HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/01/11 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 11, 2016
5:30pm CITY COUNCIL PHOTOS – Council Chambers
6:30pm CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 19 & January 25, 2016
2. 6:35 p.m. Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park
3. 7:20 p.m. Boards & Commissions Appointments
4. 7:50 p.m. Proposed TIF District - 9920 & 9808 Wayzata Blvd (Former Santorini
Property)
5. 8:20 p.m. Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
8:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. SWLRT Update
7. November 2015 Monthly Financial Report
8. Wooddale/Highway 7 Interchange Update
9. Memorandum of Understanding with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Erosion
Control Permitting Authority
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 19 and January 25, 2016
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a
Special Study Session on January 19, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on January
25, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for a
Special Study Session on January 19, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on January
25, 2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agendas – January 19 & January 25, 2016
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 19 and January 25, 2016
Special Study Session, January 19, 2016 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. Continued Discussion - Assessment Policy – Engineering (45 minutes)
The City’s assessment policy was adopted in 2000. Since that time, a number of changes
have occurred in regards to project funding and ownership of utilities. In the interest of
keeping our policy up to date, staff has been working on a new policy for Council
consideration.
Study Session, January 25, 2016 – 6:30 p.m.
(City Manager Harmening Out)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. SWLRT – Community Development (20 minutes)
Discuss design elements and the potential of adding enhancements to LRT station areas in St.
Louis Park.
3. EAB Preparedness Plan – Operations & Recreation (20 minutes)
Staff will update council on plans to prepare for anticipated impacts of Emerald Ash Borer.
Reports
4. December 2015 Monthly Financial Report
5. Third Quarter Investment Report October – December 2015
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. Becky Bakken, President of Discover St.
Louis Park, will be in attendance to provide an annual update on the activities of this destination
marketing organization
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities of Discover St. Louis Park in keeping with the
expectations of the City Council?
SUMMARY: On December 20, 2010 the City Council approved an ordinance establishing a 3%
lodging tax that would serve as the primary source of revenue for a new St. Louis Park visitor’s
bureau now known as Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP). In February, 2011 an Operating
Agreement was entered into by the City and DSLP that delineated the working relationship
between the two entities. On March 1, 2011 the lodging tax went into effect. John Basill began
serving as president of DSLP in late July, 2011. John left DSLP a year ago and his position was
subsequently filled by Becky Bakken.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Operating Agreement between the City
and DSLP requires that the City collect the lodging tax from the hotels and then remit 95% of the
proceeds to DSLP. The City retains the 5% for uses identified in a policy previously adopted by
the City Council. For 2015 this amount is expected to be in the $40 to $45,000 range.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: DSLP PowerPoint Presentation
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Discover St. Louis ParkEconomic Impact Report 2015SLP City CouncilStudy Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 2
Bill Gordon, Senior Vice President – Citizen’s Independent Bank (Treasurer)Tom Harmening, City Manager – City of St. Louis ParkShannon Henry, Senior Partner – Shannon Thomas CompaniesJeff Jacobs, Mayor – City of St. Louis ParkMike Kottke, Director of Sales and Marketing – DoubleTree by HiltonMichael Landstad, Senior Property Manager (West End) –Mid America GroupBill MacMillan –Fire Commissioner, Past President of American Legion (Past Chair)Dan Maurer, Director of Sales – Marriott WestDoug McIntyre, Senior Attorney –Foley & Mansfield (Chair)Brad Meier, President –TwinWest Chamber of CommerceJohn Smith, President – Smith Architects (Chair Elect)Sean Twedt, General Manager – Homewood Suites by HiltonPhil Weber, Owner –Park Tavern*Jake Spano, Mayor Elect –City of St. Louis Park2015 Board of Directors2Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 3
Why Tourism is Important?3Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 4
Minnesota State Tourism Generates:$13 billion a year, or $35 million per day in tourism‐related economic impacts250,000 full and part‐time jobs or 11% of MN’s private sector employment$4.5 billion in salaries and wages –that are largely spent in the community$840 million, or 17% of all state sales tax revenuesMetro Area Tourism Generates:$8.7 billion a year $572.5 million in sales taxes160,839 full and part‐time jobsHennepin County Tourism Generates: 4.3 billion a year in $281 million in sales taxes75,525 full and part‐time jobs4Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 5
222317161750510152025St. Louis Park Tourism Generates:SLP Lodging Tax (3%): $828,918City for Administrative Services (5%): $41,446DSLP Portion to Market & Promote the Community (95%): $787,472$828,918 in lodging tax receipts =$27.6 million in lodging revenues =$97.9 million in visitor spending throughout the communityVisitor Dollars: 22% spent on lodging78% spent throughout the community5*Sources: Explore Minnesota Tourism, The Economic Expenditures by Travelers of Minnesota, Davidson‐Peterson Associates, MN Dept. of Revenue, MN Dept. of Employment and Economic DevelopmentStudy Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 6
What Happens When More Visitors Come to Town? Economic Vitality Follows! 6Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 7
Businesses benefitRestaurants benefitAttractions benefitRecreation facilities benefitThe Community’s Image as a Good Place to Live, Good Place to Start a Career, Good Place to Start a Business, Good Place to Retire is greatly enhanced.That’s How Economic Vitality Follows Tourism.7Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 8
Business SegmentsMeetings and EventsLeisureSMERF and SportsGroupLavender MagazineAdvantage DigitalTwins “Deep Cuts” Radio ShowAspire Minnesota Meetings + EventsTwinWest Chamber DirectoryExplore Minnesota Travel GuideMPLS/St. Paul Official Visitors GuideSun Sailor/St. Louis Park MagazineMall of America Kiosk DistributionCTM Media –Highway 35 and Highway 94 plus airport distributionBillboardsMinnesota Public RadioThe CurrentPartnership with Meet MinneapolisMeeting PagesECM Wedding Insert8Featured MarketingStudy Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 9
66%23%11%Website Traffic SourcesSearch Engine TrafficReferral TrafficDirect Traffic31,747 Unique Visits from January-December 2015Top Referral TrafficExplore MinneostaCity of SLPFacebook9Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 10
* Information shown only represents the top five viewed pages on our website. Stats do not include visits made to the home page*48%23%20%5%4%Top Five Pages Looked at on our SiteRestaurants ‐ 48%Things to do ‐ 23%Business Listings ‐ 20%Shopping ‐ 5%Hotels ‐ 4%10Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 11
010002000300040005000600070008000Minneapolis St. Louis Park Saint Paul Minnetonka PlymouthWhere People Are Coming From Within MN05001000150020002500Chicago San Francisco New York City Devner OmahaWhere People Are Coming From Out‐of‐State11Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 12
54.15%45.85%GenderMaleFemaleWebsite Audience Demographics0.00%5.00%10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%18‐24 25‐34 35‐44 55‐64 65+Age12Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 13
01000200030004000500060007000Facebook Twitter Instagram Mail Chimp2012201320142015Social Media Growth 2012‐201513Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 14
MinneapolisSt. Louis ParkChicagoSaint PaulWinnipegWhere Our Facebook Audience Lives14Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 15
•DSLP branded, geo‐targeted e‐mail blast to 300,000 people•1 Million geo‐targeted banner ad impressions•1 week of premium, homepage placement on major media site•2 months of premium pre‐roll video impressions•2 months of radio streaming pre‐roll commercialDigital Marketing 201515Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 16
Earned Media Value 2015Museum Month: FOX 9 (2 segments) CBS (2 segments) –a value of $66,631Minnesota Wine Festival and MarketKARE (2 segments), CBS (2 segments), CBS –a total value of $62,620Twin Cities Film FestivalWCCO Radio (3 segments), FOX 9 (3 segments), KARE, Tom Barnard, Rusty Gatenby Review, ABC, CBS (2 segments) –a total value of $209, 677Total value of earned media: $338,928 with a $9,800 investment*Uncalculated earned media reach value: thousands of overall and online impressions 16Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 17
1717185145959454Group Awareness AssociationMeeting and EventsSportsSMERFGroup TourTotal Group Awareness Generated: 2015 = 5732014 = 4512013 = 367Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 18
Actual and Potential Awareness GeneratedDSLP Realized Measurable = $1,585,482DSLP Awareness Generated = $3,759,367$2,173,885$850,382.50$421,200$313,900Potential GroupsGroup Actual Pick‐UpLeisureActual Hotel Revenue18Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 19
RCMARejuvenateDuluth Women’s ExpoRochester Women’s ExpoSports Relationship ConferenceTEAMS ConferenceUS Sports CongressNASCConnect SportsMSAEConnect AssociationMSAE Leadership ConferenceAmerican Bus AssociationWinnipeg Sales MissionSMERFSocial, Military, Educational, Religious, FraternalSports Association Group Tour2016 Tradeshows19Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 20
CVB Lodging Tax Summary692,482.56746,248.68$805,421.06 $828,917.97$0.00$100,000.00$200,000.00$300,000.00$400,000.00$500,000.00$600,000.00$700,000.00$800,000.00$900,000.002012 2013 2014 2015YOY Growth20Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 21
2015 AccomplishmentsHosted the UMCVB ConferenceMajor Kiosk Expansion into AAA’s St. Louis Park officePresident and CEO TransitionFirst Professional Photography Shoot/SLP Assets Year‐Over‐Year Revenue Growth21Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 22
Looking AheadUtilization of St. Louis Park VolunteersLaunch of Revised WebsiteState‐Wide Travel CampaignOutdoor Rink and Festival Site into Sales EffortsRyder Cup Preparation3rdDSLP Adam Turman Visitor Guide IllustrationPossible Golden Valley Partnership22Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 23
Discover St. Louis Park’s mission is to strengthen the awareness of St. Louis Park as a prime meeting and visitor destination, stimulate economic development and support community growth. Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual Update - Discover St. Louis ParkPage 24
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Boards & Commissions Appointments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this item is to provide information for Council
review and discussion as a means to finalize proposed modifications to the Rules and Procedures
currently in place for advisory boards and commissions. Information on upcoming appointments
to the advisory boards and commissions is also provided for Council review.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council agree with the proposed revisions to the Rules and Procedures for
the City’s advisory boards and commissions?
Does the City Council want to move ahead with the reappointments attached to this
report?
