HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/01/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 25, 2016
6:30pm CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 8, 2016
2. 6:35 p.m. Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Preparedness Plan Implementation
3. 7:05 p.m. Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
4. 7:35 p.m. Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda
7:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
7:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. December 2015 Monthly Financial Report
6. Fourth Quarter Investment Report October – December 2015
7. SWLRT Update
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 25, 2016
Discussion Item : 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 8, 2016
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the
regularly scheduled Study Session on February 8, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda 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 the
regularly scheduled Study Session on February 8, 2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – February 8, 2016
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 8, 2016
Study Session, February 8, 2016 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2016 Legislative Issues & Priorities – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
In preparation for the upcoming legislative session City Council has had a practice of inviting
our state and county elected representatives and Met Council representative to a study session
to discuss the upcoming session and the City’s legislative agenda. Senator Ron Latz,
Representative Cheryl Youakim, Representative Peggy Flanagan, Hennepin County
Commissioner Marion Greene and Metropolitan Council Representative Gail Dorfman have
been invited to this meeting.
3. Proposed EDA Revolving Loan Fund – Community Development (30 minutes)
Further discussion regarding the EDA’s creation of a Revolving Loan Fund to assist small
business expansions and entry into an agreement with Central Minnesota Development
Company (CMDC) to administer the program.
4. Water Capacity Update – Operations & Recreation / Community Development (45 minutes)
Community Development and Operations & Recreation staff will talk about our current water
capacity and how future redevelopment will impact our water capacity and supply.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
5. Extension of Preliminary Development Agreement with PLACE
6. 2016-2017 CDBG Funding
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 25, 2016
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Preparedness Plan Implementation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires to update Council on the EAB status in St Louis Park
and receive feedback regarding a staff recommendation to begin injecting specified boulevard and
park ash trees with insecticide to protect them against infestation beginning in the summer of 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to continue with the EAB management
plan which includes injecting healthy ash trees to protect them against EAB infestation with
insecticide that is safe for the Bee population?
SUMMARY: As part of the City’s EAB Preparedness Plan created in 2010, staff shared the
possibility of proactively injecting specified (highly desirable) ash trees on public properties. We
have been implementing our plan by removing the less desirable ash trees and planting a variety
of trees in their place. Since we have now removed most of the public ash trees that were in poor
condition, staff is recommending moving to the next phase of the plan which includes injecting
specific ash trees. Continuing on with the plan by injecting healthy ash trees this year will
substantially benefit the City by reducing EAB management costs (now and into foreseeable
future), while maintaining all of the benefits of our existing diverse and mature community forest
canopy.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: In 2015, the tree removal budget line item in
the Natural Resources division was increased $30,000 for EAB management (public ash tree
removals and replacement). That level of funding is continued in 2016 with the intention of using
half of this funding for injections of ash trees. The other half will be used for public ash tree
removal and replacement (lower condition-rated ash). In 2016, Staff recommends injecting
approximately 250 “excellent” designated public ash trees through a cost share (50%) with
adjoining boulevard tree property owners. The estimated cost of such a program would be
approximately $15,000 per year for the City. This would be a voluntary program offered to
residents since it does require cost sharing on their part.
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
Management Plan Elements, 2016
Ash Tree Inventory and Removal Status, 2010
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Natural Resource Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Preparedness Plan Implementation
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In 2010, the City created an EAB Preparedness Plan. Since that time, staff has
been implementing the plan with the intent that the proactive injection of certain specified public
ash trees would follow at a later date. We are now proposing to start the injection part of that plan
in 2016.
Research has shown that by injecting trees with insecticides, a city and region can slow down and
diminish the active population of EAB. This effort aids in protecting the City’s community forest
and the benefits it provides, such as saving energy, reducing storm water runoff, increasing
property values, improving air quality, improving public health and mitigating carbon.
In 2010 a public ash tree inventory was performed. At that time, the City of St. Louis Park had
2,343 ash trees with an average diameter equal to 15”, on boulevards and maintained park areas.
With that inventory a rating system was used to categorize ash tree conditions from poor to
excellent. Since 2010 the City has removed 560 of the poorly rated public ash trees from parks and
boulevards.
The intent of the injection action is to preserve as long as feasible (perhaps up to 12 years), the
excellent ash trees, so they can continue to contribute to the community forest infrastructure, as
well as fending off a sizable portion of EAB infestations. Research has shown that when ash trees,
are injected with insecticides, the population of EAB is diminished and infestation rates are
slowed. This keeps more trees alive for longer periods.
By slowing the spread of EAB, we will be able to more efficiently and effectively manage tree
removals and replacements, lessening the financial and logistical management and removal
burdens (public and private) and maintaining many of the benefits derived from mature tree
canopy.
The proposed insecticide considered for use in St. Louis Park is Emamectin Benzoate (Treeage is
the common trade name), which is not a neonicotinoid. Neonicotinoids have been shown to harm
bees in certain situations and amounts. The Bee Friendly Resolution passed by Council in March
2015 declared neonicotinoids will not be used on City properties. Treeage is a systemic insecticide,
which is micro injected (small amounts are injected into the trunk of an ash tree and the insecticide
is spread throughout the “system” of the tree) into the tree. Very few pollinators, with the exception
of a few native flies, pollinate ash trees (ash trees are wind pollinated).
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: By the end of 2015, the confirmed counties in Minnesota
where EAB has been found jumped from 6 to 13 counties. EAB has been confirmed in Minnesota
since 2009. Experts predict exponential growth of EAB infestations in Minnesota within the next
two years. We have reached the tipping point to save many ash trees via chemical treatment.
NEXT STEPS AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: In 2016, Staff recommends injecting
approximately 250 “excellent” designated public ash trees through a cost share (50%) with
adjoining boulevard tree property owners. The estimated cost of such a program would be
approximately $15,000 per year. The funding would come out of the operational budget of the
Natural Resources Division. The approximate cost of injecting an average size boulevard ash tree
(15” diameter) is $90 for a two year cycle (chemical lasts two seasons in tree). In this case, the
resident would pay $45 and the City would pay $45. This injection lasts for 2 years.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Preparedness Plan Implementation
The 2016 budget includes money for this injection program. The tree removal budget line item in
the Natural Resources division was increased $30,000 for EAB management (public ash tree
removals and replacement). The proposal is to use half of this funding for injections of ash trees.
The other half will be used for public ash tree removal and replacement (lower condition-rated
ash).
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
EAB Management Plan Design Elements
Jim Vaughan – Project Manager
Tree Inventory – complete street tree inventory and ash tree inventory in parks (and City-
owned Lands) – rate trees on species, condition, size (dbh) and location
Analysis and Cost Calculation – analyze data to calculate average removal cost of street tree
and extrapolate to cost of removing 5% of ash trees per year, starting with lowest rated
(highest risk) trees first, working up through condition rating classes (from inventory).
Ash Phloem Reduction – begin removing 5% of ash trees, from boulevards and parks/City-
owned properties, using criteria from above. Tree removals will occur October 1 – April 30.
Surveying for EAB- actively promote EAB symptoms and signs and related City inspection
service to confirm or deny EAB presence on public and private trees– generates City-wide
inspection calls for City Tree Inspector and Environmental Coordinator. Perform
windshield survey of each street within City (2 times per year). Sample suspect ash trees for
EAB.
Ordinance – has been updated to include invasive pests (i.e. EAB) and will be enforced and
implemented using long-established Oak wilt and Dutch elm disease protocols and
considerations.
Chemical Options – use on highly desired trees; explore possible cost share for boulevard
trees with adjacent property owners. Prefer “Treeage” (2 year injections, whenever possible –
Emamectin benzoate not a neonicotinoid). Created permit for boulevard tree injections in
order to keep track of protected trees (last to remove under phloem reduction).
Removals – systematic removal for phloem reduction (remove low rated trees first following
condition rating system, along with alternative boulevard, park/city-owned property trees,
where monoculture of ash is in existent (whereby new trees can be planted among and
between mature ash, thereby establishing some trees before others are removed). Currently
have removed 560 ash trees (since 2010)
1
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Preparedness Plan Implementation Page 4
Disposal and Utilization – all ash trees and related debris will be transported to City-owned
tree disposal site. Site is managed by Specialize Environmental Technologies (SET). City of
St. Louis Park has a 5 year contract (we are in our 3rd year of contract) which entails all St.
