiva School. Organized recreation expenditures are at 25% because the full annual community education contribution of $187,400 was paid to the school district in February, which is consistent with prior years. Vehicle maintenance is over budget by about 2% through February due to equipment repair and maintenance expenditures. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Actual $2,885 $5,979 Budget $3,257 $6,515 $9,772 $13,029 $16,287 $19,544 $22,801 $26,058 $29,316 $32,573 $35,830 $39,088 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of February 28, 2019 20192019201720172018201820192019BalanceYTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Unaudited BudgetYTD Feb Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes24,748,436$ 24,837,901$ 25,705,886$ 26,597,928$ 26,880,004$ -$ 26,880,004$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits3,745,736 3,985,517 3,924,648 4,004,394 4,103,424 1,647,673 2,455,751 40.15% Fines & Forfeits254,200 293,236 269,200 283,846 279,700 18,223 261,477 6.52% Intergovernmental1,631,669 1,899,006 1,864,877 1,999,749 1,760,900 389,067 1,371,833 22.09% Charges for Services2,027,637 2,051,552 2,162,410 2,145,408 2,187,319 133,061 2,054,258 6.08% Miscellaneous Revenue1,274,415 1,294,452 1,318,037 1,418,115 1,367,012 283,743 1,083,269 20.76% Transfers In1,899,927 1,951,218 1,929,090 1,919,090 1,999,877 324,980 1,674,897 16.25% Investment Earnings 140,000 125,984 160,000 61,178 180,000 180,000 0.00% Other Income30,450 54,303 40,950 35,802 31,300 14,695 16,605 46.95% Use of Fund Balance *58,541 - 523,835 298,156 - 298,156 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues35,811,011$ 36,493,169$ 37,898,933$ 38,465,510$ 39,087,692$ 2,811,442$ 36,276,250$ 7.19%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration 1,049,123$ 1,056,796$ 1,341,606$ 1,350,672$ 1,837,620$ 237,867$ 1,599,753$ 12.94% Finance 957,275 924,832 978,752 963,836 1,034,199 168,110 866,089 16.26% Assessing707,139 652,015 759,865 710,715 772,746 125,634 647,112 16.26% Human Resources754,699 730,731 796,666 735,050 805,620 110,559 695,061 13.72% Community Development1,366,055 1,353,476 1,479,911 1,545,721 1,502,521 255,800 1,246,721 17.02% Facilities Maintenance1,132,774 1,128,339 1,162,342 1,223,109 1,170,211 133,065 1,037,146 11.37% Information Resources1,570,712 1,421,685 1,589,432 1,533,559 1,674,937 234,798 1,440,139 14.02% Communications & Marketing646,841 722,199 755,940 829,732 805,674 85,071 720,603 10.56% Community Outreach26,553 24,403 27,637 12,085 - - - Engineering376,601 339,876 525,834 552,432 570,377 72,013 498,364 12.63%Total General Government8,587,772$ 8,354,352$ 9,417,985$ 9,456,911$ 10,173,905$ 1,422,918$ 8,750,987$ 13.99% Public Safety: Police9,217,988$ 9,255,342$ 9,930,681$ 9,877,954$ 10,335,497$ 1,715,874$ 8,619,623$ 16.60% Fire Protection4,407,656 4,319,457 4,657,973 4,630,520 4,813,078 761,353 4,051,725 15.82% Inspectional Services2,419,073 2,271,301 2,544,762 2,295,910 2,555,335 405,910 2,149,425 15.88%Total Public Safety16,044,717$ 15,846,100$ 17,133,416$ 16,804,384$ 17,703,910$ 2,883,137$ 14,820,773$ 16.29% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration266,249$ 245,942$ 230,753$ 208,050$ 290,753$ 42,944$ 247,809$ 14.77% Public Works Operations3,019,017 2,809,715 3,091,857 2,920,481 3,111,481 405,258 2,706,223 13.02% Organized Recreation1,472,996 1,470,613 1,582,490 1,499,223 1,579,569 391,775 1,187,794 24.80% Recreation Center1,744,651 1,856,529 1,860,755 1,991,377 1,949,657 227,305 1,722,352 11.66% Park Maintenance1,721,732 1,797,271 1,830,530 1,846,540 1,833,297 246,880 1,586,417 13.47% Westwood Nature Center602,400 572,942 622,346 599,428 643,750 99,296 544,454 15.42% Natural Resources550,235 430,995 559,662 376,359 484,784 15,611 469,173 3.22% Vehicle Maintenance1,384,038 1,088,375 1,253,367 1,219,431 1,242,236 243,543 998,693 19.61%Total Operations & Recreation10,761,318$ 10,272,383$ 11,031,760$ 10,660,889$ 11,135,527$ 1,672,612$ 9,462,915$ 15.02% Non-Departmental: General 31,909$ 31,859$ 43,422$ 42,064$ -$ -$ -$ Transfers Out- 885,000 - - - - - 0.00% Council Programs198,000 96,656 - - - Contingency385,295 188,254 74,350 - 74,350 - 74,350 0.00%Total Non-Departmental417,204$ 1,105,113$ 315,772$ 138,720$ 74,350$ -$ 74,350$ 0.00%Total General Fund Expenditures35,811,011$ 35,577,947$ 37,898,933$ 37,060,904$ 39,087,692$ 5,978,667$ 33,109,025$ 15.30%*Primarily related to E911 capital items from restricted fund balance.Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 8) Title: February 2019 monthly financial reportPage 3 Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of February 28, 2019 Current BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetFeb Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 6,857,853$ 619,057$ 6,238,796$ 9.03% 7,513,922$ 638,581$ 6,875,341$ 8.50% 3,409,250$ 219,462$ 3,189,788$ 6.44% 2,900,839$ 352,764$ 2,548,075$ 12.16% Other 375,750 356,630 19,120 94.91% 30,000 2,564 27,436 8.55% 153,500 51 153,449 0.03% - - Total operating revenues7,233,603 975,687 6,257,916 13.49% 7,543,922 641,145 6,902,777 8.50% 3,562,750 219,513 3,343,237 6.16% 2,900,839 352,764 2,548,075 12.16%Operating expenses: Personal services1,397,512 213,388 1,184,124 15.27% 717,237 106,733 610,504 14.88% 599,774 84,827 514,947 14.14% 807,245 87,564 719,681 10.85% Supplies & non-capital324,800 30,389 294,411 9.36% 68,600 9,126 59,474 13.30% 222,550 9,563 212,987 4.30% 12,500 12,500 0.00% Services & other charges1,736,196 75,753 1,660,443 4.36% 4,784,255 1,107,100 3,677,155 23.14%2,952,323 30,476 2,921,847 1.03% 325,903 10,654 315,249 3.27% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,458,508 319,530 3,138,978 9.24% 5,570,092 1,222,959 4,347,133 21.96% 3,774,647 124,866 3,649,781 3.31% 1,145,648 98,218 1,047,430 8.57%Operating income (loss)3,775,095 656,157 3,118,938 17.38% 1,973,830 (581,814) 2,555,644 -29.48% (211,897) 94,647 (306,544) -44.67% 1,755,191 254,546 1,500,645 14.50%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 15,172 15,172 0.00% 7,200 7,200 0.00% 18,100 18,100 0.00% 14,175 14,175 0.00% Debt issuance costs- - - - - - - Interest expense/bank charges(478,969) (251,095) (227,874) 52.42% (137,428) (42,454) (94,974) 30.89% (25,500) (1,758) (23,742) 6.89% (37,672) (9,188) (28,484) 24.39% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(463,797) (251,095) (212,702) 54.14% (130,228) (42,454) (87,774) 32.60% (7,400) (1,758) (5,642) 23.76% (23,497) (9,188) (14,309) 39.10%Income (loss) before transfers3,311,298 405,062 2,906,236 12.23% 1,843,602 (624,268) 2,467,870 -33.86% (219,297) 92,889 (312,186) -42.36% 1,731,694 245,358 1,486,336 14.17%Transfers inTransfers out(620,034) (103,339) (516,695) 16.67% (848,335) (141,389) (706,946) 16.67% (241,057) (40,176) (200,881) 16.67% (332,165) (55,361) (276,804) 16.67%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,691,264 301,723 2,389,541 11.21% 995,267 (765,657) 1,760,924 -76.93% (460,354) 52,713 (513,067) -11.45% 1,399,529 189,997 1,209,532 13.58%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(5,383,474) (45,764) (5,337,710) 0.85% (1,530,238) (41,392) (1,488,846) 2.70%- - - (3,139,505) (41,393) (3,098,112) 1.32%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(2,692,210) 255,959 (2,948,169) (534,971) (807,049) 272,078 (460,354) 52,713 (513,067) (1,739,976) 148,604 (1,888,580) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 8) Title: February 2019 monthly financial reportPage 4 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Written report: 9 Executive summary Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Recommended action: Staff recommends council adopting the updated policy. Policy consideration: Is the city council in agreement with modifying city policy to collect the admin fee upfront at 1% of the par amount of the bonds? Summary: The last time the private activity revenue bond policy was updated was 2010. The current process for collecting the fee is at the time of issuance we enter into an agreement for collection of 1/8 of 1% on the project to be paid to the city over the duration of the bonds. During our review of the housing rehab fund long range financial management plan staff discussed the complexity of managing the fees over time with property owner and staffing changes. Many cities collect the fee upfront versus our current policy of billing, collecting, depositing semi-annually over the life of the bonds at 1/8th of 1%. In making this change we are also able to allow an alternative to work if the 1% puts the applicant over the allowable percentage of issuance costs and regulations. Staff can work on alternative arrangements and would present that to council for approval for that specific application. Other revisions and cleanup for sections such as the refunding section since tax-exempt bonds can be refunded for many reasons and must comply with State Statutes and/or IRS code. Staff is recommending the policy change and unless directed otherwise we will put on an upcoming agenda for formal approval. Financial or budget considerations: The policy would be amended to 1% of the par amount of the bonds at closing. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Revised policy Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Discussion Some of the benefits to making this change: • Less administrative work billing, collecting and depositing over many years in which some are over 25 years or greater (lower staffing costs for managing over time). • Sometimes management companies change over multiple times during the life of the bonds and are unaware of this agreement is in place. (eliminates confusion) • If the bonds get refunded which is often the case since they have longer maturities we no longer receive the admin fee as they get private financing to refund the bonds. (ensures funding received up front) • Having funds upfront will allow us to utilize and earn interest on the unused portions. An example of how the policy would have been applied is the recent PLACE Via Sol project. 