SUMMARY: At the Study Session on September 28, 2015, Council discussed a number of
potential revisions to improve the application and appointment process for Boards and
Commissions and directed staff to proceed with the following amendments to the Rules and
Procedures for Boards and Commissions:
Set uniform term expiration dates for all board and commission members and make all
terms a period of three (3) years.
Implement an online application process with a standard supplemental application for all
Boards and Commissions.
Require all applicants, including those seeking reappointment, to complete an application
and participate in the interview process unless otherwise determined by Council.
Standardize appointment process so it occurs at the same time annually.
Retain applications for a set period of time to create a candidate pool for future
recruitment.
Update Rules and Procedures to include the new “Annual Meeting with Council
Program”
The current process in place for filling vacancies and handling reappointments will be used until
the new Rules and Procedures are formally approved by the Council. Staff anticipates asking
Council for approval of the proposed amendments in February, 2016. Information regarding
upcoming reappointment requests and applications for appointment has also been provided for
Council review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions
Current Reappointments & Vacancies
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The rules and procedures for boards and commissions were last updated in
2012. At that time the City Council approved the following modifications:
- Addition of a rule prohibiting a person from serving on more than one board or commission
concurrently (with the exception of the Charter Commission).
- Addition of a rule prohibiting board or commission members from serving on the same board
or commission as another member of the immediate family (with the exception of student or
youth members).
- Expansion of the list of boards and commissions covered by the adopted rules and procedures
to include CEAC, Housing Authority, and other boards and commissions created or determined
by the Council.
The current Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions were reviewed with the Council
on September 28th. At that time it was noted that a considerable amount of staff time is currently
devoted to monitoring and managing the overall process to keep track of term expirations,
vacancies, reappointments, recruitment, new application review, scheduling of interviews, and
appointments.
Based on Council discussion and direction, staff prepared a draft of the revised Rules and
Procedures for Boards and Commissions.
How long is a membership term?
Currently terms are set at 3 years for all boards and commissions with the exception of
the Housing Authority (5 year term). The revised Rules and Procedures set terms at 3
years for all board and commission members unless otherwise determined by the City
Council.
Youth commissioners will continue to serve 1 year terms.
Membership requirements would continue to be set by the City Council, and all board
and commission members would continue to be appointed by the Council or, in some
cases, by the School Board.
When do membership terms expire?
Currently some terms expire at different times throughout the year.
The revised Rules and Procedures adjust membership terms to expire annually on May
31st.
o The three year terms of board and commission members would continue to be
staggered.
o Any current terms set to expire on a different date would simply be adjusted to
expire on May 31st of the same year to make all term expiration dates uniform.
This date was selected primarily because it is most conducive to scheduling each
of the steps involved in the entire process – recruitment, application, interview,
and appointment.
o The intent would be for this change to take effect in 2016. If Council is in
agreement with the proposed term expiration date, staff would suggest delaying
the pending appointments to coincide with the new proposed schedule.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
Is there a limit on the number of terms an individual can serve on a board or commission?
Based on previous Council discussion, no term limits are proposed.
What constitutes a vacancy on a board or commission?
Currently, a vacancy only occurs when a member does not apply for reappointment or
leaves a board or commission mid-term. In rare instances a vacancy occurs if a member
is not reappointed.
Based on Council direction, the revised Rules and Procedures deems that all upcoming
term expirations be considered vacancies. Applications are required from all individuals
interested in serving on a board or commission, including those individuals seeking
reappointment.
Mid-term vacancies would continue to be dealt with as they occur.
When does recruitment take place?
Under current practices, active recruitment is only conducted when a known vacancy
occurs. This means that if a board or commission member’s term is set to expire and that
individual seeks reappointment, no other applicants are actively recruited and no notices
or advertisements are posted or published.
The revised Rules and Procedures require advertisement of all vacancies. Because
membership terms will expire annually on the same date, advertisement of vacancies will
generally occur at the same time each year – except in the case of mid-term vacancies.
What methods does the City use to recruit applicants?
Current recruitment methods are somewhat arbitrary in that staff can choose which
methods to use if and when recruitment occurs.
The revised Rules and Procedures require advertisement of all vacancies using the
following methods:
o Post all vacancies on City’s website
o Post all vacancies on our social media outlets
o Posting of notice at City Hall
o Notice to all neighborhood organizations
o Published notice in the Sun Sailor
o Published notice in Park Perspective
How does someone apply to serve on a board or commission?
Currently, residents wanting to apply to serve on a board or commission are able to
download an application from the City website. The applicant must print off the
application, fill it out by hand, and then return it to City Hall for consideration.
Staff has implemented an online application process whereby interested individuals can
complete an application and submit it directly from our website.
Two applications will be available – one for new applicants and one for existing members
seeking reappointment.
Both types of applications have a standardized supplemental application.
Upon submission of a completed application, the applicant will receive an email
confirmation.
Staff will be able to use the online application tool to track the status of applications,
schedule applicant interviews, and retain applications for creation of a candidate pool.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
How are applications reviewed?
The current rules and procedures call for written applications to be forwarded to the
Council for review as openings occur.
As per Council direction, completed applications would continue to be provided to the
Council for review in advance of candidate interviews.
Who determines which candidates are interviewed?
Currently, the members of the City Council are asked to inform the Administrative
Services department of the candidates they wish to interview following their review of
the applications. Typically, Council does not interview those who are seeking reappointment.
The revised Rules and Procedures require all applicants, including those seeking
reappointment, to be invited to an interview with the City Council. Unless otherwise
determined by Council, all interviews will take place on the same night, at the second
Study Session in April. Interviews will be the only thing on the agenda for that evening
and would be scheduled in 10-15 minute intervals. The Administrative Services
department would be responsible for coordinating and scheduling interviews.
When will appointments be considered?
Currently appointments are made throughout the year at Council meetings.
Reappointments are done as a group and set up by city staff.
With the exception of mid-term vacancies, the revised Rules and Procedures call for
appointments to be considered annually at the second regular meeting in May, unless
otherwise determined by Council.
What is the process for making appointments to a board or commission?
Currently Council reviews applications, interviews and selects candidates for
appointment.
The revised Rules and Procedures provide a process by which the Council, following
candidate interviews, would inform the Administrative Services department of the
candidates they would like to be brought forward for appointment. This process closely
resembles the current procedure that is followed. Staff would prepare an item for
Council action that would recommend for appointment those applicants selected or
identified by the Council.
In terms of procedure, staff still needs direction from the Council regarding how and
when they would like to review the applicants and provide direction on the status of each
applicant to staff following candidate interviews.
o Does Council have an interest in developing a score sheet to be used during the
interview process?
o Does Council want to evaluate candidates as a group at the conclusion of the
interview process?
o How does the Council want to notify staff of their selections for appointment?
How does a current member of a board or commission seek reappointment?
Currently those seeking reappointment need to fill out a brief reappointment status form
containing a statement regarding why they wish to be reappointed.
The revised Rules and Procedures require current members of a board or commission
whose term is set to expire to complete an application (and supplemental) seeking
reappointment and participate in the interview process with the Council. All applicants
seeking reappointment would be considered by the Council in the same pool as new
applicants seeking appointment, unless otherwise determined by Council.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
How are resignations or unexpected vacancies handled?
Whenever a vacancy occurs within the midst of a term (by resignation or unexpected
circumstances), the Administrative Services Department will initiate the recruitment process.
This is our current process and it would continue.
NEXT STEPS: If Council chooses to proceed with amendments to the rules and procedures for
Boards and Commissions the next steps would be:
Changes would be brought back as a report to Council for final review
Resolution approving the proposed changes would be prepared for Council consideration
Once the changes are approved, each commission would update its by-laws accordingly
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions
Amended by City Council February XX, 2016
Resolution No. 16-
A. Boards
The St. Louis Park City Charter grants the Council authority to form various boards and commissions by
ordinance. Boards and commissions serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council and are conferred
various degrees of decision making power. The City Council is the sole policy making body of the city.
Some boards and commissions include in their membership persons appointed by the school board.
Boards and commissions of the city which are governed by the provisions of these rules and procedures
are as follows:
Board of Zoning Appeals
CEAC
Environment and Sustainability Commission
Housing Authority
Human Rights Commission
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Planning Commission
Police Advisory Commission
Telecommunications Advisory Commission
And other boards as created by or determined by Council
In addition, other ad hoc groups may be formed as needed by resolution of the council.
B. Staff Liaisons
Each board and commission is assigned a staff liaison. Duties of the staff liaison are, in general, to
facilitate or assist in the meetings, to record attendance, and to provide information and direction as
requested by the commission. It is also the responsibility of the staff liaison to inform the City Council of
any problems or issues that may arise.
C. Membership and Terms
i) Membership requirements are set by Council. All board and commission members are
appointed by the Council or, in some cases, by the school board.
ii) Board and commission members shall be appointed to 3 year terms unless otherwise
determined by the City Council.
iii) The terms of board and commission members shall be staggered and shall expire on May
31st.
iv) Members may be removed, with or without cause, by the City Council.
v) The City Council will not appoint a board or commission member to serve concurrently on
more than one board or commission, not including the Charter Commission.
vi) Members may only serve one (1) consecutive year as the chair of any board or commission.
vii) Members cannot serve on the same board or commission as a member of their immediate
family, registered domestic partner, or members of the same household. Youth members are
exempt from this provision.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
For the purposes of this section the term “immediate family” shall include the following:
- A spouse or registered domestic partner
- Mother, father, siblings, step relatives, and grandparents
- Members of the same household.
D. Youth Membership and Terms
i) The following boards and commissions shall appoint Youth Members: Environment &
Sustainability Commission, Human Rights Commission, Parks & Recreation Advisory
Commission, Planning Commission, Police Advisory Commission, and Telecommunications
Advisory Commission
ii) Youth members shall be appointed to one (1) year terms unless otherwise specified at the
time of appointment.
iii) The terms of youth members shall be concurrent with the school year, and shall expire
annually on August 31st.
iv) Youth members are conferred voting status, except in the case of the Planning Commission
and Board of Zoning Appeals.