Louis Park wood (from City crews, City contractors and for select local tree contractors) to
be transported to this site, processed (ground into wood mulch/chips) and, after processing,
transported to the District Energy Biofuel plant in St. Paul. 100% of St. Louis Park derived
wood will be following this protocol SET regulates and manages wood storage, processing
and transportation of all wood into this site.
Reforestation – continue to promote and implement street tree planting plan which consists
of species diversification within streets, neighborhoods and entire urban canopy and a one
for one replacement upon tree loss, with replacement occurring within a year of loss. Plan
promotes diversity (and has for over 25 years) over standard street tree design (monoculture
of trees). See attached recommended trees for SLP, which is a list of trees we plant on public
spaces and recommendations for private properties – we promote this publication to our
public for their tree planting efforts.
The City Tree Sale begins its 8th year on March 1st. 325 trees, consisting of 9 different tree
species available for sale. The cost remains at $35.00/tree. The intent of the tree sale is to
promote a diverse and consistent (while ash trees are removed) tree canopy.
Maintenance – continue pruning all boulevard trees on a 9 year rotational pruning cycle.
Boulevard pruning performed by a private tree contractor using a $60,000.00 operations
line-item budget allotment. Parks and City-owned property trees will continue to be pruned
on similar rotation using City staff. All City trees 4”dbh and under are pruned on a 4-5 year
rotation.
Public Education – continue implementing a coordinated EAB public relations campaign.
This campaign promotes the latest EAB information to all SLP citizens and property owners.
The campaign designed and spearheaded by City Communications staff, consisting of the
following pursuits:
Articles in City newsletter and web site
Short Public Service Announcement (PSA) video for use on City Community TV
channel as well as social media outlets (i.e. Twitter)
Posters for use in public presentations and visual support in City buildings
Utility billing insert
Postcard – direct mail
Door hangers – for those properties with ash (public or private) on them
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Preparedness Plan Implementation Page 5
2010 Boulevard Ash Tree Inventory:
Condition Rating (Removal Criteria) for Boulevard Ash Tree Inventory
#Ash Trees Condition Rating
148 (removed) 1
135 (removed) 2 (560 total ash trees removed so far)
348 (122 left to remove) 3
1136 (save as many as possible) 4
576 (save) 5
(2,343 total ash trees found on boulevards
15” diameter-at-breast-height (dbh) average)
Ratings
1= Hazardous trees, experienced severe pruning (i.e. Xcel wire pruning, topping, etc.);
severe lean.
2= Dead, dying - 25% or greater dieback in crown, diseased trees.
3= Uprooting, leaning, obstructing sightlines, obstructing infrastructure (street lights,
signal lights, construction project, lifting sidewalk panel or curb), poor
structure/condition trees.
4= Trees causing infrastructure damage, poor planting site – no long-term chance for survival
(tree grate, mower blight, compacted soil, severe root pruning, construction damaged), trees
planted or growing in undesirable locations.
5= All other trees, those that are in good shape, and have a fair chance of living with continued
care.
1= remove as top priority
5= remove as lowest priority
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Preparedness Plan Implementation Page 6
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 25, 2016
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: In early January the City Council directed that this topic be
placed on a study session agenda for further discussion. Staff requests direction on any further
study, discussion or action the Council would like to take on this matter.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City’s off-sale liquor licensing requirements be
amended to address the size, number, location or concentration of off-sale liquor establishments
in St. Louis Park?
SUMMARY: In early 2015 the City Council adopted a resolution which in effect placed a hold
or moratorium on the issuance of additional off-sale liquor licenses.
The City Council discussed this matter several times during 2015. This discussion was aided by
background information provided by staff, a copy of which is attached. During these discussions
several different viewpoints surfaced as follows:
Consideration should be given to limiting the physical size of off-sale establishments.
Consideration should be given to limiting the number, location or concentration of off-sale
establishments.
No changes needed to be made to the city’s off-sale licensing regulations.
Given that consensus was not reached on an appropriate course of action to take, per the resolution
adopted by the Council the hold on the issuance of additional off-sale licenses expired on
December 31, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Previous Staff Reports
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 12, 2015
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off Sale Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to
provide Council with background information regarding off sale liquor licensing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council need any other information regarding off sale
liquor licensing? Does Council want staff to take any other action regarding this matter?
SUMMARY: Council has expressed concern over recent months about the number and
locations of new off-sale liquor stores within St. Louis Park. At the Council meeting of
November 17, 2014, Council approved an off sale intoxicating liquor license for Target
Corporation making a total of 16 off sale intoxicating liquor licenses within St. Louis Park. As a
result of that action, the consensus of the Council was to discuss this matter at a future study
session.
Currently, City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor
establishments in St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the
number of licenses or employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council
may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated
areas or zoning districts within the city.
Staff has researched and attached the surrounding communities’ policies and restrictions for
issuance of off-sale liquor licenses.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Survey Results
Map of Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Map of All Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Bill Chang, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening , City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 2
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Off Sale Liquor License Types: There are three different types of off sale liquor licenses.
Only an exclusive liquor store can be issued an off sale “intoxicating” liquor license. Other off
sale licenses includes 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery store or brewery. Below is the history of
the number of off sale licenses issued since 2000.
YEAR
Off-sale
Intox
(liquor stores)
Off-sale
3.2 malt liquor
(grocery stores)
Off-sale
Brewery
(growlers)
TOTAL
Off-sale
Licenses
2014 16 3 2 21
2013 15 3 2 20
2012 14 3 2 19
2011 14 4 2 20
2010 13 3 1 17
2009 12 3 1 15
2008 11 3 1 14
2007 13 3 16
2006 10 2 12
2005 10 2 12
2004 9 3 12
2003 9 4 13
2002 9 4 13
2001 9 4 13
2000 7 4 11
Liquor Licensing Regulations: The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and
St. Louis Park City Code of Ordinances. MN Statutes 340A.509 states a local authority may
impose further restrictions and regulations for off sale licenses.
Limiting the number of liquor licensed establishments: Currently, State law and City Code do
not contain provisions limiting the actual number of off sale intoxicating liquor licensed
establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the power to limit the number of liquor
licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council may, by resolution, restrict the number
of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute 340A.413 subd.5 limits off sale intoxicating
liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over 100,000 population) to not more than one license
for each 5,000 population, and in all other cities the limit is determined by the governing body of
the city.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 3
Minimum Distances:
• City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may
be issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property
line of the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of
worship.
• Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states that a liquor store lot must be at least 1,000 feet
from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan
agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business.
• In the case of a shopping center of multi-use building, the distance shall be measured
from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store.
• If the Council wanted to pursue additional distance restrictions, it should be clearly
defined as to how it would be measured (ex. property line to property line).
Survey Results:
Staff previously presented research to council regarding off sale liquor limitations in surrounding
communities. At the time, Council did not come to consensus on the concept of limiting the
number or location of off-sale liquor establishments in the city.
A recent survey collected liquor information from suburbs with similarities and proximity to St.
Louis Park. Of the suburbs surveyed, Hopkins, New Hope, Minnetonka, Blaine, Burnsville, and
Brooklyn Park have limitations on the number of off-sale intoxicating licenses.
Public Safety Impact:
The police department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the
number of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive
or negative. Lieutenant Chad Kraayenbrink stated the current number of liquor stores has had no
direct effect on public safety.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 4
CITY Population
Total
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
per capita
Other limitations
Hopkins 17,591 8 1 per 2,200 Limit 8 off-sale and 7 on-sale per year. Not within 350 feet of school, daycare, church, an existing off-sale liquor store, pawn shop, license
currency exchange. New ordinance Nov 2014 limits SIZE of liquor stores to max of 5000 sq ft
Golden Valley 20,371 5 1 per 4,100 No off sale limitations
New Hope 20,339 5 1 per 4,100 Limit 7 off-sale per year
Crystal 22,151 10 1 per 2,200 Not within 300 feet of any school building or church building without 60 days prior notification given by the clerk to the governmental
entity or organization operating the school or church
Roseville 33,660 10 1 per 3,400 Limit 10 off sale per year. Council shall consider all factors relating to health safety & welfare of citizens, effect on market value of
neighboring properties, proximity to churches/schools, effect on traffic & parking. Premises at least 1,600 sq ft.