1% up front is $436,500 and the present value of the cash flow of current policy is $657,729 so a difference of $221,229 assuming the bonds don’t get refunded between now and 2053 which is often likely. Based on past experience with other projects, it is highly probable that this would change management companies over time and also experience refunding before 2053. Moving the policy to obtain the funds up front would have assisted in administrative functions and we also would have received a known specific set amount. (2010 Version) PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATION TO CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BOND FINANCING Effective as of January 1, 2010April 1, 2019 ControllerChief Financial Officer City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216 Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 3 PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BOND FINANCING Table of Contents Page Part I General.......................................................................................................................... 1 Part II Guidelines ..................................................................................................................... 2 Part III Miscellaneous Matters ................................................................................................. 5 Part IV Application for Tax-Exempt Financing (Commercial, Industrial or Health Care) ...................................................................... 7 Part V Application for Tax-Exempt Financing (Multi-Family Housing) ............................................................................................... 10 Part VI Addendum to Application .......................................................................................... 14 Part VII Indemnification Letter of Agreement ........................................................................ 15 Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 4 1 PART I GENERAL Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.16551651 (the “Industrial Development Act”), the City of St. Louis Park has authority to issue industrial, commercial, and health care revenue bonds or notes to attract or promote economically sound industry and commerce to the City. Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the “Housing Act”) the City is authorized to issue housing revenue bonds to finance multi-family residential housing projects for low and moderate income persons and elderly persons. Projects must be consistent with the City's Housing Plan and must be embodied in a Housing Program as these terms are defined in the Housing Act. The Council is aware that such financing for certain private activities may be of benefit to the City and will consider requests for tax exempt financing subject to these Guidelines. The Council considers tax exempt financing to be a privilege, not a right. It is the judgment of the Council that tax exempt financing is to be used on a selective basis to encourage certain development that offers a benefit to the City as a whole, including significant employment and housing opportunities. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the benefit to the City, both in writing and at the required public hearing. The applicant should understand that although approval may have been granted by the City for the issuance of financing for a similar project or a similar debt structure that is not a basis upon which approval will be granted. Each application will be judged on the merits of the project as it relates to the public purposes of the Housing Act or the Industrial Development Act and the benefit to the City at the time the request for financing is being considered. This document supersedes the Procedure for Application to The City of St. Louis Park for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing initially approved December 7, 1992 as amended through October 18, 1993. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 5 2 PART II GUIDELINES 1.The Council will consider tax exempt financing for commercial, industrial and health care projects under the Industrial Development Act and housing projects under the Housing Act. An applicant for tax exempt financing pursuant to the Industrial Development Act must submit to the City the application contained in Part IV of these Guidelines. An applicant for tax exempt financing, pursuant to the Housing Act, must submit to the City the application contained in Part V of these Guidelines. 2.Projects must be compatible with the overall development plans and objectives of the City and comply with the zoning and land use regulations of the City. 3.An application will not be considered by the Council until tentative City Code findings and requirements have been made with respect to zoning, building plans, platting, streets, and utility services. The application must be accompanied by the addendum contained in Part VI of these Guidelines and must provide information as to the project's need for municipal services including, but not limited to, street improvements, water and sewer services, and police and fire protection. 4.The project must be a positive benefit to the City. The project must be of a nature that the City wishes to attract, or an existing business which the City wishes to have expand within the City, considering employment opportunities, incentive for further development, impact on City services, and support for the industrial, commercial or health care operations currently located in the City. A housing project must provide significant housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons or the elderly. 5.The Council will, if requested, grant an applicant a pre-application review. The purpose of the pre-application review is to inform applicants of the possibility of rejection or the possible bases for such rejection. The fact that the project is not rejected at the pre- application stage is not to be construed as approval of the project or as an indication that the project will be approved upon formal request to the Council. Requests for tax exempt financing may be rejected by the City whether or not the project was submitted to a pre- application review and regardless of the outcome or recommendation of that pre- application review. A request for pre-application review must be in writing, addressed to the City ControllerChief Financial Officer, and set forth the name of the project, the type of project intended and the name, address and telephone number of the person who will be representing the applicant at the pre-application review, together with such additional information as the applicant desires to submit. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 6 3 6.The applicant must select a qualified financial adviser or underwriter to assist the applicant in preparing all necessary application documents and materials. The financial adviser will submit a letter that establishes the financial feasibility of the project. Applications may, in the alternative, include a signed letter from a responsible financial institution indicating that the project is economically feasible and viable and stating that bonds can be successfully sold for the project or that an individual who is a “qualified investor” or institution intends to purchase all of the bonds. The applicant must receive approval from the appropriate state agencies, secure financing and commence construction within one year of the date of the resolution giving preliminary approval to the project or the housing program. Upon application, the Council may approve an extension of the preliminary approval. The City will appoint bond counsel for the bond issue, which will normally be the City's regularly retained bond counsel. 7.Pursuant to the Industrial Development Act and the Housing Act, consideration of an application for tax exempt financing must be done at a public hearing held by the Council. Modifications to the project after the public hearing and preliminary approval must be consistent with the scope of the project as proposed at the time of preliminary approval. 8.The City is to shall be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any out-of-pocket expenses related to the tax exempt financing including, but not limited to, legal fees, financial analyst fees, bond counsel fees, the City’s expenses in connection with the application, and any deposits or application fees required under state law in order to secure allocation of bonding authority. The applicant must execute a letter to the City undertaking to pay all such expenses. A form of the required letter is set forth as Part VII of these Guidelines. A non-refundable application fee in the amount of $2,500 must be included with the submission of the application. 9.Prior to closing and delivery of the bonds for the project, the applicant must pay at closing, or commit to pay an annual administrative fee in the amount of 1/8th of 1% (.125%) of the outstanding principal balance 1% of par amount of the bonds. The administrative fee may be paid in a lump sum at closing on the bonds, or may be paid semiannually while the bonds are outstanding at the times specified in the bond documents. The administrative fees required by this paragraph will be adjusted at or paid prior to delivery of the bonds if necessary to ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. If the administrative fees required by this paragraph are in conflict with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code related to tax-exempt bonds and the regulations promulgated thereunder, the City may consider alternative payment arrangements for the administrative fees to ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. 10.Applications for financing must be made on the forms attached to these Guidelines. In addition, the applicant must furnish a description of the project, a plat plan, elevation of Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 7 4 proposed buildings, landscape, lighting, and site preparation, together with a brief description of applicant and the proposed financing in such form as required at the time of application. 