E. Qualifications
i) Members must be St. Louis Park residents, but need not have expertise in any particular
area. Willingness to serve and be involved are the most important attributes of members.
ii) Per Resolution No. 01-078, the City Council will not consider applications for appointment to
advisory boards or commissions from regular full-time or part-time St. Louis Park employees
(as defined in the City’s personnel manual).
iii) City Council will not consider applications for appointment to a board or commission from
other employees working for the City such as seasonal, temporary, part-time, paid-on-call
firefighters or contract employees if such appointment could cause a conflict of interest.
F. Attendance
Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued membership on any board or commission.
Irregular attendance and frequent absences are detrimental to the entire group and put undue pressure
on those members who do attend meetings. Regular attendance allows members to learn about and
discuss issues in depth, which contributes to more collaborative decision making and effective
recommendations to the City Council. Continued absenteeism is considered grounds for dismissal by the
council.
G. By-Laws
Each board and commission shall create and maintain by-laws and meeting procedures. By-laws must be
consistent with the City Code and should follow the City Council’s template for by-laws. Whenever
changes are proposed, a draft copy of the new by-laws should be forwarded to the City Clerk’s office for
the City Council’s review. As per the City Code, the Council has 30 days to review and amend the
proposed by-laws.
H. Meetings
Meeting times and locations are set according to each commission’s by-laws. Each commission should
defer to the Council’s meeting policy for meetings which occur on or near recognized holidays. A quorum
of the board is made up of a majority of members currently appointed. All meetings will be conducted in
accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, the City Charter and the Municipal Code of
Ordinances. The proceedings of meetings should be conducted using standard parliamentary procedure.
The City Council has adopted The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure as their guide. A copy of
this publication is available for review in the City Clerk’s office. A simplified summary of these procedures
is also available for use by board or commission chairs and staff liaisons.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
I. Minutes and other Records
i) Minutes of each board or commission meeting shall be prepared and maintained by the staff
liaison or other designated representative.
ii) Following board or commission approval, minutes shall be forwarded to the City Clerk’s office
for placement on a City Council agenda.
iii) Approved minutes shall be published on the City’s website no later than two (2) days
following formal acceptance by the City Council.
iv) Meeting agendas shall be published on the City’s website no later than three (3) days prior to
a scheduled meeting.
v) All board and commission records, including minutes and agendas, must be maintained in
accordance with the City’s records retention policy. Please contact the City Clerk’s office if
you have questions regarding retention and preferred storage medium.
J. Annual Meeting with Council Program
Council has established a process whereby all participating Boards and Commissions (identified below)
will meet collectively to present their annual report to the City Council at the “Boards and Commissions
Annual Meeting”. The following Boards and Commissions are subject to the requirements for
participation in the program:
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)
Environment & Sustainability Commission
Housing Authority
Human Rights Commission
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Planning Commission
Police Advisory Commission
Telecommunications Advisory Commission
Annual Written Report – Each Board and Commission listed above shall prepare a written report for the
Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s
goals, and goals for the coming year. Annual reports must be submitted to staff liaisons no later than
January 31st.
Annual Meeting and Presentation Instructions
The annual meeting with the City Council will take place each calendar year as outlined in the
procedures on file with the City Manager.
All current members of each participating Board and Commission will be invited to attend the annual
meeting.
Each Board and Commission will select one (1) representative to present their annual report.
Each Board and Commission will be allotted a specified amount of time, as determined by the City
Manager, for presentation of their annual report and discussion with the City Council.
K. Vacancies
The expiration of a member’s term on a Board or Commission shall be deemed a vacancy on that
Board or Commission. A member may continue to serve beyond the expiration date of their term until
a successor is appointed.
Resignation by a member of a Board or Commission prior to the expiration of their term must be
submitted in writing to the staff liaison. The staff liaison shall forward a copy of the written notice of
resignation to the City Clerk’s office. At the time of resignation, a vacancy for the unexpired portion of
the term shall be deemed to exist and the recruitment process shall be initiated unless otherwise
determined by the City Manager.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
If a member of a Board or Commission is not able to serve the full length of their term due to
unexpected circumstances (illness, relocation, death, etc.) a vacancy for the unexpired portion of the
term shall be deemed to exist and the recruitment process shall be initiated unless otherwise
determined by the City Manager.
All vacancies will be advertised at City Hall, in the Sun Sailor, Park Perspective, neighborhood
newsletters, on the City’s website and social media outlets.
L. Reappointment
Board or Commission members seeking reappointment to another term shall be subject to the
application, interview, and appointment processes. Overall performance and attendance by Board and
Commission members requesting reappointment will be considered by the Council. A member may
continue to serve beyond their expiration date until a reappointment is made.
M. Application Process
All individuals interested in serving on a Board or Commission, including those seeking
reappointment, shall complete an online application available on the City’s website. A paper
application is available, upon request, by contacting the City Clerk’s office.
Two types of applications shall be available – one for new applicants and one for current members
seeking reappointment to a Board or Commission.
All applicants shall be required to complete a standard supplemental application.
Upon receipt of an application, a representative of the Administrative Services department will contact
the applicant to acknowledge receipt of the application and to discuss the interview and appointment
process.
The online application system shall be maintained by the Administrative Services department.
Applications shall be retained for the period of 1 year following receipt.
N. Interview Process
All applicants will be asked to participate in an interview with the City Council unless otherwise
determined by Council. This shall take place at the second Study Session in April or a date otherwise
determined by Council.
The Administrative Services department will be responsible for scheduling interviews with the
Council.
All completed applications will be provided to the City Council for review at least two weeks prior to
candidate interviews.
Following the completion of candidate interviews, the City Council will evaluate the status of each
applicant and inform the Administrative Services department of their recommendations for
appointment.
The Administrative Services department will notify each applicant of the status of their application and
information regarding the next steps in the process.
O. Appointment
Appointments shall be made annually by the City Council at the second regularly scheduled meeting in
May or at a date otherwise determined by Council.
The City Clerk’s office will provide written notification of appointment to new members and inform them of
the details of their appointment. A copy of this information will also be provided to the staff liaison.
The staff liaison for each Board or Commission will provide the new member with meeting information,
discuss expectations, and review pertinent issues with them prior to the next meeting of the Board or
Commission.
P. Orientation
Staff liaisons, in conjunction with the Administrative Services department, will provide orientation for new
board and commission members.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
Q. Rosters
The staff liaison is responsible for keeping an updated roster of the commission which should include
contact information, term of office and date of appointment. The liaison is responsible for notifying the
Administrative Services department about roster changes.
R. Recognition
On an annual basis, the Council will formally recognize members who have left their position on a Board
or Commission during the previous year. Appreciation activities will be planned for all Board and
Commission members on a regular basis.
S. Conflict of Interest
No member of a Board or Commission shall:
i) Enter into any contractual arrangement with the city during the term serving as an appointed board or
commissioner member and for a period of one year after leaving office, unless authorized by
Minnesota statutes § 471.88.
ii) Use their position to secure any special privilege or exemption for themselves or others.
iii) Use their office or otherwise act in any manner which would give the appearance of or result in any
impropriety or conflict of interest.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Title: Boards & Commissions Appointments
Reappointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
The following commissioners have requested reappointment to their respective Commissions:
*The Fire Civil Service Commission is governed by State statute and is not subject to the
processes outlined in the “Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions”. The
reappointment request of Stuart Williams will be brought forward for Council consideration on
January 19th.
Commission Vacancies
Staff has advertised the following commission vacancies on our website and social media outlets.
Applications have been received, and staff will be scheduling applicant interviews with the Mayor
and Councilmembers in the upcoming weeks.
Commission Vacancies Terms
Environment & Sustainability Commission:
Sustainable SLP
Regular Member
Regular Member
Residential Tenant Member
Youth Member
1
1
1
1
2 year term
3 year term
3 year term
1 year term
Housing Authority
Commissioner 1 5 year term
Planning Commission
Commissioner
1
3 year term
Police Advisory Commission
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Youth Commissioner
1
1
1
1
1 year term
2 year term
3 year term
1 year term
Telecommunications Advisory Commission
Youth Commissioner 1 1 year term
Name Commission Term Expiration
Rachel Harris Environment and Sustainability Commission 12/31/2018
Terry Gips Environment and Sustainability Commission 12/31/2018
Ryan Griffin Environment and Sustainability Commission 12/31/2018
*Stuart Williams Fire Civil Service Commission 12/31/2018
Savannah Curtin Human Rights Commission 12/31/2018
Will Poulter (Youth) Human Rights Commission 8/31/2016
Richard Person Planning Commission 12/31/2018
Justin Riss Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2018
Tiffany Hoffmann Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2018
2016 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS VACANCIES 1/7/2016 Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Housing Authority Planning Commission Police Advisory Commission Telecommunications Advisory Commission 1._____________________ Regular Member Term Expires 12/31/2017 2._____________________ Regular Member Term Expires 12/31/2018 3._____________________ Residential Tenant Member Term Expires 12/31/2018 4._____________________ Youth Member Term Expires 8/31/2016 1.______________________ Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2020 1._____________________ Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2018 1._____________________ Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2016 2._____________________ Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2017 3._____________________ Commissioner Term Expires 12/31/2018 4._____________________ Youth Commissioner Term Expires 8/31/2016 4.__________________ Youth Commissioner Term Expires 8/31/2016 Emily Barker - Ward 3 Evan Baeten (2) Evan Baeten (1) Kevin Curry Greta Long John Crimmings - Ward 2 (1) Samuel Bryson Brad Carter Charles Kelly Susan Grey - Ward 4 John Crimmings (3) John Crimmings (2) Shannon Saesan Michael Hindin - Ward 4 Torrey Kanne (2) Torrey Kanne (1) Torrey Kanne - Ward 2 (3) Michael Steele Rory Mattson (2) Rory Mattson - Ward 2 (1) Paul Tharp Graham Merry Julie Rappaport -Ward 3 Shannon Saesan Neal Reykdal -Ward 1 Michael Steele Michael Stotesbery *Numbers in parentheses in green indicate the rank of the applicant’s preference. Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Boards & Commissions AppointmentsPage 12
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed TIF District - 9920 & 9808 Wayzata Blvd (Former Santorini Property)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff wishes to discuss and receive feedback on the proposed
creation of a TIF district on the former Santorini property at the NW quadrant of I-394 & US 169.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the EDA willing to consider creating a TIF District on the
subject property to preserve its ability to facilitate future redevelopment on the site?