Cottage Grove 35,399 5 1 per 7,000 No off-sale intoxicating license shall be granted for premises located within one thousand feet (1,000') of another licensed off-sale
intoxicating premises as measured between the nearest building walls of the establishments.
St. Louis Park 45,250 16 1 per 2,828 Not within 300 feet of school or church. Off sale - total window sign coverage not >50%
Minnetonka 49,374 10 1 per 4,900 12 off-sale licenses, but council has discretion to approve for purposes of area and type of service.
Blaine 60,480 8 1 per 7,000 Off sale limited to 1 per 7,000 polulation. 1 mile apart from door to door. 500 ft from schools and churches. Restaurants not required to
report sales.
Burnsville 60,306 12 1 per 5,000
Maximum 12 off sale 1 per 5,000 population. 3/4 miles apart. No off-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued for a premises that is
within 0.75 mile of another off-sale intoxicating liquor facility and not located in a freestanding building; except facilities located within the
"Burnsville Center retail area", the area encompassing all Burnsville Center shopping centers and strip shopping centers as identified in
2030 comp plan, in general bounded by the nearest principal arterial, A minor arterial or B minor arterial streets. This area is bounded by
McAndrews Rd on the north, Portland Ave on the east, Southcross Drive on the south, County Road 5 on the west plus lots 1-3 block 1 of
Westburn first addition.
Coon Rapids 62,103 15 1 per 4,100 No intoxicating off-sale liquor establishments shall be located within one mile radius of any other licensed Class A off-sale intoxicating
liquor establishment. Council may issue no more than eight Class A Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses annually.
Woodbury 65,656 12 1 per 5,500 No off sale limitations.
Maple Grove 66,842 12 1 per 5,600 No off sale limitations.
Eagan 64,456 15 1 per 4,300 300 ft from schools and churches
Plymouth 70,576 13 1 per 5,400 No off sale limitations. 500 ft from schools
Brooklyn Park 72,724 14 1 per 4,800 Feb 2013 - 6 mos. moratorium on new off sales. Nov 2013 Resolution AREA limitation - no new off sale licenses south of Hwy 610. (no
off-sale limits for North of Hwy 610 new developed area). 300 ft from schools and churches
Bloomington 82,893 23 1 per 3,600 No off-sale limitations. 300 Ft from schools and churches.
2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 5
CITY Population
Total
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
per capita
Other limitations
Columbia Heights 19,674 3 1 per 6,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Fridley 27,667 2 1 per 13,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Brooklyn Center 30,104 2 1 per 15,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Richfield 36,175 4 1 per 9,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Edina 47,425 3 1 per 15,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Eden Prairie 60,797 3 1 per 20,300
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Apple Valley 70,924 3 1 per 23,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey - CITIES with Municipal Liquor Stores
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 6
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lake
R
d
Liquor Establishments
Off Sale Brewery - Growlers (2)
Off Sale 3.2 - Grocery Stores (3)
Off Sale Intox - Liquor Stores (16)
January 2015
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 7
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lak
e
R
d
On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
On Sale Intox (26)
On Sale Club (2)
On Sale 3.2 & Wine (15)
On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
On Sale 3.2 (1)
On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
Off Sale 3.2 (3)
Off Sale Intox (16)
January 2015
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 8
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 20, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution limiting the number of Off-Sale
Intoxicating Liquor Licenses issued in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to limit off-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses to the current number and locations while it studies the issue of permanent license
limitations and other regulations?
SUMMARY: Council has expressed concern over recent months about the number and
locations of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments within St. Louis Park. Discussion took
place at the Study Session meeting of January 12, 2015 with consensus of the council to direct
staff to prepare a proposed resolution to limit the number of off-sale liquor stores to the present
number and location while the council further studies the issue.
The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and St. Louis Park City Code of
Ordinances. Minn Statutes 340A.509 states a local authority may impose further restrictions and
regulations. Additionally, Minn. Statutes 340A.413, Subd 5 (2), specifically states that the
number of off-sale licenses shall be determined by the city council for each municipality.
Currently, City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor
establishments in St. Louis Park. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council may, by
resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or
zoning districts within the city. There are currently 16 off-sale intoxicating licenses.
The resolution prepared by City Attorney is attached to this report. The proposed resolution sets
the maximum number of off-sale intoxicating licenses at the current sixteen. The only new off-
sale intoxicating liquor license that will be issued will be for the continued operation of a liquor
store by a new owner at a currently licensed location utilizing the existing licensed premises. The
resolution shall be effective upon its adoption and shall apply to all pending and future
applications, and shall expire on December 31, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for off sale intoxicating liquor
licenses include $500 for the police background investigation and $380 for the license fee.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed Resolution
January 12 Study Session Council Report
Survey Results
Map of Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Map of All Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 9
RESOLUTION NO. 15-_____
A RESOLUTION LIMITING NUMBER OF OFF-SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES
WHEREAS, the current 16 licensed off-sale liquor stores in the City represent a much
higher number of such establishments on a per capita basis than neighboring and other comparable
cities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has regulatory concerns about this relatively high number
and location of off-sale liquor establishments in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interest of the City and
its citizens to engage in more detailed studies to determine if additional regulations are needed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also believes that it is appropriate and in the best interest of
the City and its citizens to limit the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to the current
number of issued licenses at this time while the City Council studies the issue; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State law, City Code Section 3-72 allows the City
Council by resolution to restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. Pursuant to St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-72, the total number of off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses issued in the City will be restricted to sixteen (16).
2. The only new off-sale intoxicating liquor license that will be issued will be for the
continued operation of a liquor store by a new owner at a currently licensed location
utilizing the existing licensed premises.
3. This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption and shall apply to all pending and
future applications, and shall expire on December 31, 2015.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 10
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: April 20, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to
provide Council with information regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: What other information would Council like to review regarding
off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing? Is the Council ready to take action on this matter?
SUMMARY: On January 12, 2015, Council had a discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses and locations. It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to direct staff to
prepare a resolution imposing a limit on off-sale liquor licenses to allow time to study this topic.
On January 20, 2015, Council adopted a resolution limiting the number of off-sale intoxicating
liquor licenses that applied to all pending and future applications with an expiration date of
December 31, 2015.
At the discussion this evening, staff will present data on this topic as follows:
• Map of business locations and zoning regulations.
• Licensing concepts - new category such as accessory to grocery.
• Information on current establishment size.
• Discussion regarding distance between liquor stores.
City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in
St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the number of licenses or
employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council may, by resolution,
restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts
within the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Survey Results
Map of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 11
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Off-Sale Liquor License Types: There are three different types of off-sale liquor license
categories in St. Louis Park. Only an exclusive liquor store can be issued an off-sale
“intoxicating” liquor license. Other off-sale licenses include 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery
store or brewery. Below is the history of the number of off-sale licenses issued since 2000:
YEAR
Off-Sale
Intox
(liquor stores)
Off-Sale
3.2 Malt Liquor
(grocery stores)
Off-Sale
Brewery
(growlers)
TOTAL
Off-Sale
Licenses
2014 16 3 2 21
2013 15 3 2 20
2012 14 3 2 19
2011 14 4 2 20
2010 13 3 1 17
2009 12 3 1 15
2008 11 3 1 14
2007 13 3 16
2006 10 2 12
2005 10 2 12
2004 9 3 12
2003 9 4 13
2002 9 4 13
2001 9 4 13
2000 7 4 11
Liquor Licensing Regulations: The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and
St. Louis Park City Code of Ordinances. MN Statute 340A.509 states a local authority may
impose further restrictions and regulations for off-sale licenses.
Are there limits set by the State of Minnesota on the number of liquor licensed establishments?
No. Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of
off-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the
power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council
may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute
340A.413 subd.5 limits off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over
100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other
cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 12
What are the current regulations relating to intoxicating liquor locations for the City?
• City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be
issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of
the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship.
(Adopted June 2007)
• Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states liquor stores are allowed in the C-2 General
Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: The
liquor store must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop,
currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business.
(Adopted November 2013) Comment: Currency exchange and payday loan businesses are
licensed by MN State Department of Commerce. The City of St. Louis Park does not have
any licensed classifications of currency exchange or payday loan through the State
Department of Commerce at this time.