11. The Council may, in its sole discretion, impose conditions exceeding those required under the City building and land use codes and policies in respect to exterior building materials, landscaping, signage lighting, and such other aspects as the Council may consider appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 12. The Council may, in its sole discretion, withdraw its preliminary approval of a project any time if in its judgment the purposes of the Act will not be served by going forward with the project and its financing. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 8 5 PART III MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS 1.Ratings. The City will give its most favorable consideration to proposed tax exempt bond issues that have the same or higher rating as the City's obligations by Moody's Investment Service or Standard & Poor's Corporation. Issues carrying lower ratings or non-rated issues may be sold only to institutional or other investors on a private placement basis and must be in denominations of at least $100,000. The Council may depart from this guideline when in its judgment the project is of a level of merit and public purpose to justify the departure; and in case of such a departure the Council must state its reasons therefor in the resolution awarding the sale of the bonds. 2.Refundings. The Council will normally approve the refunding of a tax-exempt issue but only upon a showing by the applicant of (i) substantial debt service savings, (ii) the removal of bond covenants significantly impairing the financial feasibility of the project, or (iii) both (i) and (ii). In the case of refundings of bonds for which the administrative fee listed in paragraph 9 of Part II have been paid in full, no new administrative fees are required; but the non-refundable application fee must be paid together with all City expenses in excess of that fee. If the administrative fees for the refunded bonds are not paid in full upon closing on the refunding bonds, such fees must continue to be paid for the refunding bonds. In the case of refundings of bonds where no administrative fee has been paid, the administrative fees listed in paragraph 9 of Part II must be paid. The application form is to be appropriately modified. 3.Subsequent Proceedings. Where changes to the underlying documents or credit facilities of outstanding bond issues are to be made and require Council action (including changes that are a “deemed reissuance” under Internal Revenue Service regulations), no administrative fee is charged but a non-refundable fee of $1,500 must be deposited with the City to cover administrative costs. No formal application form is required. 4.Issue by Another Political Subdivision. The City will consider requests for tax exempt financing of projects in the City by other political subdivisions. In these cases the non- refundable application fee must be paid and all procedures through the approval of the preliminary resolution followed. No administrative fee is charged. 5.City Contact. Initial contacts about tax-exempt financing are made by contacting: Chief Financial OfficerController City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216 Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 9 6 6. Deadlines. The Council conducts all tax exempt financing matters at regularly scheduled Council meetings held on the first and third Monday of each month. Documents for Council consideration must be at the City office on the Monday of the week preceding the Council meeting at which the matter is to be considered. In the case of a publicly offered bond , issue, the documents, when submitted, may specify a maximum price and maximum effective interest rate if prices and rates have not yet been established. The applicant should expect this process to take 60-90 days to complete. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 10 7 PART IV APPLICATION FOR TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING (Commercial, Industrial or Health Care) 1.APPLICANT a.Business Name: b.Business Address: c.Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.): d.Authorized Representative: e.Principal contact person and telephone number: 2.PURPOSE OF REQUESTED FINANCING: a.New Facility (describe): b.Expansion (describe): c.Refunding (attach explanatory letter) d.Acquisition (describe) 3.GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC.: 4.ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS: (Not required for refunding) Land $______________ Building ______________ Equipment ______________ Architectural, Engineering ______________ Costs of Issuance ______________ Capitalized Interest, including discount ______________ Other ______________ Total Financing Requested $______________ Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 11 8 5.AMOUNT OF FINANCING REQUESTED: $_____________ (___% of project costs) 6.TYPE OF FINANCING PROPOSED: Bonds ______ Tax Exempt Mortgage _______ Expected Term of Financing ______ Years Security: Mortgage ________ Letter of Credit ________ Guaranty (third party) _______ Guaranty (personal) _______ Unsecured _______ Other (specify) _______ 7.BUSINESS PROFILE: (Not required for refunding) a.Is the business located in the City of St. Louis Park now? b.Number of employees in City: 1)Before this project: 2)After this project: c.Approximate annual sales: d.Length of time in business: Length of time in business in City: e.Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? 8.NAMES OF: a.Underwriter (name and contact person): Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 12 9 b.Borower’sCorporate Counsel: c.Underwriter's Counsel: 9.WHAT IS YOUR ANTICIPATED TARGET DATE FOR (if applicable): a.Construction start: b.Construction completion: 10.Attachments: a.Project description: b.Draft application to Department of Trade and Economic Development – together with necessary attachments bc. Initial application fee cd.Indemnification Letter of Agreement I certify that the information provided above contains no misrepresentations, omissions or concealments of material facts and that the information given is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I have been furnished a copy of the Procedure for Application to the City of St. Louis Park for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing and is aware of its content and agree to be bound by its terms and the terms of the indemnification letter. The applicant understands and acknowledges that the City of St. Louis Park is a governmental body and is subject to the requirements of Minn. Stat. Chapter 13 (the “Minnesota Data Practices Act”). Some of the data provided by the applicant to the City of St. Louis Park may be required to be disclosed if requested pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act. ______________________________ ______________________________ Signature Date ______________________________ Title Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 13 10 PART V APPLICATION FOR TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING (Multi-Family Housing) ______________________________ DATE OF APPLICATION: APPLICANT: CONTACT PERSON:______________________________ TITLE: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (___)_________________________ PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICANT a.Business Name: b.Business Address: c.Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.): d.Authorized Representative: e.Principal contact person and telephone number: 2.PURPOSE OF REQUESTED FINANCING: a.New Facility (describe): Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 14 11 b.Expansion (describe): c.Refunding (attach explanatory letter) d.Acquisition (describe) 3.GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC.: 4. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS: (Not required for refunding) Land $______________ Building ______________ Equipment ______________ Architectural, Engineering ______________ Costs of Issuance ______________ Capitalized Interest, ______________ Other ______________ Total Financing Requested $______________ 5.AMOUNT OF FINANCING REQUESTED: $_____________ (___% of project costs) 6.TYPE OF FINANCING PROPOSED: Bonds ______ Tax Exempt Mortgage _______ Expected Term of Financing ______ Years Security: Mortgage ________ Letter of Credit ________ Guaranty (third party) _______ Guaranty (personal) _______ Unsecured _______ Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 15 12 Other (specify) _______ PROJECT INFORMATION RENT UNITS Efficiency $_______________ __________ One Bedroom $______________ __________ Two Bedroom $______________ __________ Three Bedroom $______________ __________ Parking (included in rent/ not included in rent) $______________ __________ Laundry $______________ __________ Utilities included in monthly rent: _____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ OPERATING EXPENSES ____________% of Gross (Annual) TOTAL PROJECT COST: $_________ DEVELOPER EQUITY: $_________ DEBT SERVICE: $_________ *HARD COSTS:$_________ LAND VALUE: $_________ SOFT COSTS: $_________ *(Hard Costs are all project costs the IRS has determined to be eligible items for depreciation.) ANTICIPATED INTEREST RATES: AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE: ________________% _____-Year Amortization Schedule Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 16 13 If the project were convention- ally financed, what interest rate would you expect to pay? _______% SALES ASSUMPTION: DEPRECIATION METHOD: How many years do you plan to Years: _____________ hold the property before you sell? ________________________ Type: ________________________ years. At what percent do you feel the value of the project Amount of Total Basis: $______ will appreciate? _____________ EQUIPMENT: $________________ of project cost is for equipment (e.g., washers/dryers) ANTICIPATED INCREASES: ANTICIPATED VACANCY RATE: Revenue: _____% per year First Year: _________% Expenses: ______% per year After First Year: _________% CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Anticipated construction commencement date: _____________________ Anticipated construction completion date: _______________________ Names of: a.Underwriters (name and contact person): b.Borrower’s Counsel: c.Underwriter’s