SUMMARY: In early 2012, the City's Inspection Dept. declared the former Santorini restaurant
building located at 9920 Wayzata Blvd had fallen into such disrepair that it was unsafe and ordered
its removal. Later in the year, prior to the building’s demolition, the EDA adopted a resolution
citing the property as blighted and pre-qualified it for a potential Redevelopment TIF District
should a project that met the City's vision for the property emerge. The restaurant building was
then demolished in February 2013. By law, the City has 3 years after the completion of demolition
to create a TIF district on the property. The primary difficulty of redeveloping the subject site is
that it has poor structural soils and any multi-story building will likely require excavating and
exporting of the poor soils, importing quality soils, and piling. These expenses will prove
financially challenging to most projects and likely result in a request for financial assistance. The
period for creating a TIF district on the subject property will soon sunset. If the EDA wishes to
preserve its ability to utilize tax increment to facilitate redevelopment on the subject property, it
will need to create a TIF district in short order. The first step would be to formally call for a public
hearing for the establishment of the proposed TIF district next week. Authorizing the establishment
of the TIF District would not, in itself, commit the EDA to providing any financial assistance for
a proposed project. Procedurally, it would simply create the funding vehicle to reimburse a
developer for a portion of its qualified project costs. Once created, the EDA will have
approximately 4 years to commit tax increment to a project before the district must be decertified.
Recently, staff met with the property owners and St. Louis Park–based West Real Estate regarding
a potential hotel on the site. The Developer has inquired as to whether the EDA would be willing
to commit tax increment to help offset some of the extraordinary costs of redeveloping the site.
Staff is uncertain as to whether this particular project would yield a sufficient market value for the
property to warrant a commitment of tax increment but would like to continue discussions with
the Developer.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: So as to preserve the EDA’s ability to
provide financial assistance to facilitate a project that meets with the City’s vision for the former
the Santorini property, it is proposed that the EDA take steps to create a TIF district on the site.
The cost to create the district will be approximately $25,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has prepared a draft list of legislative issues and priorities
which ultimately are intended to be reviewed on February 8 with Senator Ron Latz, Representative
Cheryl Youakim, Representative Peggy Flanagan, Hennepin County Commissioner Marion
Greene and Metropolitan Council representative Gail Dorfman. In preparation for that meeting
staff asks for Council feedback on the attached draft document.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the issues included in the draft document?
Would the Council like staff and the city’s legislative delegation to pursue any other issues?
Does the Council wish to continue retaining legislative consulting assistance for 2016 to
help promote the city’s legislative agenda?
SUMMARY: Staff has prepared the attached preliminary list of legislative issues for the February
8 discussion. As the 2016 legislative session progresses, additional issues may arise and we can
address those as necessary.
It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to assist with legislative and regulatory issues.
Administrative Services has used Doug Franzen and Vic Moore of Franzen & Associates, and
Emily Tranter of Lockridge, Grindal, and Nauen. Staff asks if Council would like to continue these
services for 2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funding for lobbyists is included in the
budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities (Draft)
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
City of St. Louis Park
2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Transportation Issues and Priorities
Southwest LRT
Issue: The Southwest LRT project is of major importance to the City of St. Louis Park. The past
year has been one of significant progress with cost cuts and revised Municipal Consent plans
approved by all five cities along the corridor. The suburban cities and Hennepin County made
contributions in cash and land to the project to ensure it moved forward. The engineering is
nearing 90% complete (expected in January 2016). The Metropolitan Council has requested $151
million in bonding to complete the local funding.
As a part of the Municipal Consent process, St. Louis Park (and other cities) worked with the
Southwest Project Office (SPO) of the Met Council to identify important infrastructure projects
that were not included in the base project. Some of these have become part of the base project
and some of them are Locally Requested Capital Improvements (LRCIs), which means they are
being designed with a decision point on building to come later in the process.
Analysis: The final state funding is approximately $150 million or 8.4% of the project and is
critical to moving the project forward. All other local funding is committed and the engineering,
planning and environmental work is nearing completion. The state share is the last piece to
complete the local funding portion which would make the project eligible to receive the 50%
share from the Federal Transit Administration.
Position: The city continues to strongly support the Southwest LRT Project and asks for
legislative support for the following:
Approval by the legislature of the remaining required state funding commitment of $151
million.
Financial assistance from the state for the implementation of the Locally Requested
Capital Improvements, as requested through the Capital Bonding process.
Redesign and Reconstruction of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25
Issue: The city desires a long-term vision to transform the CSAH 25 corridor from the rural
design through-route it is today to a multimodal urban boulevard with well-designed landscape
architecture and place-making features. The goal is to transform this Hennepin County road from
Highway 100 to France Avenue into a boulevard that is rich in amenities, pedestrian friendly and
attractive to transit-oriented development. A clear long-term vision is needed for CSAH 25 to
guide both public and private investment in this corridor. Already the Southwest LRT Beltline
Station, park & ride and proposed joint development project is beginning to transform the west
end of this corridor. The Shoreham mixed-use project is beginning transformation at the east end.
CSAH 25 should support this change to a more urban place and provide good, attractive access
to the LRT Beltline Station in St. Louis Park and the neighboring LRT West Lake station in
Minneapolis.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Analysis: To transform CSAH 25 into an urban boulevard would require the following actions
and considerations:
A commitment from Hennepin County, with involvement from Minneapolis, to changing
the vision for the corridor.
Integration into concept plans of both the planned improvements associated with SWLRT
between Beltline Boulevard and Lynn Avenue and the West Lake Street multi-modal
transportation plan into the vision for the corridor.
Inclusion in concept plans of strong connections to existing and planned bicycle routes,
filling the existing gap in access to the Cedar Lake Trail from the north.
Consideration in concept plans of the MCES interceptor along the south side, the lack of
width on north-south streets, the frontage roadway geometry, circulation/access needs,
future land use assumptions, rail/LRT, Beltline Station area plan and design guidelines.
Addressing storm water treatment, landscape and pedestrians amenities as well as
opportunities for remnant right-of-way to be used for future development.
Consideration of the east end “triangle,” where Minnetonka Blvd, CSAH 25, France
Avenue and West Lake Street meet. This area presents both opportunities for gateway
treatments for both Minneapolis and St Louis Park as well as operational challenges for
the movement of traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists and local businesses.
Analysis of traffic operations analysis, crash/safety, 2040 forecasts (possibly interim year
related to SWLRT improvements), including review of all pedestrian- or bicycle-related
crashes. Limits of operations analysis should be the Hwy. 100 west ramp terminal to
France Avenue.
Inclusion of multimodal improvements, future intersection locations, and lane
arrangement and circulation.
Consideration of a new name for the roadway that provides a positive identity while
eliminating the currently existing address confusion. Just as CSAH 5 is also named
Minnetonka Boulevard, CSAH 25 needs a street name around which an image and
identity can be built. In the case of CSAH 25, there is added confusion because of its
history of being originally part of MN Highway 7, a name that continues to be used by
many.
CSAH 25 serves many important functions and is home to a surprising number of
businesses, residents and property owners. All stakeholders should be informed and
involved in the design processes from the beginning.
Development of a funding and phasing plan will be necessary. Transforming CSAH 25
will be a large project and will take time and significant resources to implement. New
development in the corridor may be able to play a significant role in funding the
transformation, but timing will be critical for that to happen.
Position: The city is requesting that Hennepin County support and assist in the re-visioning and
ultimately the transformation of CSAH 25 into an amenity rich, pedestrian- and TOD-supportive
urban boulevard.
Rehabilitation/ Reconstruction of Minnetonka Boulevard
Issue: Minnetonka Boulevard between Trunk Highway (TH) 169 and France Avenue is a
Hennepin County road and is one of the few continuous west-to-east roadway connections in the
City of St. Louis Park. The Minnetonka Boulevard bridge over TH 100 was reconstructed in
2015 and includes bicycle, pedestrian and intersection improvements that have greatly increased
the efficiency and safety in this segment of the corridor. The road to the west and to the east of
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
the new bridge is in need of rehabilitation to ensure that it accommodates the best facility for
bicycles, pedestrians and motorists.
Analysis: In order to extend the bicycle, pedestrian and roadway enhancements that were
completed at the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge the following items would need to be addressed.
Curb height: Between TH 100 and France Avenue the road is concrete with a bituminous
overlay. While the overlay improves the ride for motorists, however, it also reduced the
curb height which places the roadway at nearly the same level as the sidewalk on the
north side of the street.
Sidewalks: The sidewalks require updating to meet ADA requirements for pedestrian
ramps, width, and clearance from obstructions. To increase safety and provide a more
pedestrian-friendly environment the city would like to move the sidewalks away from the
street and plant trees in the boulevard.
Pedestrian crosswalks: A number of pedestrian crossings should be considered for
enhancements. The addition of pedestrian refuge median or bump outs should be
considered to make the crossings safer on this four-lane road
Bike lanes: The city and county bike plan include bike lanes on this road which could be
accomplished by creating a three-lane cross section for the corridor since currently a
number of segments are not wide enough to accommodate bike lanes.
Intersection modifications: Signal systems and intersection geometrics in the corridor
should be studied and updated to include flashing yellow arrows and turn lanes as needed
to improve traffic flow.
Position: The city is requesting that Hennepin County rehabilitate/reconstruct Minnetonka
Boulevard between TH 169 and France Avenue. The design should include facilities for
bicycles, pedestrians and motorists.
Street Improvement District
Issue: For many cities, existing funding mechanisms for street maintenance and reconstruction are
inadequate.
Analysis: Successful economic development efforts and community stability are dependent upon
a city’s ability to make infrastructure investments. Current infrastructure funding options
available to cities do not meet growing funding needs:
Special assessments can be onerous to property owners and are difficult to implement for
some cities.
Property tax dollars are generally not dedicated and are sometimes diverted to more
pressing needs such as public safety, water quality and cost participation in state and
county highway projects.