• In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from
the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. (Adopted November 2013)
What is the current square footage of our off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor
Licensed Establishments Address Development, Mall or
Shopping area
Premises
CURRENT
Approx Sq Ft
Liquor
Violations past
5 years
Year Business
Began
Total Years
in business
Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 0 1979 36
Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St West End 3,884 0 2001 14
Four Firkins-Lagers Ales Wines 5630 West 36th Street Harmony Vista Shopping
Center 1,800 1 (2012)2008 7
Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 2 (2011, 2013)1946 69
Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 1 (2013)1967 48
Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 1 (2011)2005 9
Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West End 9,000 1 (2013)2012 3
MGM 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8,891 0 Nov 2014 less than 1
Sam's Club 3745 Louisiana 10,560 0 1986 29
Supervalu CUB liquor store 5370 16th Street W West End 3,400 0 2009 6
St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka BlvdMinnetonka Park Mall 1,200 2 (2013, 2014)2001 14
Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7 near Knollwood Mall 1,850 0 2015 less than 1
Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 1 (2011)1962 53
Trader Joe’s #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 0 2006 10
Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Knollwood Village 2,800 0 2006 10
Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S 4,100 0 1963 52
Liquor Stores CLOSED
Napa Jacks 4200 Mtka Blvd wine store 3,800 0 May-Dec 2006 8 mos
Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd Excelsior & Grand 1,795 0 2006 - 2008 1.5
Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Cedar Point Business
Complex West End 1,280 0 2012 - 2013 1
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 13
Is there any comment from the Police Department on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores? The
Police Department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the number
of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or
negative. Lieutenant Chad Kraayenbrink stated the current number of liquor stores has had no
direct effect on public safety.
Why are there a number of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments outside of the C2 Zoning
District? The “Liquor Store” land use designation was created in 2013, and is allowed only in
the C-2 Zoning District. Prior to 2013, liquor stores were considered “Retail” and were allowed
in any zoning district where retail was allowed. As a result of the 2013 zoning change, liquor
stores that existed in zoning districts other than the C-2 District became legally non-conforming
(grandfathered).
Can we add additional licensing categories for liquor? The State of Minnesota regulates liquor
licensing by statute under Chapter 340A Liquor. We contacted the State of MN on adding
additional license categories. The State of MN will issue a license based on categories listed in
the statute. We were informed that if a city wants to break out a classification for licensing
purposes they can do so, and the State of MN would continue to recognize them only as
categories in the statues.
For example, if the City issued the licenses below, the State of MN would continue to recognize
them as off-sale intoxicating liquor, and the City could further define their license as follows:
• Off-Sale Intoxicating – Class A
City of St. Louis Park off-sale intoxicating liquor license.
• Accessory to Grocery – Class B
New category of off-sale intoxicating liquor with adjacent grocer same company, licenses
for liquor stores that are ancillary or accessory to a retail food use. The following six
establishments hold intoxicating liquor off-sale licenses and in concept would meet this
definition: Byerlys, Cub West End, Costco, Sam’s Club, Trader Joes and Target
Knollwood (license approved, not in operation).
• Limited Beer/Wine – Class C
New category of off-sale intoxicating liquor for St. Louis Park limited to beer and wine
(further definition needed in this category; for instance, not allowing spirited wine).
Why would we consider adding different levels of licensing for off-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses? This type of concept could be used if the Council would want to set limits on off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses. For example, Council could set a limit of Class A (free standing off-
sale intoxicating liquor licenses) and allow different levels or no limit on Class B or C.
What are the number of establishments and other requirements in other cities? Attached is a
listing of this information. Over the past year, the City of Burnsville has been researching this
topic. Currently they have limits on number of off-sale licenses. Staff contacted the City of
Burnsville, and per public input and Council discussion, their staff is drafting an amendment to
the city’s liquor ordinance that would remove the city’s current cap on the number of off-sale
liquor licenses it issues. The proposed amendment is tentatively scheduled for discussion at their
Economic Development Commission on May 13 and scheduled for adoption by their City
Council on June 2.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 14
Can we add language in our code to provide a minimum separation between intoxicating off-sale
liquor establishments? Yes. First we would need to know what type of separation is desired and
if this is allowed under law. Also, a definition would need to be created on distance limitations.
Can we add language in code to limit the size of an intoxicating liquor establishment? Yes. A
definition would need to be created on size limit. The chart on page three lists the approximate
square footage of the licensed establishments.
Next Steps
At the City Council Study Session on April 20, 2015, we want to allow time for discussion to
determine if we have a problem with our current regulations regarding off-sale intoxicating
liquor licenses. To do this, we will review data in the report and discuss the following:
• Is there any additional information needed?
• Does the C2 zoning that was put in place in 2013 along with other zoning requirements
provide adequate regulation?
• Are there any changes that Council would like to implement?
• If there is no additional information requested or further study needed, does the Council
want to remove the temporary limit on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores set by resolution
on January 20, 2015?
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 15
CITY Population
Total
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
per capita
Other limitations
Hopkins 17,591 8 1 per 2,200 Limit 8 off-sale and 7 on-sale per year. Not within 350 feet of school, daycare, church, an existing off-sale liquor store, pawn shop, license
currency exchange. New ordinance Nov 2014 limits SIZE of liquor stores to max of 5000 sq ft
Golden Valley 20,371 5 1 per 4,100 No off sale limitations
New Hope 20,339 5 1 per 4,100 Limit 7 off-sale per year
Crystal 22,151 10 1 per 2,200 Not within 300 feet of any school building or church building without 60 days prior notification given by the clerk to the governmental
entity or organization operating the school or church
Roseville 33,660 10 1 per 3,400 Limit 10 off sale per year. Council shall consider all factors relating to health safety & welfare of citizens, effect on market value of
neighboring properties, proximity to churches/schools, effect on traffic & parking. Premises at least 1,600 sq ft.
Cottage Grove 35,399 5 1 per 7,000 No off-sale intoxicating license shall be granted for premises located within one thousand feet (1,000') of another licensed off-sale
intoxicating premises as measured between the nearest building walls of the establishments.
St. Louis Park 45,250 16 1 per 2,828 Not within 300 feet of school or church. Off sale - total window sign coverage not >50%
Minnetonka 49,374 10 1 per 4,900 12 off-sale licenses, but council has discretion to approve for purposes of area and type of service.
Blaine 60,480 8 1 per 7,000 Off sale limited to 1 per 7,000 population. 1 mile apart from door to door. 500 ft from schools and churches. Restaurants not required to
report sales.
Burnsville 60,306 12 1 per 5,000
Maximum 12 off sale 1 per 5,000 population. 3/4 miles apart. No off-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued for a premises that is
within 0.75 mile of another off-sale intoxicating liquor facility and not located in a freestanding building; except facilities located within the
"Burnsville Center retail area", the area encompassing all Burnsville Center shopping centers and strip shopping centers as identified in
2030 comp plan, in general bounded by the nearest principal arterial, A minor arterial or B minor arterial streets. This area is bounded by
McAndrews Rd on the north, Portland Ave on the east, Southcross Drive on the south, County Road 5 on the west plus lots 1-3 block 1 of
Westburn first addition.
Coon Rapids 62,103 15 1 per 4,100 No intoxicating off-sale liquor establishments shall be located within one mile radius of any other licensed Class A off-sale intoxicating
liquor establishment. Council may issue no more than eight Class A Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses annually.
Woodbury 65,656 12 1 per 5,500 No off sale limitations.
Maple Grove 66,842 12 1 per 5,600 No off sale limitations.
Eagan 64,456 15 1 per 4,300 300 ft from schools and churches
Plymouth 70,576 13 1 per 5,400 No off sale limitations. 500 ft from schools
Brooklyn Park 72,724 14 1 per 4,800 Feb 2013 - 6 mos. moratorium on new off sales. Nov 2013 Resolution AREA limitation - no new off sale licenses south of Hwy 610. (no
off-sale limits for North of Hwy 610 new developed area). 300 ft from schools and churches
Bloomington 82,893 23 1 per 3,600 No off-sale limitations. 300 Ft from schools and churches.