Counsel: Attachments: a.Project Description: Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 17 14 b. Initial application fee c. Indemnification Letter of Agreement ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ I certify that the information provided above contains no misrepresentations, omissions or concealments of material facts and that the information given is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I have been furnished a copy of the Procedure for Application to the City of St. Louis Park for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing and is aware of its content and agree to be bound by its terms and the terms of the indemnification letter. The applicant understands and acknowledges that the City of St. Louis Park is a governmental body and is subject to the requirements of Minn. Stat. Chapter 13 (the “Minnesota Data Practices Act”). Some of the data provided by the applicant to the City of St. Louis Park may be required to be disclosed if requested pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act. ______________________________ ______________________________ Signature Date ______________________________ Title Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 18 15 PART VI ADDENDUM TO APPLICATIONS The following items must be attached to each application: APPENDIX A A brief description of the organizational structure of Applicant, including parent subsidiary and affiliate organizations (if applicant is other than an individual). APPENDIX B Statement of Applicant's business history, including any multi-family rental projects. APPENDIX C The name, address, and telephone number of: 1. The Applicant's legal counsel 2. The Applicant's accountant 3. The architect of the proposed Project 4. The engineer of the proposed Project 5. The general contractor of the proposed Project APPENDIX D 1.Present ownership of the proposed Project site and Applicant's interest therein. 2.Present zoning comprehensive plan guiding of the Project site and a description of what city land use approvals have been received or are needed for this project. 3.The projected number of new employees to be added to the Applicant's permanent work force because of the Project (for Commercial, Industrial or Health Care only). 4.Other financing attempted or available to the Project including any interim financing. 5.Statement regarding whether or not this project has all required city approvals. If the project does not have all of the required approvals, list the approvals still needed and a tentative time schedule. APPENDIX E Indemnification Letter of Agreement. APPENDIX F Proforma Analysis of the Project Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 19 16 PART VII INDEMNIFICATION LETTER OF AGREEMENT The Mayor of the City of St. Louis Park and Members of the City Council City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216 RE: Application of _________________ for Tax Exempt Revenue Bond Financing by the City of St. Louis Park Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter of agreement is given by _____________________, a _________________ under the laws of Minnesota ("Applicant") as required by the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota in connection with its consideration of an application for tax exempt revenue bond financing for the project described in the application. Applicant agrees as follows: 1.Applicant agrees to pay or reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses which the City may incur in connection with its consideration of the project and the granting of tax exempt revenue bond financing therefor, whether or not the project is preliminarily approved by the City, whether or not the project is approved by the State of Minnesota, whether or not revenue bond financing is finally approved by the City, whether or not the bonds are issued and sold, and whether or not the project is carried to completion. 2.Applicant agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its officers, employees and agents harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses or liabilities, including attorneys fees incurred in their defense, to which the City, its officers, employees and agents may become subject in connection with the City's consideration, issuance or sale of the bonds for Applicant's project and the carrying out of the transactions contemplated by this agreement and any resolutions adopted, or agreements executed by the City in connection with the issuance of its bonds for this project. 3.Applicant hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claims, causes of action, losses, damages, or liabilities which it may have against the City, its officers, agents, and employees or which it may incur in connection with: the City's consideration of the application for industrial development revenue bond financing for Applicant's project; the failure of the City, in its discretion, to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds for Applicant's project; Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 20 17 the issuance and sale of the bonds; the construction of the project; or any other matter or thing of any type or nature whatsoever which may arise in connection with the foregoing. 4.Applicant is aware of the City's application and administrative fee structure for tax exempt financing and agrees and covenants that all such fees will be paid in the amount and at the times required. Dated: ____________ (Applicant) By ___________________________ Its __________________________ Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 9) Title: Update to private activity revenue bond policy Page 21 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: March 25, 2019 Written report: 10 Executive summary Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Recommended action: None at this time. This report is to inform council on staff’s progress regarding implementing a mobility sharing pilot program in St. Louis Park. Please inform staff of any questions or concerns you might have. Policy consideration: Does the city council want to move forward with the implementation of a mobility sharing pilot program within the city? Summary: At the May 29, 2018, study session, staff provided the city council with information regarding bicycle sharing within the city. At the meeting, the city council directed staff to work toward implementation in 2019. After much research and consideration, this report details how staff plans to move forward with a mobility sharing pilot program in 2019. There are two parts to this program moving forward, regulatory and process. On the regulatory side, the city attorney has advised staff that regardless of whether mobility sharing services deploy in the city, we should have ordinance language that prohibits mobility sharing vendors from operating within the city without a license. To address this, staff is planning to bring to the city council for approval an ordinance. The first and second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for April 1 and April 15 respectively and is scheduled to be in effect on May 10. A copy of the draft ordinance is posted on the website. On the process side, the following report details the mobility sharing pilot program. Financial or budget considerations: Any selected vendors would pay a permit/ licensing fee to help to cover staff time and infrastructure costs. Any other costs related to this policy are negligible and would come from the general operating budget. Strategic priority consideration: •St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. •St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. •St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion Draft mobility sharing ordinance Mobility sharing survey Fleet distribution (census tract) map City council study session minutes May 29, 2018 Prepared by: Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Discussion Background: At the May 29, 2018, study session, staff provided the city council with information regarding bicycle sharing. At the meeting, the city council directed staff to monitor the state of shared mobility within the region, reach out to the public for feedback and work toward implementation of a mobility sharing pilot program in 2019. Beginning a pilot project for shared mobility in St. Louis Park supports goals in the city’s strategic priorities, Comprehensive Plan, and Climate Action Plan. A survey from Minneapolis indicates that users of shared mobility use their personal vehicles, taxis, or ride hailing services less. This decreases the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) overall in the city which decreases the amount of emitted greenhouse gases (GHG). Users of mobility sharing also reported more use of public transit, walking, or biking which also decreases VMT and GHG. Staff preparation: The mobility sharing pilot program as it is discussed in this report is a culmination of the many meetings with staff, research done by engineering, observations of other city’s experiences, and feedback from the community. Staff from different departments have been meeting since early 2018 to discuss shared mobility and its impact to the community and city functions. In addition, St. Louis Park staff has been meeting with other west metro city staff monthly since mid-2018 to discuss shared mobility in the region as well as create an open line of communication between cities. Community surveys: An online survey was released in October 2018 to gauge the community’s familiarity with mobility sharing, support, and how they may use the technology. We received over 200 responses to the survey. 64% of respondents said they would likely use a mobility sharing service were it to be in St. Louis Park. Survey respondents did not show a strong preference on which type of transportation device (bicycle, e-bicycle, or scooter) they would use. Residents were most likely to travel to destinations in St. Louis Park (91%), Minneapolis (81%), and Hopkins (49%). Although a vast majority of respondents would use the service on their smartphone, 10% of people would want to use a text/SMS message or phone call to access the service. Though nearly all respondents would use a debit or credit card to purchase the service, about 3% would use cash. During 2018, the City of Minneapolis also surveyed their residents who had taken at least one scooter ride in 2018. 