Municipal state aid (MSA) is limited to cities over 5,000 population—147 of 853 cities in
Minnesota--and cannot be applied to more than 20% of a MSA city’s lane miles. Existing
MSA funding is not keeping up with needs on the MSA system.
Alternatives to special assessments as financing for infrastructure improvements are
nearly nonexistent.
Historically, the legislature has given cities the authority to maintain and operate utility
infrastructure (i.e. waterworks, sanitary sewers, streetlights, and storm sewers). The storm
water utility authority, established in 1983, set the precedent as enabling legislation for cities
to charge a use fee on a utility bill for city infrastructure that benefits everyone in a city.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Also, special service districts are allowed for streetscape and sidewalks. Similar to the storm
sewer and special service district authority, a Street Improvement District would use
technical, well-founded measurements and could equitably distribute the costs of street
maintenance and reconstruction to property owners.
This authority would allow cities to collect fees from property owners within a district to fund
municipal street maintenance, construction, reconstruction, and facility upgrades. If enacted, this
legislation would provide cities with an additional tool to build and maintain city streets.
Position: The city supports legislative authorization that would allow cities to create Street
Improvement Districts.
Xcel Energy Utility Relocation
Issue: Xcel Energy has utility infrastructure in the public right-of-way. It’s often necessary for
Xcel to relocate their infrastructure in order for the city to complete construction projects. When
it’s not done in a timely manner it delays the completion of city projects, which in turn generates
downtime charges that the contractor passes on to the city.
Analysis: During the design of city infrastructure projects, the city tries to avoid requiring Xcel
to relocate their facilities, however many times it is necessary. Understanding that Xcel needs
time to plan for this work, Xcel is notified of the annual Capital Improvement Plan in the fall of
the year preceding construction. In January of the year of construction, staff has a meeting with
all utilities to review impacts. Also, plans are sent to all utilities indicating areas where there is a
potential conflict with their facilities. Staff will meet individually with Xcel during the design to
discuss the conflicts and their schedule. Even with these efforts, Xcel’s utility relocations have
delayed a number of projects in the city. In 2015, a sidewalk project on Texas was supposed to
be completed by Labor Day but Xcel did not complete their work until mid-October. Due to the
warm weather this fall, the contractor was able to complete the project the week of
Thanksgiving. However, weather is not always on our side. Additionally, the contractor is
asking for $22,000 in downtime charges due to the delays incurred on this project. The city does
not have the same experiences with other private utility providers.
Position: The city supports legislation that assists Xcel Energy in completing their relocation
work in a timely manner to avoid delays and additional cost on city-led infrastructure projects.
Community Development Issues and Priorities
TIF District Statutory Modifications
Issue: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) remains the most viable tool for local economic
development and community reinvestment efforts. TIF is a method local governments use to pay
for the costs of qualifying improvements necessary to create new investment, redevelopment, or
publicly-assisted housing. The financing of the qualifying improvements is paid from the
increased property taxes generated from the new development, redevelopment, or housing that
would not occur “but for” such assistance. The state could take steps to enhance the effectiveness
of TIF, leverage additional private investment and create more jobs and tax base in communities.
The current types of state-authorized TIF districts lack flexibility and don’t adequately address
the varied and unique redevelopment situations found in urban communities.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Currently, the Minnesota TIF Act requires more than 50% of the buildings in a project area be
found to be substandard to qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District. In redevelopment situations
involving only a small number of parcels, this can be an insurmountable standard to meet thus
preventing new investment from occurring.
Additionally, the Act does not allow TIF districts to extend beyond municipal boundaries; this
artificially inhibits redevelopment along municipal lines and prevents the sharing of public
improvement costs in areas where there is opportunity for broader public benefit.
Position: The city supports greater flexibility and the inclusion of additional uses within current
TIF districts.
In particular, the city supports a minor modification of the Redevelopment TIF District
statute requiring 50% or more of buildings within project areas be found to be
substandard.
The city supports the elimination of the five-year rule for districts that take longer to
develop.
To spur additional development, the city supports lengthening the duration of Economic
Development TIF Districts to a full ten years, or nine years from first tax increment
collection. In addition, the city supports expanding authority to allow for the
establishment of Economic Development TIF Districts to assist with commercial project
development for the purpose of retention and expansion of existing businesses and the
attraction of new business to the state to create and retain jobs.
The city further supports the establishment of new forms of TIF districts to encourage
and facilitate redevelopment in urban areas particularly in proximity to LRT and transit
stations. Such new TIF district types include: Compact Development TIF Districts,
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) TIF Districts, and multi-jurisdictional TIF districts.
DEED Transit Improvement Districts
Issue: Additional financing tools are needed besides TIF to spur economic development along
transit lines and corridors. The state allowed DEED to create Transit Improvement Areas (and
each of the St. Louis Park stations were qualified) but these TIAs lack any funding or authority.
Position: The city supports funding the TIA program and granting TIAs authority to fund various
transit-related public improvements and redevelopment projects (including tax increment
financing, tax abatement, and special service districts) to address the needs of transit-oriented
development.
Special Service Districts Statutory Authority
Issue: In 1988, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. § 428A.01 to § 428A.101
to establish Special Service Districts. As currently written, only commercial properties can
financially participate within Special Service Districts. This is challenging for funding additional
services within mixed-use project areas. The City of St. Louis Park has established six Special
Service Districts, including multiple sections of Excelsior Boulevard. Providing infrastructure
improvements and on-going maintenance at the LRT station areas will also be a need
Position: The city supports the inclusion of multi-family housing developments as financial
participants within Special Service Districts and the establishment of Special Service Districts
around transit and LRT station areas.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Establish a TOD Affordable Housing Fund
Issue: Efforts are being made to develop a corridor-wide housing strategy for the SWLRT
Corridor for providing a full range of housing options specifically within a half-mile of the station
areas. The fundamental issue with respect to the traditional approaches to infill/redevelopment
and mixed-income housing production/preservation is an absence of funds.
Position: The city supports the creation of a TOD Affordable Housing Fund that would provide a
financial resource to be used to support the preservation and creation of affordable housing along
the SWLRT corridor.
Public Safety Issues and Priorities
Body and Squad Car Dash Cameras
Issue: The St. Louis Park Police Department is exploring the purchase and implementation of
body cameras, beginning with trial periods with several vendors. In addition to the logistical and
operational issues and related policies involved, it’s clear that data collection and retention
related to body cameras has resulted in agencies being overwhelmed by public data requests
from a variety of sources. For example, in Washington State one large software developer makes
repeated and recurring blanket requests from law enforcement agencies which overwhelms their
resources in terms of a timely response. Camera data must be reviewed by a qualified staff
person to edit and redact private data in response to a public data request, just as we currently
edit and redact private data from our written reports in responding to public data requests.
An agency the size of St. Louis Park might generate several hundred hours per week of camera
data to be uploaded and stored. A blanket request would require a staff member to watch and
redact/edit this data to prevent the release of private data. In addition, a complicated case might
require staff to consult with the city attorney for guidance (as we do currently for written
reports), which would add additional time to the review process. Some agencies in Washington
State are now opting to pay the fines for non-compliance because of the difficulty of the task.
Position: The city is requesting legislative support for a resolution to this issue that will enable
us to comply with the law but does not overwhelm our resources. This resolution might involve
limiting retention in some categories, limiting what are now open-ended repeating/recurring
requests, or permitting compensation for staff time required to comply with requests.
Revisions to Chapter 420 Firefighters Civil Service Commission
Issue: Current St. Louis Park Fire Department Civil Service leadership recognizes that certain
elements of the statute should be revised to match current standards, and some areas may be
viewed as unconstitutional.
Analysis: The highlighted areas include
420.03 Membership, Duties, Terms: Delete the sentence “All vacancies in the
commission shall be filled by appointment by the council within 30 days after a vacancy
occurs.” Eliminating this sentence extends the Council the flexibility to fill the position
as schedules and candidates allow.
420.04 Meetings: Eliminate the portion of the sentence that states “thereafter on the first
Monday in February of each year at which meetings: and “meetings shall be held and”.
Eliminating these portions of sentence allow for greater flexibility in meeting when
schedules allow and the location of those meetings can vary.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 8
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
420.16 Certain Acts Misdemeanors: Eliminate the sentence “Any officer or employee of
the department, when operated under civil service in accordance with the provisions of
this chapter, who shall in any matter directly or indirectly solicit, receive, or pay, or be in
any manner concerned in soliciting, receiving or paying any assessment, subscription or
contribution for any party or political purpose shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
subject to suspension or removal. Any person who shall solicit or receive directly or
indirectly, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving any assessment,
contribution, or payment for any political purpose from any officer or employee in a fire
department operated under civil service as in this chapter provided for, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.” It is viewed by Civil Service leadership that this portion is
unconstitutional.
Position: Making these administrative adjustments will allow current practice to conform to the
actual statute.
Railway Safety of Hazardous Materials and Oil Train Operations
Issue: Current conditions suggest continued future transport via rail through St. Louis Park of
hazardous material commodities, including crude oil and ethanol, at current or increased levels.
Analysis: The demand for these commodities and St. Louis Park’s proximity to Minneapolis
indicates the city will continue to be an alternative for managing heavy traffic and staging within
the railroad system. The potential risk exists across the entire system including the BNSF, CP
and TCW lines. Track improvements resulting from Southwest Light Rail Transit construction in
St. Louis Park will allow for higher speeds and safer options for the rail companies.
Position: The city would like to participate in legislative discussions around the accountability,
safety and funding of accident prevention and responder training. The city also encourages
funding for community awareness, mitigation and resiliency efforts.
General Issues and Priorities
Minnesota Community Forestry Partnership Act
Issue: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is the most destructive and economically costly forest pest ever
to invade North America. Ash trees killed by EAB become brittle very quickly and will begin to
fall apart and threaten overhead cables and power lines, vehicles, buildings and people. Few
cities are prepared and no city can easily afford the costs and the liability threats resulting from
EAB. Peer-reviewed studies have confirmed that a coordinated, landscape-based strategy is more
cost effective than fighting EAB city by city.