2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 16
CITY Population
Total
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
per capita
Other limitations
Columbia Heights 19,674 3 1 per 6,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Fridley 27,667 2 1 per 13,800
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Brooklyn Center 30,104 2 1 per 15,000
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Richfield 36,175 4 1 per 9,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Edina 47,425 3 1 per 15,800
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Eden Prairie 60,797 3 1 per 20,300 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Apple Valley 70,924 3 1 per 23,600
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey - CITIES with Municipal Liquor Stores
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 17
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lak
e
R
d
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
116
15
14
13
12 11
10
On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
Off Sale Intox (16)
On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
Off Sale 3.2 (3)
Places of Worship
Private/Public Schools
Fire Arm Sales
Pawn Shop
C2 Zoning District
March 2015
# Establishment # Establishment1 Byerly's-St. Louis Park 9 MGM Wine & Spirits2 Costco Wholesale #377 10 Sam's Club #63183 Cub Liquor 11 St. Louis Park Liquor4 Four Firkins 12 Texas-Tonka Liquor5 Jennings' Liquor Store 13 Trader Joe's #7106 Knollwood Liquor 14 Vintage Wine & Spiritz7 Liquor Barrel 15 Westwood Liquors8 Liquor Boy 16 Target
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 18
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 13, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to
provide the City Council with requested information regarding the establishment of size
limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council want to create size limitations on off-sale
intoxicating liquor establishments? What other information would the Council like to review
regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing?
SUMMARY:
• On January 12, 2015, the City Council had a discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses and locations. It was the consensus of the majority of the Council to direct staff
to prepare a resolution imposing a limit on off-sale liquor licenses to allow time to study
this topic.
• On January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution limiting the number of off-
sale intoxicating liquor licenses that applied to all pending and future applications with an
expiration date of December 31, 2015.
• On April 20, 2015 the City Council discussed this topic and reviewed zoning, business
locations, regulations, public safety, licenses per capita, and data regarding existing
establishments. At this meeting, Council directed staff to review information on limiting
store square footage and research legal issues related to such a regulation.
City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in
St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the number of licenses or
employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council may, by resolution,
restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts
within the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Map of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 19
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the April 20, 2015 Study Session, the Council continued discussion on
off-sale intoxicating liquor license, reviewed zoning, business locations, regulations, public
safety, licenses per capita, and data on existing establishments. At this meeting the Council
directed staff to review information on limiting establishment square footage and research legal
issues related to such a regulation.
Can a city create limitations on square footage (size) of off-sale intoxicating liquor
establishments?
Staff consulted City Attorney Soren Mattick on this question. The research focused on a city’s
ability to regulate square footage requirements utilizing the controls provided to the City through
zoning and liquor licensing. The City Attorney stated size limitations can be established with
development of certain criteria:
• The Council would need to establish a sound rationale for the regulation for the maximum
square footage that is being established. Ideally the Council would describe how the
regulation benefits the health, safety and welfare of the community.
• If a size limitation is established, criteria will need to be established regarding how
potentially existing licensed businesses larger than the new limit would be allowed to
continue operation.
o Decide if existing licensed businesses that are over the new size limit can continue
operation at that size, but not expand.
o Decide if a new owner will be able to operate at an existing licensed business location?
o Decide if an existing licensed business with a store that exceeds the new size limit will be
able to relocate and maintain the same size store?
• If a size limitation is established, the ordinance would need to set rules for how requests for
expansions from existing licensed businesses will be handled.
o The code could allow an existing business that is below the size limit to expand up to the
size limit.
o The code could prohibit expansions of existing licensed businesses that are at or above
the size limit.
• Any size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores are more appropriate to the liquor
licensing code, rather than the zoning code.
Are there examples of size limitations in other cities?
Staff has found a couple examples through its research and inquiries. With more time and effort,
staff would likely be able to identify other communities that also limit the size of these
establishments. One local example is in Hopkins, which very recently established an ordinance
limiting the size of off-sale liquor stores to 5,000 square feet.
Victoria, British Columbia has city policies limiting the size of liquor stores to 2,200 square feet,
but has recent examples where they have considered or allowed stores that are 7,200 to 13,800
square feet in size contrary to the policy.
What should be the criteria for the size limitation?
In the case of liquor compliance issues in St. Louis Park, there is not a pattern of additional
violations in larger liquor stores than smaller stores. Which size threshold, if any, would be most
appropriate has not been identified by staff. Council may want to review the existing liquor store
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 20
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor
Licensed Establishments Address Development, Mall
or Shopping area
Premises
CURRENT
approx Sq Ft
Liquor
Violations past
5 years
Year Business
Began
Total Years
in business
1 St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka Park Mall 1,200 2 (2013, 2014)2001 14
2 Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7
near Knollwood Mall 1,850 0 2015 less than 1
3 Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 2 (2011, 2013)1946 69
4 Trader Joe’s #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 0 2006 10
5 Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Knollwood Village 2,800 0 2006 10
6 Supervalu CUB liquor store 5370 16th Street W West End 3,400 0 2009 6
7 Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St West End 3,884 0 2001 14
8 Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S 4,100 0 1963 52
9 Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 1 (2011)2005 9
10 Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 1 (2011)1962 53
11 Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 1 (2013)1967 48
12 Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 0 1979 36
13 MGM 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8,891 0 Nov 2014 less than 1
14 Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West 9,000 1 (2013)2012 3
15 Sams Club 3745 Louisiana 10,560 0 1986 29
Liquor Stores CLOSED
Napa Jacks 4200 Mtka Blvd wine store 3,800 0 May-Dec 2006 8 mos
Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd Excelsior & Grand 1,795 0 2006 - 2008 1.5
Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Cedar Point Business
Complex West End 1,280 0 2012 - 2013 1
Four Firkins-Lagers Ales Wine 5630 West 36th Street
Harmony Vista
Shopping Center 1,800 1 (2012)2008-2015 7
sizes and also consider how many businesses would be at or above any proposed size threshold.
To that end, staff provided a table sorted by size from smallest to largest (see below).
Potential size limitation options:
1. 10,560 square foot limitation (current size of largest establishment).
2. 5,000 square foot limitation (average square footage of current establishments 4,582).
3. Other
If a size limitation is established, can a waiver be granted?
Staff does not recommend including waivers to allow exceptions to the rule if the liquor
ordinance is changed and includes size limitations. Instead, Council would need to take formal
action to amend the ordinance to allow larger stores. Having a waiver would defeat the purpose
of the ordinance.
What is the current square footage of our off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 21
What is the history of the number of Off-Sale Liquor Licenses?
There are three different types of off-sale liquor license categories in St. Louis Park. Only an
exclusive liquor store can be issued an off-sale “intoxicating” liquor license. Other off-sale
licenses include 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery store or brewery. Below is the history of the
number of off-sale licenses issued since 2000:
YEAR
Off-Sale
Intox
(liquor stores)
Off-Sale
3.2 Malt Liquor
(grocery stores)
Off-Sale
Brewery
(growlers)
TOTAL
Off-Sale
Licenses
2014 16 3 2 21
2013 15 3 2 20
2012 14 3 2 19
2011 14 4 2 20
2010 13 3 1 17
2009 12 3 1 15
2008 11 3 1 14
2007 13 3 16
2006 10 2 12
2005 10 2 12
2004 9 3 12
2003 9 4 13
2002 9 4 13
2001 9 4 13
2000 7 4 11
Is there any comment from the Police Department on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
The Police Department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the
number of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive
or negative. Police Management reviewed this question along with store size and stated the
current number of liquor stores has had no direct effect on public safety.
Why are there off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments outside of the C2 Zoning District?
The “Liquor Store” land use designation was created in 2013, and is currently allowed only in
the C-2 Zoning District by the zoning code. Prior to 2013, liquor stores were considered “Retail”
and were allowed in any zoning district where retail was allowed. As a result of the 2013 zoning
change, liquor stores that existed in zoning districts other than the C-2 District became legally
non-conforming (grandfathered).
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 22
Are there limits set by the State of Minnesota on the number of liquor licensed establishments?
No. Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of
off-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the
power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council
may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute
340A.413 subd.5 limits off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over
100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other
cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city.
What are the current regulations relating to intoxicating liquor locations for the City?
• City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be
issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of
the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship.
(Adopted June 2007)
• Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states liquor stores are allowed in the C-2 General
Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: The
liquor store must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop,
currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business.