7% of responses stated that their use of public transit, walking, or biking increased with access to scooters. 42% of responses stated use of personal vehicles, transportation network companies (TNCs, like Uber or Lyft), or taxis decreased with access to scooters. In addition, we have had information in the Park Perspective and on our website regarding shared mobility. Resident complaints: During the 2018 shared scooter and bicycle operations season (July to October) in Golden Valley, Edina, and Minneapolis, staff in St. Louis Park received four resident complaints. Two through the MyStLouisPark portal, one through email, and another through the police department. Each complaint focused on a scooter or bike left in the right of way. To Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations our knowledge, no crashes occurred in St. Louis Park in 2018 relating to a shared bike or scooter. To compare, in 2018, Minneapolis (with a population of about 400,000 and two scooter companies in operation) received the following regarding scooters: • 47 parking complaints • 34 riding complaints • 4 damaged or broken scooter complaints • 4 reported crashes (1 car, 2 pedestrian, 1 bike), no severe injuries reported Council concerns: Council shared concerns with staff regarding mobility sharing during the May 29, 2018 study session. Their quoted concerns are answered in this section: “…asked staff for information on cities that have the program, to see the usage rates”. - Minneapolis (July-November 2018, scooters only): • 243,587 total rides • 1,703 rides a day • 1.25 miles a ride, 14.85 minutes a ride • 74,877 unique users • 87% of city streets were ridden on - Edina (bikes July-Nov and scooters Sept-Nov) • 1,232 and 1,862 total rides • 4 and 90 rides a day • 0.8 and 0.9 miles a ride • 18 and 13 minutes a ride • 718 and 971 overall users - Golden Valley (bikes Aug-Oct and scooters Sept-Oct) • 769 and 730 total rides • 5 and 15 rides a day • 1.3 and 1.7 miles a ride • 470 and 439 overall users “…does not want to see the bikes litter the city…there will need to be rules…” • One of the lessons learned from the other cities is that until we deploy the program, it is difficult to understand where the demand for rides will be highest. • There will be the ability to “geofence” areas of town. This makes any device in the prescribed area either unable to park/finish ride or ride under a certain speed. • The fee paid by the mobility share providers can be used for parking infrastructure such as paint or tape to delineate where parking is advised in popular or problem areas. • The application also asks for expected response times to address abandoned or improperly parked devices. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Page 4 Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations “…when looking at this from an equity lens, it would be good for the folks in the Aquila neighborhood and apartment buildings in non-commercial areas”. • Another part of the application is fleet distribution requirements. This requires a minimum of 40% of the devices be in the middle of the city which includes Aquila. This area represents almost 60% of all naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) apartment buildings, 50% of people of color and indigenous (POCI), and 40% of all apartment units in the city. This requirement was worked on with Alicia Sojourner, the city’s racial equity manager. “…public process is part of the city’s brand…will want to have a conversation with the community first about what residents prefer”. • The community survey summary was provided in the previous section. The full survey details are attached in the report. Mobility sharing pilot program description: There are two parts to this program moving forward, regulatory and process. On the regulatory side, the city attorney has advised staff that regardless of whether mobility sharing services deploy in the city, we should have ordinance language that prohibits mobility sharing vendors from operating within the city without a license. To address this, staff is planning to bring to the city council for approval ordinance language. The first and second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for April 1 and April 15 respectively and is scheduled to be in effect on May 10. A copy of the draft ordinance is posted on the website. From a process side, here is a summary of the mobility sharing pilot program: Staff recommends introducing a shared mobility pilot project through March 31, 2020. This pilot project would include the opportunity for either shared bikes, scooters, or both to operate in St. Louis Park. The goals of the pilot project are to: • Decrease the use of personal vehicles • Increase access to public transit • Increase the use of active transportation • Ensure safe and equitable access to emerging transportation technologies The structure of the shared mobility pilot program will start with an application. Successful applicants are chosen based on their proposed plans to meet the program’s primary terms and requirements. These terms are: 1. The pilot program will run through March 31, 2020 for mobility sharing operations in the city’s right of way. The engineering director has discretion to cease operations after November 30, 2019 based on weather conditions. 2. The city retains complete discretion and control of the right of way with the city. 3. Interested parties will be asked to fill out a license application. Selection to participate is based on the content of the provider’s application and evaluated for its alignment with the city’s policies including our strategic priorities, Comprehensive Plan, and Climate Action Plan. The city has the flexibility to not choose any providers if they do not meet the city’s expectations. There is also flexibility for the city to choose multiple providers. 4. The application shall explicitly address the following areas: Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Page 5 Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations a. Experience and qualifications b. Privacy policy, user agreements, and terms of service c. Data sharing practices d. Pricing and access i. Access to low-income pricing ii. Alternative methods of access (cash payment, non-smartphone options) e. Device availability and distribution i. Applicant-provided distribution plan showing how they intend to comply with distribution requirements f. Safe riding and parking i. How will the provider address inappropriate and unsafe use? g. Local outreach and education i. How does the provider plan to connect and communicate with the city and public? ii. How will the provider plan to handle complaints and concerns? h. Fleet, marketing and customer support i. Local hiring and labor plan ii. Recharging (if applicable) and relocation logistics iii. Maintenance and cleaning practices iv. Marketing and customer support activities 5. The engineering director has the right to suspend or revoke any license at any time if it is determined that a licensee’s users have failed to comply with applicable laws governing the operation and parking of shared scooters or bikes which may threaten public health, safety and welfare. 6. Establishes minimum distribution requirements as follows: a. At least 40% distributed through the middle of the city (map provided), or a minimum of 100 devices. b. Remaining 60% distributed in areas outside of the above requirement as proposed by the licensee’s approved application, or a maximum of 150 devices. 7. Based on distribution requirements above, establishes an initial maximum number of devices allowed in city right of way of 250 devices, to be divided evenly among licensees. 8. Establishes ability for the engineering department to increase or decrease the maximum number of devices based on licensees’ meeting specified performance targets. a. Engineering director reserves final discretion to approve all increases. b. Engineering director reserves final discretion to decrease maximum number of devices by individual licensee or in total, based on threat to public health and safety, or licensee’s failure to abide by other requirements of the agreement. 9. Establishes a requirement for licensees to incorporate low-income pricing programs and alternative access options for those without smartphones, credit cards, or bank accounts. 10. Requires devices to be self-locking, and parked upright using a kickstand when not in use, in a location which does not impede pedestrian path of travel or access. 11. Requires licensee to maintain responsibility for: a. Ongoing education, including in-person events, of users including how and where to ride, proper parking procedures, and low income and alternative access programs. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Page 6 Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations b. All costs associated with enforcement and impoundment of devices covered by the agreement. c. All device relocation and maintenance activities, including handling requests for relocation or unsafe scooters, and providing prompt service. 12. Grants the city the authority to impound shared mobility devices based on improper parking, and sets the initial impoundment fee at $56 per device, with an $18 per day storage fee if not retrieved in the same day of impoundment. a. Impoundment fee is to offset the city’s costs of impoundment, and will be evaluated after the pilot program to determine appropriate fee structure going forward. 13. Includes user data privacy and protection requirements such as: a. Policies safeguarding user personal, financial, and travel information and usage including but not limited to trip start and end destination and routing. b. Licensee shall not make any users’ personal data available to any third-party advertiser or other private entity, including those affiliated or owned jointly by licensee. c. Establish appropriate records retention term, both for trip data that the city is accessing as well as personal and trip data stored by licensees. 