Position: The city asks the legislature to support the Minnesota Community Forestry Partnership
(MCFP) Act. Last winter, the Minnesota Community Forest Partnership Group was created to
secure state support for community forests. The group developed the MCFP Act, which would
establish a new program with funding of $13 million per year to provide technical assistance,
guidance, and matching grants to communities for EAB management and related practices. The
Act also includes funding for research regarding pest control, diseases, and other threats that
affect community forests.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 9
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Aircraft Noise
Issue: Current aircraft noise monitoring metrics established by the FAA have been in use since
the late 1980s. The resulting DNL contours maps for MSP airport identify only a relatively small
area of the Twin Cities as significantly affected by aircraft noise. Used for eligibility in sound
mitigation programs for homes, the DNL contours also are used when planning future policy on
aircraft and operations. The FAA states that in 2012, only 300,000 people nationwide were
exposed to significant airport noise, a figure that would likely be much larger depending on
perspective and noise contours. Without accurately identifying areas within St. Louis Park and
other communities experiencing significant overhead aircraft traffic, the current DNL contours
do not reflect the noise residents actually experience.
Position: The city requests FAA develop a method of noise measurement and reporting to
accurately reflect the environmental impact of aircraft noise. The information should then be
used to reduce aircraft noise by implement policies regarding operational changes and, when
possible, quieter aircraft technologies.
Financial Issues and Priorities
Fiscal Disparities
Issue: The City of St. Louis Park has been a net contributor to the fiscal disparities program for
some time. Due to extensive redevelopment and stronger commercial/industrial property values
than most other metro area communities, the city’s net contribution to the fiscal disparities pool
has increased substantially.
Analysis: Below are some statistics related to St. Louis Park showing the increase in the city’s
net tax capacity contribution over the years:
Pay 2010: $1,231,482 Net Contribution
Pay 2011: $2,775,483 Net Contribution
Pay 2012: $3,220,881 Net Contribution
Pay 2013: $2,940,678 Net Contribution
Pay 2014: $3,670,487 Net Contribution
Pay 2015: $3,879,478 Net Contribution
Pay 2016: $3,168,815 Net Contribution
Based on these increases, the city has experienced a 257% increase from Pay 2010 to Pay
2016. The city believes it is being penalized for undertaking aggressive redevelopment efforts
requiring the use of TIF. When using TIF for commercial, industrial or office projects a portion
of the new tax capacity generated from the project is added into the fiscal disparity pool, which
in effect lengthens the number of years the TIF district must exist to provide the necessary
assistance to make the project viable. This results in a longer period of time before the city is
able to experience the benefits of the new tax capacity created by the project.
Position: While the Fiscal Disparities program has many good points, the city asks its legislators
to continue to be aware of the financial implications it represents to St. Louis Park. The city’s tax
rate for Pay 2016 is 5.15% higher due to reduced Net Tax Capacity, creating additional burdens
on local property tax payers to pay for local services. The city supports changes to this program
that are prospective in nature and that recognize aggressive redevelopment efforts that cities
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 10
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
undertake using tax increment financing. Additionally, new tax capacity created by projects
using TIF should be omitted from the Fiscal Disparities pool as long as the TIF district is in
place.
Legal Notices – Eliminate Requirement for Paid Publication-review
Issue: Current law requires print ads for “proceedings, official notices, and summaries” in local
newspapers. In the 2011 Session, House File 162 called for allowing political subdivisions
(cities, counties, school boards, etc.) to replace the print ads with a single annual notice stating
that all such notices would appear on the political subdivision’s website (i.e. the city website).
Position: The city continues to support the elimination of this requirement, which would save
cities thousands of dollars in annual publishing costs. Publishing legal notices on the city website
instead allows the potential to reach a much greater audience in St. Louis Park than via the local
newspaper, which only reaches about half of the community. Additionally, businesses working
with the city or bidding on city projects find it cumbersome to monitor many different
publications. The city is currently publishing its legal notices at www.stlouispark.org in addition
to publishing them in the official newspaper.
Unfunded mandate in need of full funding: MN Statute 299A.465 Continued health
insurance coverage for peace officer or firefighter disabled in the line of duty
Issue: Cities are required to continue payment of health insurance for peace officers or
firefighters disabled in the line of duty. The determination must be made by the executive
director of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) or by the executive director of
the Minnesota State Retirement System.
Subd. 1(d) - The employer is responsible for the continued payment of the
employer's contribution for coverage of the officer or firefighter and, if
applicable, the officer's or firefighter's dependents. Coverage must continue for
the officer or firefighter and, if applicable, the officer's or firefighter's dependents
until the officer or firefighter reaches or, if deceased, would have reached the age
of 65. However, coverage for dependents does not have to be continued after the
person is no longer a dependent.
Subd. 4. Public employer reimbursement.
A public employer subject to this section may annually apply by August 1 for the
preceding fiscal year to the commissioner of public safety for reimbursement to
help defray a portion of its costs of complying with this section. The
commissioner shall provide an equal pro rata share to the public employer out of
the public safety officer's benefit account based on the availability of funds for
each eligible officer, firefighter, and qualifying dependents. Individual shares
must not exceed the actual costs of providing coverage under this section by a
public employer.
Position: The City of St. Louis Park does not have issues with this type of program. The
questions come with the interpretation of “in the line of duty” and also with funding of this
unfunded mandate.
The city has five former public safety employees who qualify for continued payment of
health insurance. In some cases, there were questions about the intent of this language as
it relates to the term “injury in the line of duty.” For example, should a slip and fall in the
office be considered “in the line of duty?”
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 11
Title: Review of 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
The city has only been partially reimbursed for the cost of this mandate, and requests that
this program be fully funded by the state.
Levy Limits
Issue: During the 2008 legislative session, levy limits were imposed for three years (2009-2011)
on cities over 2,500 in population.
A one-time levy limit was applied to taxes levied in 2013, payable in 2014, only. This was in
effect for all counties with a population of 5,000 and over and cities with a population of 2,500
and over. All cities with a population less than 2,500, all towns and all special taxing districts
were exempt from the limits.
Levy limits replace local accountability with a state judgment about the appropriate level of local
taxation and local services. Additionally, state restrictions on local budgets can have a negative
effect on a city’s bond rating due to the restriction on revenue flexibility.
Position: St. Louis Park opposes efforts to extend the levy limit or other proposed restrictions for
local government budgets. Based on our legislative policies that strongly support local budgetary
decision making St. Louis Park opposes levy limits of any type.
Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification Due Date for Special Taxing Jurisdiction
Issue: Due date of September 15 for Special Taxing Jurisdictions and September 30 for the
General Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy
It would be beneficial to have both due dates be September 30, allowing for both approvals to
occur on one meeting night in St. Louis Park. It’s the understanding of St. Louis Park that the
September 30 change was enacted to allow time for both the fiscal disparities contribution and
distribution number to be provided to cities and then allow those cities to provide tax
implications to the governing bodies to aid in setting preliminary levies.
Position: St. Louis Park would suggest that the Special Taxing Jurisdiction Levy due date be
moved to September 30, which is congruent with the General Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: SWLRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action is necessary at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns about staff
convening an LRT station design committee to develop graphic themes for the vertical structures
and propose colors for the station platforms?
SUMMARY:
Proposed Station Design Elements Committee
In December the SWLRT station designs were discussed at a Study Session, including the design
for the shelter structures, platforms and landscaping. Discussion included options for colors and
the need for themes for the graphic design in the vertical elements (wicket structures). Previously,
when public art was included in the SWLRT budget, staff had assembled a group of citizens as a
public art committee. It is recommended that such a committee could now convene for the purpose
of coming up with graphic theme options and station colors for consideration. The work of this
committee would have to be completed by the end of February, and the group would likely meet
up to three times for this task. If Council concurs, staff will contact those who were to be on the
public art committee to ascertain interest and convene it over the next two months.
Station Area Enhancements
Staff is working with the Southwest Project Office on determining if there are additional
enhancements in the station areas that the city could pursue in terms of landscaping, bike parking,
fencing, etc. These ideas are expected to be discussed at the next City Council Study Session.
Schedule
Attached is a list of “Next Steps” from the SWLRT Corridor Management Committee meeting in
December, showing the activities/schedule for the project. Important dates include: completion of
100% design in spring 2016; begin construction in winter 2016; heavy construction 2017-19;
revenue service 2020. Additionally, a list of items staff is working on is on the next page.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
ATTACHMENTS: Discussion
Excerpts from 12-9-15 SWLRT Corridor Management Committee Presentation
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: SWLRT Update
DISCUSSION
Upcoming/Current SWLRT Items:
The following list shows items city staff is currently working on with the SPO and other partners:
1. Reviewing 60% Plan comments with SPO; 90% plans to be distributed end of January
2. Continued work on station and line design, including: bike racks; landscaping; fencing;
wayfinding; screening needed
3. Station Design Committee – convene in February to devise station graphic themes and
colors for station architecture
4. Regional Trail details
5. Joint Development
Continued development of site concept plan
Local funding commitment by SLP - April-May
6. Finalize Environmental Review
7. Agreement for Lynn Avenue Extension – Jan-Feb
8. Xenwood Underpass/Wooddale Avenue alternatives Jan-April
Next Steps 14 Excerpt from SWLRT Corridor Management Committee Presentation on 12‐09‐15Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: SWLRT UpdatePage 3
Next Steps for Entry into Engineering • Q1 2016 FTA reviews appraisals of in-kind land transfers; approves value • Q2 2016 FTA and Met Council complete environmental review process • Q2 2016 Met Council receives price proposals for significant contracts Civil Construction Light Rail Vehicles • Q1/Q2 2016 FTA and Met Council conduct project risk assessment to determine contingency hold points 15 Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: SWLRT UpdatePage 4
Major Project Milestones Element Timeframe Complete 90% Civil Design Winter/Spring 2016 Complete 100% Civil Design Spring 2016 Final EIS Spring 2016 Record of Decision Summer 2016 Entry Into Engineering Fall 2016 Anticipated Start of Prep for Civil Construction Fall 2016 Anticipated Start of Systems Construction Winter 2016 Anticipated Start of OMF Construction Spring 2017 Heavy Construction 2017‐2019 Revenue Service 2020 17 Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: SWLRT UpdatePage 5
2016 Design Activities: 60% to 100% Design • LRT track features • Bridges and tunnels • Roadway and trail details • Operations and Maintenance Facility features • Park and ride facilities • Systems elements • Freight rail features • Utility relocation design plans • Station design plans • Streetscape design plans 18 Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: SWLRT UpdatePage 6
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: November 2015 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
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. This
report is typically presented at the second study session each month, but because there wasn’t a
second study session in December, the November report was moved to the first study session in
January. The December report will be presented as scheduled in two weeks at the second
January study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of November, General Fund
expenditures are under budget and total approximately 86% of the adopted annual budget.