(Adopted November 2013) Comment: Currency exchange and payday loan businesses are
licensed by MN State Department of Commerce. The City of St. Louis Park does not have
any licensed classifications of currency exchange or payday loan through the State
Department of Commerce at this time.
• In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from
the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. (Adopted November 2013)
NEXT STEPS:
• July 13 continued discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses.
• If there is no additional information requested or further study needed, does the Council want
to take action on this item or remove the temporary limit on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores
set by resolution on January 20, 2015.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
Page 23
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lake
R
d
On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
Off Sale 3.2 (3)
Off Sale Intox (16)
Places of Worship
Private/Public Schools
Sexually Oriented Business
Fire Arm Sales
Pawn Shop
Pay Day Loan
C2 Zoning District
March 2015
Existing Regulations:Liquor store license regulation: No initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be issued within 300 feet of a school or place ofworship as measured from the property line of the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place ofworship. (Place of Worship means church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or other facility used for religious services.)
Zoning regulation for Liquor stores. The lot must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop,currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business. In the case of a shopping center ofmulti-use building, the distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store.
Zoning districts. Liquor stores are allowed in the C2 General Commercial District only.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 24
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: September 28, 2015
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to
provide the City Council with requested information regarding the establishment of size
limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council want to create size limitations on off-sale
intoxicating liquor establishments? What other information would the Council like to review
regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing?
SUMMARY:
• On January 12, 2015, the City Council discussed off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and
locations. It was the consensus of the majority of the Council to direct staff to prepare a
resolution imposing a limit on off-sale liquor licenses to allow time to study this topic.
• On January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution limiting the number of off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses that applied to all pending and future applications with an
expiration date of December 31, 2015.
• On April 20, 2015 the City Council discussed this topic and reviewed zoning, business
locations, regulations, public safety, licenses per capita, and data regarding existing
establishments. At this meeting, Council directed staff to review information on limiting
store square footage and research legal issues related to such a regulation.
• On July 13, 2015 the City Council discussed size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor
operations, and directed staff to return with options.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Map of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 25
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the July 14, 2015 Study Session the Council continued the discussion
regarding limiting square footage of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments and legal issues
related to such a regulation. At this meeting, Council directed staff to prepare options on size
limitations.
How does a city create limitations on square footage (size) of off-sale intoxicating liquor
establishments?
Staff consulted City Attorney Soren Mattick on this question. The research focused on a city’s
ability to regulate square footage requirements utilizing the controls provided to the city through
zoning and liquor licensing. The City Attorney stated size limitations can be established with
development of certain criteria:
• The Council would need to establish a sound rationale for the regulation for the maximum
square footage that is being established. Ideally the Council would describe how the
regulation benefits the health, safety and welfare of the community.
• Any size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores are more appropriate to the liquor
licensing code, rather than the zoning code.
What are some options for size limitation?
Potential size limitation options:
1. 10,560 square foot limit (current size of largest establishment)
2. 5,000 square foot limit (rounded up), average square footage of establishments is 4,768
3. No change
What needs to be done to set size limitations; what are examples?
In order to set a square foot limitation, size limit needs to be determined and criteria need to be
developed. Below are some examples of criteria that could be used for size limitation:
• First, the Council should determine if it wants criteria regulating establishment size. If yes,
the Council could then set the limitation as follows: at the average square footage of current
establishments or at the maximum square footage of the current business (if over the new
limitation) or other limit.
• Set up information on limitation of square footage for off-sale liquor business as part of the
criteria set out in our liquor license.
• Provide rationale for the regulation such as:
o Limiting this would support small businesses for off sale intoxicating liquor.
o Smaller retailers typically are local. Smaller businesses typically are more unique,
not generic, and add to the character of the business community.
o Other as determined by Council.
• Finally, if a size limit is put in place, no existing business could exceed the limit when
building or remodeling (additional square footage could not be added if grandfathered in at
existing square footage maximum).
Are there examples of size limitations in other cities?
Staff has found a couple examples through its research and inquiries. One local example is in
Hopkins, which very recently established an ordinance limiting the size of off-sale liquor stores
to 5,000 square feet. Victoria, BC, Canada has city policies limiting the size of liquor stores to
2,200 square feet, but has recent examples where they have considered or allowed stores that are
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 26
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor
Licensed Establishments Address Development, Mall
or Shopping area
Premises
CURRENT
approx Sq Ft
Liquor
Violations past
5 years
Year Business
Began
Total Years
in business
1 St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka Park Mall 1,200 2 (2013, 2014)2001 14
2 Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7
near Knollwood Mall 1,850 0 2015 less than 1
3 Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 2 (2011, 2013)1946 69
4 Trader Joe’s #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 0 2006 10
5 Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Knollwood Village 2,800 0 2006 10
6 Supervalu CUB liquor store 5370 16th Street W West End 3,400 0 2009 6
7 Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St West End 3,884 0 2001 14
8 Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S 4,100 0 1963 52
9 Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 1 (2011)2005 9
10 Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 1 (2011)1962 53
11 Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 1 (2013)1967 48
12 Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 0 1979 36
13 MGM 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8,891 0 Nov 2014 less than 1
14 Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West 9,000 1 (2013)2012 3
15 Sams Club 3745 Louisiana 10,560 0 1986 29
Liquor Stores CLOSED
Napa Jacks 4200 Mtka Blvd wine store 3,800 0 May-Dec 2006 8 mos
Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd Excelsior & Grand 1,795 0 2006 - 2008 1.5
Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Cedar Point Business
Complex West End 1,280 0 2012 - 2013 1
Four Firkins-Lagers Ales Wine 5630 West 36th Street
Harmony Vista
Shopping Center 1,800 1 (2012)2008-2015 7
7,200 to 13,800 square feet in size contrary to the policy. Additional research can be conducted
on this if Council desires more to be done.
If a size limitation is established, can a waiver be granted?
No waivers could be granted. Council would need to take formal action to amend the ordinance
to change this size limitation if put in place.
What is the current square footage of our off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 27
Are there any comments from the Police Department on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
The Police Department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the
number and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or
negative. Police Management reviewed this question along with store size and stated the current
number of liquor stores has had no direct effect on public safety.
Are there limits set by the State of Minnesota on the number of liquor licensed establishments?
No. Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of
off-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the
power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council
may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute
340A.413 subd.5 limits off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over
100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other
cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city.
What are the current regulations relating to intoxicating liquor locations for the City?
• City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be
issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of
the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship.
(Adopted June 2007)
• Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states liquor stores are allowed in the C-2 General
Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: The
liquor store must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop,
currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business.
(Adopted November 2013) Comment: Currency exchange and payday loan businesses are
licensed by MN State Department of Commerce. The City of St. Louis Park does not have
any licensed classifications of currency exchange or payday loan through the State
Department of Commerce at this time.
• In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from
the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. (Adopted November 2013)
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
Page 28
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lak
e
R
d
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
115
14
13
12
11 10
On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
Off Sale Intox (15)
On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
Off Sale 3.2 (3)
Places of Worship
Private/Public Schools
Fire Arm Sales
Pawn Shop
C2 Zoning District
September 2015
# Establishment # Establishment
1 Lunds & Byerly's - St. Louis Park 9 Sam's Club #6318
2 Costco Wholesale #377 10 St. Louis Park Liquor
3 Cub Liquor 11 Texas-Tonka Liquor
4 Jennings' Liquor Store 12 Trader Joe's #710
5 Knollwood Liquor 13 Vintage Wine & Spiritz
6 Liquor Barrel 14 Westwood Liquors
7 Liquor Boy 15 Target
8 MGM Wine & Spirits
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 29
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 25, 2016
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction from the Council as to whether the
proposed/amended legislative agenda is in keeping with the Council’s expectations.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the draft legislative agenda further the interests of the City?