14. Includes comprehensive and anonymous data sharing provisions for the purposes of monitoring compliance and evaluation of pilot program. 15. Requires licensee to pay $100 per device, approximately $25,000 in total over the one (1) year pilot program. This is to offset a similar city expense for oversight and regulation of the pilot, and to support the development of infrastructure. 16. City-standard general terms and conditions for professional services will apply. Equity Equity is a key consideration in beginning this pilot program. Attention was given to both equity in geographic access as well as equity in how people access and pay for mobility sharing services. Geographic equity Other cities who have had similar pilots also focused on serving areas of concentrated poverty (ACP). ACP, which is determined by the Metropolitan Council, is defined as census tracts where 40% or more of the residents have family or individual incomes that are less than 185% of the federal poverty threshold. St. Louis Park does not have any census tracts which qualify as ACP. However, we can focus on serving those who live in apartments and especially naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). It is anticipated that shared mobility devices will be popular or placed by the providers is the West End area and Excelsior & Grand/Wolfe Park/Rec Center area. These locations are on the far east, north and south parts of the city. This leaves the middle of the city underserved. To promote geographic equity, St. Louis Park’s shared mobility application requires at least 40% of a providers fleet serve the middle of the city (specifically census tracts 1225, 1226, 223.02, 224, 227, 228.01, and 228.02). A map depicting this area is attached. This area represents almost 60% of all NOAH apartment buildings, 50% of POCI, and 40% of all apartment units in the city. This requirement was worked on with Alicia Sojourner, the city’s racial equity manager. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Page 7 Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Equity in access According to the St. Louis Park shared mobility survey, 10% of respondents would use mobility sharing without a smartphone (text, SMS, or by phone call). The application and requirements will put an emphasis on non-smartphone methods to use shared mobility. Three percent of respondents to the St. Louis Park shared mobility survey would use cash instead of a credit or debit card. The application and requirements will put an emphasis on ways to access shared mobility without the use of a credit card, debit card, or bank account. Emphasis will also be put on low-income and other discounted pricing plans for the service. License fee use The application notes an annual fee of $100 per device to operate within the city. This adds up to $25,000 if the fleets are maxed out. The fee’s purpose is to compensate for staff time as well as pay for infrastructure to help support mobility sharing. There are two types of infrastructure, parking and bikeways, which the annual fee can be used to improve. Where the mobility devices are popular and are plentiful, temporary parking delineation can be installed in the right of way. This can be in the form of tape, paint, and signage. Any suggested parking delineators will be cognizant of the pedestrian clear zone and ADA requirements. The city’s existing bikeway infrastructure can also be improved to promote increased use of active transportation. This can come in the form of striping touch-ups or improvements, signage, or infrastructure creating protected bikeways. To create protected bikeways, white delineators called flex-posts can be added to existing buffers of buffered bikeways provided they are at least two feet wide. The vertical delineation increases driver awareness of the bike lane space as well as increase the overall safety of all road users. The fees can also be used to address intersection striping or signage treatments. Application process Interested mobility sharing providers will apply to the city answering the questions shown in this report. The mobility sharing interdepartmental staff group will meet and review all received applications. Some information will also be shared with the inter-city mobility sharing group as far as who has applied and how has it performed in other cities. Ultimately, the engineering director or their designee will make the final decision on which, if any, providers’ applications will be accepted. There is no minimum for the number of vendors, giving flexibility if no vendors meet the city’s expectations. There is also flexibility to choose multiple vendors if more than one will meet the city’s goals and expectations. Where the license is denied, an explanation will be provided with the basis for the decision. Next steps: The mobility share application will be sent to vendors known to have interest in the Twin Cities. These vendors are currently Nice Ride, Lime, Bird, Spin, Bolt, Pony, Razor, and Lyft. The applications are expected to be sent out on March 27 and are due April 3. Vendors (if applicable) are to be selected April 10. Ordinance No. ___-19 An ordinance regarding mobility sharing operations The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. That Chapter 30 of the Code of Ordinances, City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding the underscored language. Article VII. Mobility Sharing Operations Sec. 30-212. Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Bicycle shall have the meaning specified in Minnesota Statute Section 169.011. Motorized foot scooter shall have the meaning specified in Minnesota Statute Section 169.011. Vehicle shall have the meaning specified in Minnesota Statute Section 169.011. Low power vehicle shall include motorized foot scooters, and any other powered transportation device expressly identified as such pursuant to city council action. A current list of any devices added to and included in this definition shall be kept on file by the director of engineering, and will be made readily available for public inspection. Bicycle sharing shall mean any rental or lending services that: (1)Allows bicycle riders to temporarily use bicycles available from a fleet in exchange for a fee or other form of direct or indirect compensation; and (2)Encourages, allows, or is susceptible to bicycle vending, renting, or lending from city maintained right-of-way or other city property. Low power vehicle sharing shall mean any rental or lending services that: (1)Allows low power vehicle riders to temporarily use low power vehicles available from a fleet in exchange for a fee or other form of direct or indirect compensation; and (2)Encourages, allows, or is susceptible to low power vehicle vending, renting, or lending from city maintained right-of-way or other city property. Car sharing shall mean any rental or lending services that: (1)Allows qualified drivers to temporarily use vehicles available from a fleet in exchange for a fee that is based on mileage and/or duration of use; and (2)Conducts its vehicle vending from parking spaces located in the public right-of- way. Car sharing does not mean a vehicle rental or lending service using a daily rental charge or requiring a minimum twenty-four (24) hour rental period. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 8 Mobility sharing shall mean any one, any combination of, or all of the following: (1) Bicycle sharing (2) Low power vehicle sharing (3) Car sharing Sec. 30-213. Impounding authorized (a) Bicycles or low power vehicles may be impounded by any police officer, duly authorized city employee, or city-licensed impoundment contractor because: (1) The bicycle or low power vehicle was found unattended and blocking traffic or public infrastructure, or otherwise compromising public safety. (2) The bicycle or low power vehicle is part of an unpermitted mobility sharing operation and is found in violation of one or more provisions of Division 3 of this article. (3) The bicycle or low power vehicle is found in violation of one or more of the terms of a license issued under Division 3 of this article. (b) All bicycles or low power vehicles found in violation of this section are subject to impoundment without warning. (c) “Impoundment” or “impound’ as used in this article means removal of a bicycle or low power vehicle to a temporary storage location or designated impound facility by the city, or by a city-licensed impoundment contractor, in response to authorization from a police officer, traffic control agent, or other city employee who is designated by the director of engineering to act under this section. (d) Not more than seventy-two (72) hours after impoundment of any bicycle or low power vehicle, the city shall attempt notice to the owner of the device, as disclosed by readily identifiable owner contact information attached to the bicycle. The notice shall be attempted by telephone, electronic mail, or U.S. mail. The notice shall outline the impoundment and redemption process. If a bicycle is redeemed prior to the submission of notice, or if the city is unable to readily identify the owner, then the notice need not be sent. Saturdays, Sundays, and city holidays are to be excluded from the calculation of the seventy-two (72) hour period. (e) All bicycles or low power vehicles impounded under this section shall be subject to an impounded fee that is sufficient to offset the city’s costs of enforcement and storage for each such device. Sec. 30-214. Sale of impounded bicycles. Any bicycle lawfully coming into the possession of the city and remaining unclaimed by the owner for a period of at least thirty (30) days may be sold to the highest bidder at public auction or sale following reasonable published notice. Sec. 30-215. Sale of impounded low power vehicles. Any low power vehicle lawfully coming into the possession of the city and remaining unclaimed by the owner for a period of at least thirty (30) days may be sold to the highest bidder at public auction or sale following reasonable published notice. Secs. 30-216--30-230. Reserved. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 9 Division 2. Operation Sec. 30-231. State bicycle laws apply. The operation of a bicycle upon any public street, alley, highway, sidewalk, or other public property in the city shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.222 together with this chapter. Sec. 30-232. State operation laws apply. The operation of each form of low power vehicle upon a public street, alley, highway, sidewalk, or other public property in the city shall be governed by the corresponding provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169. Secs. 30-233--30-250. Reserved. Division 3. Mobility sharing operations Sec. 30-251. License required. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, no person shall engage in the business of mobility sharing from city maintained right of way or other city property without a valid license agreement with the city. As used in this chapter, the word “license” shall mean a written agreement issued by the city’s director of engineering, with formal approval by the city council. (b) Any bicycle or low power vehicle that is part of a mobility sharing operation not authorized by license under this section shall be deemed an unpermitted bicycle or unpermitted low power vehicle. Any person in possession of an unpermitted bicycle or low power vehicle may ride such device into and through the city, subject to all applicable state and local laws and rules, including but not limited to any ordinances promulgated by Three Rivers Park District and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. All unpermitted bicycles or low power vehicles must be attended by the same user at all times while on city maintained right of way or other city property. As used in this article, “attended” means a readily identifiable user is located within five feet of the bicycle. Sec. 30-252. Control of right-of-way. Licenses issued pursuant to this chapter shall not operate so as to transfer ownership or control of the public right-of-way to mobility sharing operators, or to any other party. Sec. 30-253. Compliance with laws. Mobility sharing operators and consumers shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, as they may be amended from time to time. Sec. 30-254. Attachment of bicycles prohibited. Bicycles that are part of any mobility sharing operation shall not, for any length of time, be secured, attached, or connected to a bicycle rack, or any other immovable object with a lock unless expressly permitted under city license. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 10 Sec. 30-255. Attachment of low power vehicles prohibited. Low power vehicles that are part of any mobility sharing operation shall not, for any length of time, be secured, attached, or connected to a bicycle rack, or any other immovable object, with a lock unless expressly permitted under city license. Sec. 30-256. Exclusive use of bicycle sharing stations. Bicycles that are part of any mobility sharing operation shall not be parked, for any length of time, in a designated, city-permitted bicycle sharing station unless such bicycle is permitted by a valid license under Section 30-251. All city-permitted bicycle sharing stations will be clearly identified. Sec. 30-257. Exclusive use of low power vehicle sharing stations. Low power vehicles that are part of any mobility sharing operation shall not be parked, for any length of time, in a designated, city-permitted low power vehicle sharing station unless such low power vehicle is permitted by a valid license under Section 30-251. All city-permitted low power vehicle sharing stations will be clearly identified. Sec. 30-258. Enforcement (a) Bicycles or low power vehicles may be deemed to be part of a mobility sharing operation based on any of the following: marketing or advertising associated with a business logo attached to the device; marketing or advertising associated with the overall appearance of the device; the existence of a locking mechanism that can be unlocked for a fee or other form of direct or indirect compensation; or any other indicator that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the device is used for mobility sharing as defined in this chapter. (b) Any bicycle or low power vehicle deemed to be part of a mobility sharing operation that is found illegally parked, left unattended on city maintained right of way or other city property for a period of more than fifteen (15) minutes, or otherwise in violation of the terms of a valid city license, shall be subject to impoundment under Division 1 of this article. (c) Any bicycle or low power vehicle deemed to be part of a mobility sharing operation that is left unattended on private property shall be subject to impoundment under Division 1 of this article. Impoundment shall not occur unless, and until, a qualifying request to remove the device is made by the owner or authorized representative of such property. (d) In addition to any other remedy available at equity or law, failure to comply with the provisions of this Article VII, or with the terms of any license issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 30-251, may result in impoundment as provided in this article, license revocation, suspension or cancellation, administrative fines, restrictions, or penalties as provided in Chapter 1 of this code. Secs. 30-259--30-290. Reserved Section 2. That Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances, City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding the underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 11 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT *** Mobility Sharing Device Impoundment Impoundment fee $56 per mobility sharing device Storage fee $18 per day if not retrieved in the same day of impoundment. License Fee $100 per mobility sharing device Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect (insert text) Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 15, 2019 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney First Reading April 1, 2019 Second Reading April 15, 2019 Date of Publication April 18, 2019 Date Ordinance takes effect May 10, 2019 Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 12 66.50%137 33.50%69 Q1 Have you ever used a mobility sharing service before? Answered: 206 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 206 Yes No 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 1 / 7 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 13 Q2 (If applicable) Where have you used a mobility sharing service and what was the name of the company? Answered: 142 Skipped: 64 2 / 7 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 14 Q2 (If applicable) Where have you used a mobility sharing service and what was the name of the company? Answered: 142 Skipped: 64 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Lime, Bird in MPLS and Bird in Los Angeles 2/28/2019 3:59 PM 2 Nice Ride 11/26/2018 8:17 PM 3 By the university of MN 11/7/2018 7:42 PM 4 Minneapolis and St. Paul Nice Ride 11/7/2018 7:15 PM 5 I do NOT want this in SLP. Look at other cities with this program. Bikes are left everywhere. It looks terrible! 11/5/2018 6:19 PM 6 All over the USA. Bird and Livewire and city bike shares.11/4/2018 6:21 PM 7 Minneapolis: NiceRide, LimeBike, and Bird 11/3/2018 10:31 AM 8 Pittsburgh, PA; Healthy Ride (docked bikes).11/1/2018 7:01 AM 9 Bird in Minneapolis, Nice Ride in Minneapolis, and Bycyklen in Copenhagen.10/31/2018 10:12 AM 10 Minneapolis: Nice Ride, Car2go 10/29/2018 9:50 PM 11 San Diego, CA (Bird) and Minneapolis (Lime)10/29/2018 12:46 PM 12 In Minneapolis, St. Paul and Denver. The companies were Lime, Bird, Lyft (Denver) and Razor 10/29/2018 8:05 AM 13 Austin, TX 10/28/2018 9:45 PM 14 Bird, lime, SND, SFO,10/28/2018 10:06 AM 15 Nice ride in minneapolis. I have also used bike sharings in Des Moines, IA and Madison, WI. I don't remember their names though. 10/26/2018 8:09 AM 16 Minneapolis - Lime Scooters 10/25/2018 2:46 PM 17 I've used them in many cities... bike shares for years while visiting other cities. I routinely use Nice Ride, Lime, and Bird in Minneapolis maybe a few times a week. 10/25/2018 2:12 PM 18 Nice Ride in Minneapolis, and bikeshares in Long Beach and Portland operated by similar companies. 10/25/2018 1:11 PM 19 In Minneapolis. Nice Ride, Lime and Bird 10/25/2018 11:41 AM 20 Minneapolis. Niceride Lyme Bird 10/25/2018 10:06 AM 21 Lime, Bird, Motivate, NiceRide in Minneapolis and Saint Paul 10/25/2018 9:32 AM 22 Minneapolis and st paul companies are Lime Bird and Nice Ride 10/25/2018 8:38 AM 23 Lime Bird minneapolis 10/24/2018 10:35 PM 24 Lime - Minneapolis Bird - Minneapolis MoBike - Berlin Nice Ride - Minneapolis 10/24/2018 10:34 PM 25 lime 10/24/2018 9:55 AM 26 Lime/Bird in MPLS, Los Angeles 10/23/2018 10:31 AM 27 Washington DC.10/22/2018 12:27 PM 28 Citibike Please do NOT allow scooters - I have been to cities that allow Bird and Line - while convenient and fun, the scooters litter the sidewalks as people can drop and pick them up wherever they are - having a docking station is key to keeping organized and safe. 10/19/2018 9:24 PM 29 NA 10/18/2018 10:56 PM 30 Bird, Lime 10/17/2018 7:20 PM 1 / 4 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 15 31 Minneapolis: Nice Ride 10/16/2018 4:12 PM 32 Nice Ride Minnesota 10/16/2018 3:49 PM 33 Minneapolis - Lime Bike I believe 10/16/2018 3:19 PM 34 Nice Ride bikes in Minneapolis 10/16/2018 3:13 PM 35 Minneapolis. NiceRide, Lime, Bird.10/16/2018 3:02 PM 36 Austin, TX, Edina, MN/Byrd, Lime 10/16/2018 2:34 PM 37 Nice Ride - Minneapolis Lime Bike - Miami Bird eScooter - Los Angeles 10/16/2018 2:14 PM 38 Nice Ride in MPLS 10/16/2018 2:12 PM 39 nice ride in Minneapolis 10/16/2018 1:36 PM 40 Minneapolis - Nice Ride, Seattle, Chicago - Divvy 10/16/2018 1:19 PM 41 Charlotte, NC Lime, Bird 10/16/2018 1:17 PM 42 lime 10/16/2018 12:21 PM 43 Lime and Bird Minnea, Edina and St. Louis Missouri 10/16/2018 7:45 AM 44 Bird and Lime 10/16/2018 6:03 AM 45 Lime Bike scooters and bikes in Golden Valley 10/15/2018 11:15 PM 46 Washington DC. Unsure of the name.10/15/2018 11:01 PM 47 Minneapolis...Nice ride and car2go before it left MN 10/15/2018 10:46 PM 48 NA 10/15/2018 10:32 PM 49 Nice Ride in Mpls, Citi bike in Chicago, wow bike in Reykjavik, DC bike share in dc 10/15/2018 10:31 PM 50 I've used Nice Ride both in St. Paul (lived there) and Minneapolis. I was introduced to Bird in LA and Venice Beach and enjoyed using them there. I recently took my first Bird ride in Uptown when I was running late to catch my bus transfer and I needed to clear 6 blocks in a couple minutes. 