Please see the attached analysis for more details on specific variances.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: November 2015 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide 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.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Actual expenditures should generally run at about 92% of
the annual budget at the end of November. General Fund expenditures are under budget at
approximately 86% of the adopted budget in November. Revenues tend to be harder to measure
in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include
property taxes and State aid payments. A few brief comments on specific variances are noted
below.
Revenues:
General property tax revenue is at 52% through November because the second half tax
settlement is not received from the County until December. The first half settlement is
received in July, the second half in December, and a smaller final settlement in January
of the following year.
License and permit revenues have been running well ahead of budget all year and rose to
a point where they began exceeding the total annual budget in October. Because
November permit activity was quite high and included the permits for the Shoreham and
Central Park West, total license and permit revenues are exceeding budget by nearly 29%
or $930,000 through November.
Fines & forfeits revenue includes police fines, liquor violations, and administrative
citations. It is at approximately 70% of budget through November, with two months of
police fine revenue still to be received, and will likely fall short of the budgeted amount.
Intergovernmental revenues are exceeding the annual budget by about 10% or $130,000
because the Police & Fire Aid amounts received in October were $88,000 more than what
was budgeted. Highway User Tax revenue received in 2015 is also $40,000 more than
what was budgeted.
Expenditures:
Human Resources has an over budget variance of about 4% due to Health in the Park
expenditures. Because this program is offset by revenue, there is no net effect to the
overall budget.
Engineering is well under budget at 61% through November due to several personnel
changes in 2015.
Public Works Operations is under budget at 76% because of weather-related expenditures
that are lower due to the mild winter.
Organized Recreation is over budget by approximately 5% through November, partly
because of an overage in temporary salary expense due to the minimum wage increase.
The temporary employee budget has been adjusted appropriately for 2016. There is also
a temporary variance because the full Community Education contribution of $187,400
was paid to the school district earlier in the year.
Environment is running well under budget at 69% because of lower tree maintenance
expenses.
Vehicle Maintenance is under budget through November at 79% because of lower fuel
and repair costs.
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of November 30, 2015 20152015201320132014201420152015 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited Budget Nov YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ 11,664,860$ 10,699,649$ 52.16% Licenses and Permits2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,413,682 3,248,158 4,177,759 (929,601) 128.62% Fines & Forfeits335,150 311,882 320,150 369,545 320,200 221,950 98,250 69.32% Intergovernmental1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 1,423,816 (131,539) 110.18% Charges for Services1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 1,907,844 (552) 100.03% Miscellaneous Revenue1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 1,253,016 (56,998) 104.77% Transfers In1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 1,683,696 168,063 90.92% Investment Earnings150,000 14,180 150,000 119,831 140,000 - 140,000 0.00% Other Income36,650 10,756 17,950 13,306 17,900 13,577 4,323 75.85% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 286,325 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 31,498,546$ 32,624,438$ 22,346,516$ 10,277,922$ 68.50%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 891,408$ 87,775$ 91.04% Accounting827,320 819,458 876,216 873,987 912,685 818,283 94,402 89.66% Assessing543,855 543,202 559,749 560,979 602,299 543,594 58,705 90.25% Human Resources678,988 731,634 693,598 788,823 805,929 773,439 32,490 95.97% Community Development1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 1,131,096 114,517 90.81% Facilities Maintenance1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 906,637 188,199 82.81% Information Resources1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 1,205,369 263,183 82.08% Communications & Marketing201,322 170,013 566,801 562,063 635,150 510,682 124,468 80.40% Community Outreach8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,680 24,677 19,877 4,800 80.55% Engineering303,258 296,383 506,996 223,491 492,838 301,237 191,601 61.12%Total General Government7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 7,101,622$ 1,160,140$ 85.96% Public Safety: Police7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 7,403,856$ 1,107,701$ 86.99% Fire Protection3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 3,391,903 330,493 91.12% Inspectional Services1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 1,802,593 336,732 84.26%Total Public Safety12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 12,598,353$ 1,774,925$ 87.65% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 183,274$ 49,163$ 78.85% Public Works Operations2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 2,101,092 662,643 76.02% Organized Recreation1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 1,266,752 37,718 97.11% Recreation Center1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 1,430,473 160,642 89.90% Park Maintenance1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 1,370,923 179,110 88.44% Westwood520,554 503,309 531,853 508,576 564,055 500,409 63,646 88.72% Environment430,876 434,297 433,750 379,193 472,049 325,728 146,321 69.00% Vehicle Maintenance1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 1,054,423 279,097 79.07%Total Operations & Recreation9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 8,233,074$ 1,578,340$ 83.91% Non-Departmental: General -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 94,762$ (94,762)$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 60,000 - 1,050,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 53,345 195,860 13,834 177,984 - 177,984 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 1,071,396$ 177,984$ 94,762$ 83,222$ 53.24%Total General Fund Expenditures29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 28,027,811$ 4,596,627$ 85.91%Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 7) Title: November 2015 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Wooddale/Highway 7 Interchange Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is being provided at the request of
the Council and will serve as background information for action staff will be requesting of Council
at its January 19 meeting to retain additional outside engineering assistance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please advise staff of any questions or
concerns you might have.
SUMMARY: The interchange of Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7 has experienced
considerable shifts in traffic patterns over the last ten months due to the ongoing reconstruction of
Highway 100. The reconstruction began in the spring of 2015 and will continue until late fall of
2016. Road closures, bridge closures and detour routes have been necessary to complete the
upgrades to the highway. These detours have put considerable pressure on the traffic operations
at this location.
In addition to the current Highway 100 reconstruction, the City is expecting additional
modifications to Wooddale Avenue from 36th Street north to Highway 7 due to the construction of
the Southwest Light Rail. (Exhibit #1) The overall light rail construction is anticipated to occur
from early 2017 to late 2019. Full LRT service is expected to begin in 2020. At this time the
Southwest Light Rail Project Office (SPO) has not indicated the timing, duration or other specifics
of the construction activities necessary to build the Wooddale Station and ancillary rail and
roadway improvements.
The anticipated addition of the light rail line has also helped to foster redevelopment interest in the
greater Elmwood area. There are a number parcels owned by the City, County and under private
ownership that have the potential to be redeveloped in the coming years. (Exhibit #2)
The combination of these three factors has concentrated staff’s attention to this interchange. Staff
is committed to continuing to work with MnDOT, the SPO and local stakeholders to develop safe
and efficient methods for managing the various current and future users of the area. To assist with
doing so staff desires to retain additional services from our consultant SEH to further evaluate
design solutions and will be requesting the Councils permission to do so on January 19.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Exhibit #1 - Future Wooddale LRT Station
Exhibit #2 - Redevelopment Potential Exhibit
Exhibit #3 - West Alignment of Xenwood Avenue Exhibit
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Wooddale/Highway 7 Interchange Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The concerns associated with the Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7
interchange can be broken down in to two main areas: Current traffic operations under various
detours due to Highway 100 construction and future design configurations to provide the most
effective interchange to accommodate the anticipated redevelopment and light rail operations.
Traffic Operations at Wooddale and Highway 7 – Current and the remainder of 2016
The additional traffic at the intersection of Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue due to the Highway
100 Project has caused several issues. The crash rate last summer increased significantly due to
the increase in traffic. MnDOT reviewed crash diagrams of the intersection to determine where
the crashes where occurring. The three turning movements where the accidents were:
1. Southbound Wooddale Avenue to eastbound Highway 7
2. Westbound Highway 7 to southbound Wooddale Avenue
3. Eastbound Highway 7 to northbound Wooddale Avenue
In August, the City, in cooperation with MnDOT, decided to close the left hand turns at the ramps
from Highway 7 to Wooddale Avenue eliminating two of the three high crash movements. There
were still a lot of vehicles making left turns so the City asked MnDOT to modify the traffic control
which has helped reduce the number of vehicles making illegal left hand turns.
In November, MnDOT closed Highway 7 east of Wooddale Avenue for the Highway 100 Project.
This closure eliminated the last of the three high crash movements shown above.
In the current configuration the no left turns is working well. Backups are occurring on Highway
7 eastbound which is expected due to the closure of the highway at Wooddale Avenue. The crash
rate at this intersection has decreased significantly since the implementation of the no left turns.
The biggest recent issue is traffic which cuts across the grass from the ramp to use the Highway 7
frontage road. MnDOT installed a snow fence in late December which should eliminate this issue.
Staff will continue to monitor and make changes as needed. Highway 7 will be closed at this
location until the fall of 2016.
Future Design Considerations for Wooddale and Highway 7 – 2017 and beyond
Xenwood Avenue Extension
In 2014 the City began discussions with the Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO) regarding ways
to improve traffic operations near the Wooddale Station and to increase access to South Service
Road of Highway 7 east of Wooddale Avenue. The City owns the former McGarvey Coffee
building and the vacant EDA parcel in the southeast corner of Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue
and is exploring redevelopment opportunities for these parcels.
Due to the proposed roadway changes anticipated with the addition of light rail and the
implementation of a whistle quiet zone along the freight rail through St. Louis Park, the access to
the South Service Road is anticipated to become right in / right out in 2017. This right in / right
out access has the potential to limit the scale of redevelopment on the McGarvey and EDA parcels.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Wooddale/Highway 7 Interchange Update
Therefore the City and the SPO began looking for opportunities to find additional ways to access
the South Service Road. These parcels are bordered by Highway 7 on the north, Highway 100 on
the East, the freight and LRT to the south and Wooddale Avenue to the west. This leaves little
opportunity to increase access to these sites. At that the time the most viable option was to consider
extending Xenwood Avenue from W. 35th Street to the South Service Road between the former
McGarvey Coffee site and the Cityscape apartments. The City entered in to a subordinate funding
agreement with the SPO and Metropolitan Council in early 2015 for the design of three bridges
(Freight, LRT and Regional Trail) necessary to facilitate a Xenwood Avenue roadway extension.