SUMMARY: On January 11 the City Council reviewed a draft of a legislative agenda to be
discussed with our elected and appointed officials on February 8. The Council provided direction
to staff on changes to be made to the document. These changes have been incorporated and are
highlighted in the attached document. These changes include:
Added policy position on overall transportation funding
Added policy position on transit financing
Added policy position on financing for affordable senior housing
Added policy position on Metropolitan Council governance
Added policy position on community solar gardens
Minor edits to various polices from the earlier draft
At the study session the Council also asked for staff to suggest a possible prioritization of the
various legislative items. Attached are some ideas for the Council to consider.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda
Prioritization of Legislative Agenda Items
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
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 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 2
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
the new bridge is in need of rehabilitation/reconstruction to ensure that it accommodates the best
facility for bicycles, pedestrians and motorists.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 3
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/Landscaping: The sidewalks require updating to meet ADA requirements for
pedestrian ramps, width, and clearance from obstructions. To increase safety and provide
a more pedestrian-friendly environment the city would like the County to move the
sidewalks away from the street and plant trees in the boulevard.
Pedestrian crosswalks: A number of pedestrian crossings should be considered for
enhancements. The addition of pedestrian refuge median or bump outs should be
considered to make the crossings safer on this four-lane road
Bike lanes: The city 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/space for
bicycles, pedestrians, and motorists and aesthetic improvements.
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.
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.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 4
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.
Transportation Funding
Issue: A comprehensive transportation system is a vital component in planning for and meeting
the physical, social and economic needs of our state and metropolitan region. Adequate and
stable sources of funding are necessary to ensure the development and maintenance of a high
quality, efficient and safe transportations system that meets these needs and that will position the
state and region to be economically competitive in the years ahead.
Analysis: Under current transportation financing structures, transportation needs in the
metropolitan region continue to be inadequate and underfunded. Our transportation funding
system relies primarily on local property taxes and fees and the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST)
for transit. Automobiles are becoming more fuel efficient and MVST receipts continue to lag
behind projections, resulting in funding levels that continually fail to meet demand.
Transportation funding and planning must be a high priority for state, regional and local
policymakers so that the transportation system can sufficiently meet the needs of the state’s
residents and businesses and its projected population growth. Funding and planning for our
regional and statewide systems must be coordinated at the federal, state, regional and local levels
to optimally achieve long term needs and goals. In addition, cities lack adequate tools and state
resources for the maintenance and improvement of municipal systems, with resources restricted
to property taxes and special assessments. Cost participation requirements have overburdened
city budgets. It is imperative that alternative revenue generating authority be granted to
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 5
municipalities and state resources be made available for this purpose to relieve the burden on the
property tax system.
Position: The city:
Supports stable and sufficient statewide transportation funding and local tools to meet the
long-term transportation system needs of the region and local municipal systems;
Supports funding to assist cities overburdened by cost participation responsibilities
imposed by improvement projects on the state’s principal arterial system and on the
county state aid highway (CSAH) system;
Supports state funding for state highway projects, including congestion and safety
improvements; and
Supports state financial assistance, as well as innovations in design and construction, to
offset the impacts of regional transportation construction projects on businesses.
Transit Financing
Issue: The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is expanding
to include rail transit and dedicated busways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this
system should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of
individual cities and counties should not be required to fund the operation of specific transit lines
or routes of service within this regional system.
Analysis: MVST revenue projections have not been reliable and the Legislature has repeatedly
reduced general fund support for Metropolitan Transit. As a result, the regional transit providers
continue to operate at a funding deficit. Shifting demographics in the metropolitan region will
mean increased demand for transit in areas with and without current transit service.
Position: The city supports stable and growing revenue sources to fund the operating budget for
all regional transit providers at a level sufficient to meet the growing operational and capital
transit needs of the region and to expand the system to areas that currently have little or no transit
options. The city also supports an increase in the regional sales tax to fund the expansion of
regular route service, the continuing capital expenses and expanded operational needs of the
metropolitan transit system, if the increase is accompanied by sufficient local controls over the
collection and expenditure of the new revenue and geographic balance is maintained in the
expansion of service to allow cities to appropriately plan for growth in population and service
needs along new and expanded transit service. The city opposes diversions of the uses of this tax
for any other purposes.
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 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 6
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.
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
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 7
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 Fund and requests
that that would Hennepin County and the State provide a financial resource to be used to support
the preservation and creation of affordable housing along the SWLRT corridor.
“Serving Our Seniors” Affordable Housing Financing
Issue: Minnesota’s population is aging at a rate that housing supply and services are unprepared
to meet. Affordable multi-unit housing is not appreciably cheaper to construct than market rate
housing and lower rents make it harder, if not impossible, for owners to recover their investment,
without public program financing.
Analysis: The gap in the housing market would be addressed by a legislative proposal
authorizing a bond appropriation for the purpose of financing or refinancing affordable rental
housing for low-income seniors. The “Serving Our Seniors” proposal calls for construction of
affordable senior housing through the creation of a state-funded gap-financing program via
Housing Infrastructure Bonds. The new program could be coupled with low-income tax credits,
tax exempt bonds or other local resources in order to bring resources together to meet this
housing need. Developments will serve seniors at or below 50% of the state or metropolitan
area’s adjusted median area income. The senior housing may be developed in conjunction with
and as a distinct portion of mixed-income housing developments. The objective in 2016 is to
have the bonding bill include the authorizing language and funding to launch four or more
projects. The bill, Senate File 2139, is authored by Senators Katie Seiben, Kent Eken, Dan
Sparks, Jophn Pederson and Julie Rosen. House File 2281 is authored by Representatives Joe
Shomacker, Jeanne Poppe, Chris Swedzinski, Joe Atkins, Leon Lillie and Tama Theis.
Position: The city supports the legislative proposal authorizing a bond appropriation for the
purpose of financing affordable rental housing for low-income seniors. Addressing the financial
gap in the housing market will result in the following positive outcomes:
Seniors will be able to live independently longer;
The need for seniors to access more cost-intensive programs will be delayed; and
Communities throughout the state will expand their stock of long-term affordable senior
housing units.
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.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 8
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.
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.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 9
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
Metropolitan Council Governance
Issue: Dakota, Carver, Scott and Anoka Counties propose to change the governance structure of
the Metropolitan Council so that it is comprised of county and city elected officials. Bills have
been introduced in the House and Senate to put this change into effect.
Analysis: The Metropolitan Council was created to manage the growth of the metropolitan
region, and cities are responsible for adhering to regional plans as they plan for local growth and
service delivery. The region’s cities are the Metropolitan Council’s primary constituency, with
regional and local growth being primarily managed through city comprehensive planning and
implementation, and the delivery of a wide range of public services. To function
successfully, the Metropolitan Council must be accountable to and work in collaboration
with city governments.
Position: The City opposes local elected officials being appointed to the Metropolitan Council
due to the incompatibility of local officials simultaneously holding two offices.
The city supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor with four
year, staggered terms for members. The appointment of the Metropolitan Council Chair should
coincide with the term of the Governor.
The city supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have demonstrated the
ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner and commit to meet with local government
officials regularly, and who understand the diversity and the commonalities of the region, and the
long-term implications of regional decision-making.
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.
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
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 10
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.
Supporting Community Solar Gardens
Issue: Previous legislation established the framework for community solar gardens (CSG) to be
developed in Minnesota, providing an opportunity to increase the amount of renewable energy
production and a method for residents and organizations to participate as subscribers.
Timing is critical to help CSG’s be cost effective through utilizing federal tax incentives ending
2016. Many solar developers have made entered into agreements with subscribers and submitted
applications to Xcel Energy for installing a significant number of CSG’s. Delays in processing
the applications have unfortunately resulted in only a few projects being approved.
City Position: The city supports the continued development of solar as a method to reduce
dependence on fossil fuels for energy production and encourages Xcel Energy be responsive in
approving CSG applications.
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
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 11
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, including maintaining infrastructure that
serves the commercial, office and industrial uses that in effect pay into the fiscal disparities pool.
The city supports changes to this program that are prospective in nature and that recognize
aggressive redevelopment efforts that cities 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.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 12
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?”
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.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 13
Prioritization of Legislative Agenda Items
There are twenty four issues identified in the draft 2016 Legislative Issues and Priorities
document broken out into five areas. What follows are the top two priorities suggested for each
of the five areas for the Council to discuss, amend, refine etc.