10/15/2018 10:24 PM 51 N/A 10/15/2018 10:20 PM 52 Minneapolis, NiceRide 10/15/2018 9:55 PM 53 Minneapolis Nice Ride 10/15/2018 8:42 PM 54 Minneapolis and St. Louis Park. Bird and like.10/15/2018 8:37 PM 55 Nice ride, lime, bird - Minneapolis 10/15/2018 8:34 PM 56 Nice Ride 10/15/2018 3:48 PM 57 Lime in Minneapolis 10/15/2018 3:46 PM 58 Nice Ride / MPLS 10/15/2018 9:38 AM 59 N/A I see no opportunity to say whether I think this option should be available. I was in St Paul yesterday and saw the bikes just left anywhere and in any fashion; for example, sometimes in the middle of a sidewalk. I wonder how the elderly and disabled (blind, in a wheelchair) are managing this? In a wheelchair on the sidewalk and suddenly there is a bike partially or completely blocking your way. If this is how this is managed, please do not bring it to SLP. 10/14/2018 8:18 PM 60 Golden Valley, Minneapolis (Lime)10/14/2018 7:13 PM 61 Niceride Bikes 10/14/2018 7:07 PM 62 Minneapolis, Nice Ride 10/14/2018 4:14 PM 63 Nice ride in Minneapolis 10/14/2018 12:18 PM 64 Spain 10/13/2018 6:28 PM 65 I have used the BIRD scooters and also Nice Ride bikes.10/13/2018 3:30 PM 66 LIME 10/13/2018 11:53 AM 2 / 4 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 16 67 Since there isn't a place other then this box to put comments, I don't want them in our town. They clutter the neighborhood. I live in the Crestview neighborhood and a couple showed up on a neighbor lawn and sat there for days. They are an eye sore 10/13/2018 11:47 AM 68 I consider the lime bikes and the bird scooters to be dumping. If one gets dumped on my property, it is going to get dumped in my dumpster. The city should not support these services. If people are interested in having this service available, it needs to be monitored and have check points where the bikes and scooters are returned 10/13/2018 11:17 AM 69 nice ride- Mpls; city bikes- NYC 10/13/2018 10:22 AM 70 Lime 10/12/2018 5:43 PM 71 Nice Ride, Mpls 10/12/2018 2:33 PM 72 Nice Ride 10/12/2018 2:02 PM 73 Minneapolis, NiceRide 10/12/2018 1:25 PM 74 Minneapolis. Bird 10/12/2018 1:20 PM 75 Nice ride bike in Minneapolis and Fargo 10/12/2018 12:49 PM 76 Nice Ride - Uptown Minneapolis 10/12/2018 12:32 PM 77 Bird Scooters in Minneapolis 10/12/2018 12:29 PM 78 Lime bikes and Bird Scooters in Downtown minneapolis 10/12/2018 12:26 PM 79 Nice ride. Minneapolis 10/12/2018 11:44 AM 80 Lime Bird all over the country 10/12/2018 11:27 AM 81 Uptown, Bird and Lime 10/12/2018 11:14 AM 82 Minneapolis (Nice Ride) Chicago (Divvy) Montreal (Bixi)10/11/2018 9:19 PM 83 California, Bird 10/11/2018 8:51 PM 84 Lime 10/11/2018 8:40 PM 85 Chicago- divy Minneapolis-Lime & Nice Ride 10/11/2018 7:46 PM 86 Minneapolis, MN - Lime 10/11/2018 7:21 PM 87 Nice Ride Minneapolis, Boise, ID Portland, OR 10/11/2018 7:19 PM 88 Minneapolis. Lime and Bird 10/11/2018 7:04 PM 89 Minneapolis - Nice Ride 10/11/2018 7:04 PM 90 St Paul, Nice Ride 10/11/2018 6:49 PM 91 Minneapolis. Lime, bird and nice ride 10/11/2018 5:59 PM 92 Minneapolis - lime and bird scooters 10/11/2018 5:41 PM 93 Minneapolis-bird scooter, lime scooter and the green bikes 10/11/2018 5:33 PM 94 I have used Lime (both pedal bikes and electric scooters) and Bird electric scooters in Minneapolis and St. Louis Park. 10/11/2018 4:27 PM 95 I've used Lime in Seattle.10/11/2018 3:39 PM 96 niceride (https://www.niceridemn.com/)10/11/2018 12:42 PM 97 Minneapolis, MN, LimeBike 10/11/2018 12:37 PM 98 Tel Aviv, New York, Cincinnati 10/11/2018 6:42 AM 99 Seattle we use LimeBike 10/11/2018 5:52 AM 100 Nice Ride in MN 10/11/2018 12:33 AM 101 Minneapolis: nice ride, car to go 10/10/2018 9:46 PM 102 Nice Ride in Minneapolis, MN Velib in Paris, France COMMENT (sorry, I didn't see a place for other comments): I would probably only use a mobility sharing service in st louis park if it was Nice Ride because I already pay for a season pass with Nice Ride. 10/10/2018 9:44 PM 3 / 4 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 17 103 Bixi in Montreal 10/10/2018 9:05 PM 104 Nice ride in the Twin cities, divy in Washington DC, bird scooters in Portland 10/10/2018 8:50 PM 105 Minnapolis, Washington DC, PORTLAND 10/10/2018 8:38 PM 106 Nice Ride and Lime in Minneapolis Bird and Lime in San Diego 10/10/2018 8:29 PM 107 Nice ride in mpls 10/10/2018 8:24 PM 108 Nice Ride in Minneapolis 10/10/2018 8:07 PM 109 NiceRide (Mpls), Citibike (MiamiBeach),Paris, London 10/10/2018 7:14 PM 110 Hubway (Boston), Ford GoBike (San Francisco), NiceRide 10/10/2018 7:11 PM 111 Lime & Bird. Minneapolis & Lansing/East Lansing Michigan.10/10/2018 7:04 PM 112 Mpls NiceRide 10/10/2018 7:01 PM 113 Minneapolis, lime and bird 10/10/2018 6:40 PM 114 Golden valley. Lime 10/10/2018 5:49 PM 115 Nice ride in Minneapolis 10/10/2018 4:49 PM 116 Nice Ride in MPLS and Biketown in Portland, OR 10/10/2018 4:45 PM 117 Washington DC - do not remember name 10/10/2018 4:11 PM 118 Lime Ride in Minneapolis, Capital Share in DC, something in Philadelphia 10/10/2018 4:09 PM 119 Lime in St Paul 10/10/2018 3:55 PM 120 Shared bike rentals in D.C. and Lime bikes in St. Paul, MN 10/10/2018 3:40 PM 121 Miami Beach--Citibike or DecoBike 10/10/2018 3:27 PM 122 Nice ride minneapolis 10/10/2018 3:14 PM 123 Nice Ride in Minneapolis and also in Paris, France 10/10/2018 2:52 PM 124 The mpls bike rental 10/10/2018 2:51 PM 125 Europe, Chicago, Washington DC, Minneapolis, etc 10/10/2018 2:50 PM 126 In Minneapolis, NiceRide 10/10/2018 2:48 PM 127 Denver - Lime Minneapolis - Nice Ride 10/10/2018 2:42 PM 128 Minneapolis. The e-scooters.10/10/2018 2:31 PM 129 Minneapolis and Golden Valley - lime scooters and South Lake Tahoe - lime bikes and scooters 10/10/2018 2:30 PM 130 Bird 10/10/2018 2:29 PM 131 Minneapolis, niceride, lime, bird 10/10/2018 2:07 PM 132 Minneapolis, Minnesota. Nice Ride.10/10/2018 12:50 PM 133 NO 10/10/2018 12:45 PM 134 Lime, Birds, and Nice Ride 10/10/2018 12:32 PM 135 Minneaplis - Nice Ride New Orleans - Blue Bikes 10/10/2018 12:29 PM 136 Nice Ride 10/10/2018 12:27 PM 137 Lime and bird 10/10/2018 12:16 PM 138 Minneapolis, Nice Ride; Oakland, Ford GoBike and Bird 10/10/2018 12:14 PM 139 Seattle - Lime Bike Chicago - Divvy 10/10/2018 12:11 PM 140 Lime 10/10/2018 12:08 PM 141 NYC 8/25/2018 9:19 PM 142 Minneapolis 8/7/2018 10:03 AM 4 / 4 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 18 63.59%131 24.27%50 12.14%25 Q3 How likely are you to use a mobility sharing service if it was implemented in St. Louis Park? Answered: 206 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 206 Likely Unlikely Unsure/Don't know 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Likely Unlikely Unsure/Don't know 3 / 7 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 19 64.62%126 55.38%108 62.56%122 Q4 If there was a mobility sharing service in St. Louis Park, what would you prefer to use? (Choose all that apply) Answered: 195 Skipped: 11 Total Respondents: 195 Manual bicycle E-bike or electric... Electric scooter 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Manual bicycle E-bike or electric powered bicycle Electric scooter 4 / 7 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 20 90.77%177 81.03%158 30.26%59 31.79%62 22.56%44 48.72%95 6.15%12 Q5 If you were to use a mobility sharing service in St. Louis Park, where would you travel? (Choose all that apply) Answered: 195 Skipped: 11 Total Respondents: 195 St. Louis Park Minneapolis Golden Valley Edina Minnetonka Hopkins Other (please specify) 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES St. Louis Park Minneapolis Golden Valley Edina Minnetonka Hopkins Other (please specify) 5 / 7 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 21 89.18%173 8.25%16 2.58%5 Q6 Mobility sharing companies can offer their services without the use of a smartphone or app. This can be done either by text messaging, SMS messaging or calling the company itself. If St. Louis Park had a mobility sharing service, how would you use it? Answered: 194 Skipped: 12 TOTAL 194 Smartphone app (Apple or... Text or SMS message Phone call to the mobility... 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Smartphone app (Apple or Android) Text or SMS message Phone call to the mobility sharing company 6 / 7 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 22 96.89%187 3.11%6 Q7 Mobility sharing companies can offer their services without the use of a debit or credit card. This can be done by setting up an account with the company in person and paying a balance in cash. If St. Louis Park had a mobility sharing service, how would you pay for it? Answered: 193 Skipped: 13 TOTAL 193 Debit or credit card Cash 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Debit or credit card Cash 7 / 7 Mobility sharing survey Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 23 JOPPA AVE SCLUB RDMELROSE AVE S28TH ST W TEXAS AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SDAKOTA AVE S36TH ST W FRANKLIN AVE W 33RD ST WFLAG AVE SSERVICE DR HWY 394 S 29TH ST W 40TH ST W 27TH ST W 25 1/2 ST W 31ST ST W PARK CENTER BLVD32ND ST WHAMPSHIRE AVE S26TH ST W ALABAMA AVE SCEDAR LAKE RD AQUILA LN SLOUISIANA AVE SHIGHWAY 100 SJERSEY AVE SLAKE S T W FRANCE AVE SMONTEREY DRNEVADA AVE SZARTHAN AVE SSALEM AVE STOLEDO AVE SEDGEBR O O K D R WOODDALE AVEDUKE DRHIGHWAY 169EXCELSIOR BLVD INTER S T A T E 3 9 4 OXFORD S T RAMP16TH ST WFORD R D RIDGE DRVIRGINIA CIR N MINNETONKA BLVD HIGHWAY 7 WAYZATA BLV D *1225* *1226* *223.02* *224* *227* *228.01* *228.02* 0 0.5 10.25 Miles ´ Mobility sharing census tract map Legend Municipal boundaries *Census tract* Study session meeting of March 25, 2019 (Item No. 10) Title: Mobility sharing pilot recommendations Page 24