Over the course of 2013, Staff and SPO worked on preliminary design of the Xenwood Underpass
developing more detailed cost estimates and best location for the roadway extension. The updated
cost for this improvement is around 18.5 million dollars and the roadway extension reduces the
buildable area on the McGarvey parcel by about a quarter of acre. This high cost and reduction in
buildable area are serious issues for the viability of this locally requested capital investment. In
addition, the Xenwood Underpass does very little to help safety and traffic operations along
Wooddale Avenue and at the interchange with Highway 7.
On July 6, 2015 staff brought the Xenwood Extension concept design to Council during a special
study session to ask Council if staff should continue to proceed with design of the three bridges by
the SPO. Council indicated that the City should continue with the West Xenwood Extension
(Exhibit #3). However, they also indicated that the issues related to the sight lines and traffic
operations on the Wooddale Avenue/Highway 7 bridge also need to be addressed.
Modification to the interchange of Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7
In addition to the analysis completed to date on the Xenwood Extension, Staff has begun
investigating infrastructure improvements at Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7 that would utilize
a similar (or less costly) financial investment that could address a more community wide
transportation need along Wooddale Avenue.
In late October of 2015 the City convened a Design Workshop that was attended by SPO, MnDOT,
Hennepin County, City staff, the PLACE development team and our consultant SEH. The goal of
this workshop was to brainstorm ideas that would address the safety issues of the corridor, sight
line issues at the Highway 7 off ramps, allow additional development potential and manage the
traffic delays and accesses changes associated with the construction of the SWLRT.
From this workshop twelve concepts were created with input from the various disciplines including
traffic engineers, planners and geometric engineers.
Staff is proposing to evaluate in greater detail the four configurations that scored the highest with
the above stated goals. None of these concepts include a Xenwood Underpass. The additional
evaluation will be related to geometrics, traffic operations, impacts to access, available
redevelopment potential, phasing opportunities and estimated cost for each option. The desired
outcome from this evaluation is to find a cost effective solution that balances the multimodal nature
of this area with the high level of safety and livability. In order to undertake this detailed
evaluation staff will be requesting Council authorization to retain SEH to assist with this work.
The approximate cost is estimated to be $100,000
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: Wooddale/Highway 7 Interchange Update
It will be critical to get MnDOT, Metropolitan Council (SWLRT), freight rail and other local
stakeholder buy-in to the concepts if there is any ability to implement a selected alternative. It will
be very difficult to get this buy in without retaining outside assistance to assist staff in doing so.
Study timelines
Short Elliott Hendrickson’s (SEH) proposal would start after authorization in late January.
Late January to late March - evaluate the 4 alternatives and select a recommend
alternative to present to council
March to June – Discuss alternative with neighborhood area, business owner and
other stakeholders
June – Report back to Council and discuss next steps.
NEXT STEPS: Staff will bring forward to the Council on January 19, 2016 for approval, a
proposal from SEH for consulting services to evaluate additional roadway and ramp design options
at the interchange of Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Wooddale/Highway 7 Interchange Update Page 5
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 8) Title: Wooddale/Highway 7 Interchange UpdatePage 6
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 8)
Title: Wooddale/Highway 7 Interchange Update Page 7
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 11, 2016
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Memorandum of Understanding with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for
Erosion Control Permitting Authority
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff has been working with Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District on consolidating permitting authority for Construction Stormwater
Management. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be brought to the City Council for
approval at the January 19 Council meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions regarding this MOU for
Erosion and Sediment Control Permitting?
SUMMARY: The Engineering Department is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD) to reduce redundant permitting requirements by consolidating Erosion and
Sediment Control permitting authority. This transfer in permitting authority from MCWD to St.
Louis Park will streamline the Erosion and Sediment Control permitting process by only requiring
builders to obtain one permit with the City. This will expedite permits issuance, especially for
single family home construction and remodeling. City and MCWD permit application, plan
review, permit issuance, and inspection processes are consistent with MCWD regulations and are
already in place.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The past permit practice has been to require
applicants to obtain two permits, one from MCWD and one from the City. Requirements are the
same. Since the City already issues permits for Erosion and Sediment Control and performs the
required inspections, there are no additional financial or budgetary considerations for obtaining
construction stormwater management permitting authority.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Memorandum of Understanding
Prepared by: Erick Francis, Water Resources Manager
Reviewed by: Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: MOU with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Erosion Control Permitting Authority
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: When rain falls on a construction site it causes the exposed soils to erode
easier than they normally would on vegetated areas. Once the soil has eroded, it becomes
suspended in the stormwater runoff, along with other pollutants that are common to construction
sites. This runoff then enters the City’s storm sewer system and our lakes and streams causing
sedimentation that may harm wildlife habitat and impact the overall health of our valued water
resources.
Due to the volume of pollution that can be generated from construction sites, Erosion and Sediment
Control runoff is regulated at a state, regional, and local level to reduce the environmental impacts
of construction stormwater runoff. Currently, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
regulates construction stormwater runoff, state wide, for projects that are one acre or greater.
The City’s construction stormwater regulations are consistent with the MCWD regulations.
Regionally, the MCWD regulates construction stormwater runoff for projects that will disturb an
area of 5,000 square feet or greater, or will excavate 50 cubic yards or more of material. Locally,
the City of St. Louis Park also regulates construction stormwater runoff for projects that are 5,000
square feet or greater, or will excavate 50 cubic yards or more of material. This redundancy in
Erosion and Sediment Control permitting, specifically for smaller projects such as single family
residential projects, complicates the permitting process and increases issuance timelines for the
City’s residents and businesses. This process is proposed to be streamlined through a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the MCWD. This MOU needs to be approved by
both the MCWD and the City.
The City’s Engineering Department will provide further information on obtaining permitting
authority from the MCWD once the MOU has been received.
MEMORANDUM of UNDERSTANDING
Between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
and the City of St. Louis Park
for Local Water Planning and Regulation
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made this ___th day of __________, 2016 by and
between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers as set
forth at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D (“MCWD”), and the City of St. Louis park, a body
corporate and politic and a statutory city in the State of Minnesota (“City”).
Recitals and Statement of Purpose
WHEREAS, in 2007, the MCWD revised its comprehensive watershed management plan under
Minnesota Statutes § 103B.231, which details the existing physical environment, land use and
development in the watershed, and establishes a plan to regulate water resource use and management
to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding, and otherwise achieve the goals of
Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D;
WHEREAS, the MCWD’s comprehensive watershed management plan incorporates the Rules
adopted by the MCWD to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and
otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D;
WHEREAS, the City has developed a local water management plan under Minnesota Statutes
§ 103B.235 that describes the existing and proposed physical environment and land use within the City
and sets forth an implementation plan for bringing local water management into conformance with the
MCWD’s comprehensive watershed management plan;
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2009, the MCWD Board of Managers conditionally approved the
City’s local water management plan by adoption of Resolution 09-087, which resolution is attached to
and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and the City satisfied the conditions therein;
WHEREAS, the City now wishes to assume sole permitting responsibility in the area of erosion
control, but to continue to authorize MCWD to exercise permitting authority with respect to all other
areas regulated by the MCWD;
WHEREAS, MCWD approval of a local plan requires a finding that the official controls of the local
government are at least as protective of water resources as the MCWD rules;
WHEREAS, the finding by the MCWD Board of Managers in this regard with respect to
permitting areas other than erosion control, rested on the City’s authorization of the MCWD’s continued
exercise of regulatory authority within the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 103B.211,
subdivision 1(a)(3);
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 9)
Title: MOU with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Erosion Control Permitting Authority Page 3
WHEREAS the MCWD Board of Managers finds that the City’s erosion control ordinance[s],
attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, are at least as protective of water resources as
MCWD’s Erosion Control Rule;
WHEREAS, the MCWD and City desire to memorialize their respective roles in implementing
water resource protection and management within the City;
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties that they enter into this
MOU in order to document the understanding of the parties as to the roles and responsibilities of each
party.
1.0 Responsibilities of the City
1.1 The City may exercise all present and future authority it otherwise may possess to issue permits
for and regulate activities affecting water resources within the City.
1.2 The City is solely responsible for permitting for purposes of erosion control within the City. The
City will regulate these activities in accordance with the City’s approved local water management plan
and the terms of this MOU.
1.3 The City will not issue a variance from an above-referenced ordinance until the MCWD has
approved the variance and proposed conditions. On receipt of a property owner’s or agent’s request for
a variance from the above-reference ordinance(s), the City promptly will transmit a copy of the variance
request and supporting documentation to the MCWD for review.
1.4 The City will maintain a log of permits it grants pursuant to this MOU, will provide the log to the
MCWD annually and will meet at least annually with the MCWD to review the implementation of the
City’s local water management plan and erosion control ordinance[s].
2.0 Responsibilities of the MCWD
2.1 The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce its Rules, as they may be amended from time to
time, within the City except for erosion control, which will not apply within the City.
2.2 The MCWD will review and issue a decision on any variance request transmitted to it by the City
in accordance with paragraph 1.3 herein within 45 days of receipt.
2.3 The MCWD will meet with the City at least annually to review the implementation of the City’s
local water management plan and erosion control ordinance[s].
2.4 The MCWD retains the right to enforce any and all of its rules in the event that the City is unable
or unwilling to carry out its obligations listed in Section 1.0 of this MOU.
2.5 The MCWD retains all authority that it may possess under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B
and 103D or any other provision of law, except as explicitly reposed in the City under this MOU,
including but not limited to authority set forth at Minnesota Statutes § 103B.211, subd. 1(a); 103D.335
and 103D.341.
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 9)
Title: MOU with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Erosion Control Permitting Authority Page 4
3.0 Amendment
This MOU may be amended only by a writing signed by both of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
By _______________________ Date: ________ By ________________________ Date: ________
Mayor President, Board of Managers
By _______________________ Date: ________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION
By _________________________ By ___________________________
Its Attorney Its Attorney
Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2016 (Item No. 9)
Title: MOU with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Erosion Control Permitting Authority Page 5