Transportation Issues and Priorities
Southwest LRT
Transit Financing
Community Development Issues and Priorities
“Serving our Seniors” Affordable Housing Financing
Establish a TOD Affordable Housing Fund
Public Safety Issues and Priorities
Railway Safety of Hazardous Materials and Oil Train Operations (** Federal legislative issue as
well)
Body and Squad Car Dash Cameras
General Issues and Priorities
Metropolitan Council Governance
Minnesota Community Forestry Partnership Act (EAB funding)
(**Federal legislative issue – Aircraft Noise)
Financial Issues and Priorities
Levy Limits
Unfunded Mandate – Continued health insurance coverage for peace officer/fire fighter injured
or disabled in the line of duty
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Updated Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda Page 14
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 25, 2016
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: December 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.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Preliminary year end numbers show
General Fund revenue at approximately 104% of budget and expenditures at 95.1%. 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 25, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: December 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: Preliminary year end numbers show General Fund revenues
for 2015 at approximately 104% of budget and expenditures at 95.1%. This report does not
represent the final numbers for the year ending December 31, 2015. Invoices for 2015 expenses
will continue to be paid through the end of January. In addition, revenues will be adjusted,
including recording of the final property tax settlement to be received in late January, recording
of receivables and deferred revenue, the allocation of interest income to all funds, and other year-
end entries will be completed over the next few months. The final audited financial statements
for 2015 will be presented at a separate Council meeting in the spring of 2016.
As approved at the December 21, 2015 Council meeting, an equity transfer in the amount of $2
million will be made from the General Fund to three other funds in order to maintain a fund
balance of 43% to 47% of the 2016 budgeted expenditures. These transfers will include
$250,000 to the Capital Replacement Fund, $750,000 to the Pavement Management Fund, and
$1 million to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund.
A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below.
Revenues:
License and permit revenues have exceeded budget by over 33% or about $1,082,000 in
2015. New construction projects that contributed to the higher permit revenues include
the Shoreham, Central Park West, and the Wooddale Flats, as well as the large Methodist
Hospital project.
Fines & forfeits revenue includes police fines, liquor violations, and administrative
citations. It is at approximately 76% of budget, with one additional month 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 13%, or $172,000,
because the Police & Fire Aid and Highway User Tax revenues received in 2015 were
higher than expected.
Charge for Services revenues are exceeding budget by approximately 11% or $215,000
because certain public safety, recreation, and zoning revenues are higher than what was
budgeted.
Expenditures:
Administration is exceeding budget by about 2.5% due to overages in a couple areas,
including legal and additional contractual services work related to the organizational
culture initiative.
Human Resources has an over budget variance of about 6% that is due in part to Health
in the Park expenditures. Because this program is offset by revenue, there is no net effect
to the overall budget. There are also a few areas that exceeded budget including
employment testing, assessments, and consulting services.
Engineering is well under budget at 77% due to several personnel changes in 2015.
Public Works Operations is under budget at 83% because of weather-related expenditures
that are lower due to the mild winter.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: December 2015 Monthly Financial Report
Organized Recreation is over budget by approximately 4% because of an overage in
temporary salary expense due to the minimum wage increase. The temporary employee
budget has been adjusted appropriately for 2016.
Natural Resources (formerly known as Environment) is under budget at 77% because of
lower tree maintenance expenses.
Vehicle Maintenance is under budget at 87% because of lower fuel and repair costs.
NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time.
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of December 31, 2015 (Preliminary)20152015201320132014201420152015 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited Budget Dec YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ 22,559,416$ (194,907)$ 100.87% Licenses and Permits2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,413,682 3,248,158 4,330,563 (1,082,405) 133.32% Fines & Forfeits335,150 311,882 320,150 369,545 320,200 242,450 77,750 75.72% Intergovernmental1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 1,464,545 (172,268) 113.33% Charges for Services1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 2,122,936 (215,644) 111.31% Miscellaneous Revenue1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 1,351,778 (155,760) 113.02% Transfers In1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 1,836,759 15,000 99.19% 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 16,982 918 94.87% 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$ 33,925,429$ (1,300,991)$ 103.99%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 1,004,551$ (25,368)$ 102.59% Accounting827,320 819,458 876,216 873,987 912,685 899,461 13,224 98.55% Assessing543,855 543,202 559,749 560,979 602,299 601,620 679 99.89% Human Resources678,988 731,634 693,598 788,823 805,929 853,303 (47,374) 105.88% Community Development1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 1,253,435 (7,822) 100.63% Facilities Maintenance1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 1,041,987 52,849 95.17% Information Resources1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 1,360,111 108,441 92.62% Communications & Marketing201,322 170,013 566,801 562,063 635,150 571,472 63,678 89.97% Community Outreach8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,680 24,677 22,413 2,264 90.83% Engineering303,258 296,383 506,996 223,491 492,838 378,030 114,808 76.70%Total General Government7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 7,986,383$ 275,379$ 96.67% Public Safety: Police7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 8,189,462$ 322,095$ 96.22% Fire Protection3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 3,742,872 (20,476) 100.55% Inspectional Services1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 2,003,409 135,916 93.65%Total Public Safety12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 13,935,743$ 437,535$ 96.96% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 213,893$ 18,544$ 92.02% Public Works Operations2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 2,297,122 466,613 83.12% Organized Recreation1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 1,357,851 (53,381) 104.09% Recreation Center1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 1,547,186 43,929 97.24% Park Maintenance1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 1,489,863 60,170 96.12% Westwood520,554 503,309 531,853 508,576 564,055 552,723 11,332 97.99% Natural Resources/Environment430,876 434,297 433,750 379,193 472,049 363,779 108,270 77.06% Vehicle Maintenance1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 1,163,676 169,844 87.26%Total Operations & Recreation9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 8,986,093$ 825,321$ 91.59% Non-Departmental: General -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 118,570$ (118,570)$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 60,000 - 1,050,000 - - 0.00% Contingency/Tax Court Petitions180,000 53,345 195,860 13,834 177,984 2,938 175,046 1.65%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 1,071,396$ 177,984$ 121,509$ 56,475$ 68.27%Total General Fund Expenditures29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 31,029,728$ 1,594,710$ 95.11%Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 5) Title: December 2015 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 25, 2016
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2015)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Quarterly Investment Report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The total portfolio value at December 31,
2015 is approximately $63.8 million. About 46% of the portfolio is in longer term investments
that include agency bonds, municipal debt securities, and certificates of deposit. The remainder
is held in money market accounts for future cash flow needs, project costs, and investing
opportunities. The overall yield is at .79%, which is up from .62% at the end of 2014 and .76%
at the end of the previous quarter.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
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 25, 2016 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2015)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and
investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A
and the City’s Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3)
Return on investment.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The total portfolio value increased by approximately $9
million in the fourth quarter of 2015 from $54.8 million at 9/30/2015 to $63.8 million at
12/31/2015 due to the receipt of the second half property tax and tax increment settlements on
December 1, 2015. Money market balances increased by about $5 million and longer term
securities increased by approximately $4 million.
The overall yield of the portfolio increased slightly to .79% from .76% at 9/30/2015, and is up
from .62% at the end of 2014. Cities generally use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury
or some similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio, which rose to 1.06% at
12/31/2015 from .64% at 9/30/2015, and marks the first time since 2010 that the two year
Treasury has been over 1%. The balances in the lower yielding money market accounts bring
the overall portfolio yield down. When excluding the money market accounts, the portfolio yield
is 1.51%.
Approximately 54% or $34.4 million of the portfolio is currently held in money markets. The
remaining proceeds from the 2014 bonds issued last December make up approximately $4.7
million of the money market balance and is expected to be spent within the next 12 months. The
rates on the four different money market funds range from .03% in the 4M Fund, which is used
for cash expected to be needed within 30 days, to .4% in the Northeast Bank money market.
Two of the money market fund rates increased slightly in December after the Federal Reserve
raised interest rates. While some of the cash in the money market accounts may be used to
purchase longer term investments in the coming months, it is necessary to keep a large amount of
cash available between property tax settlements for capital project payments, payroll and on-
going operating expenses, as well as the February 1, 2016 debt service and Pay As You Go TIF
note payments. A 70% advance on the first half property tax settlement won’t be received until
the last week of June 2016.
Another 10.5% or $6.6 million of the portfolio is invested in fixed and step rate certificates of
deposit. There are currently 28 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $240,000 or less,
which guarantees that each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. They have varying
maturity dates over the next five years with rates up to 2.3%. One three year CD with a rate of
1.05% matured during the quarter and was replaced with a five year CD with a rate of 2%.
The remaining $22.8 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term securities, including
municipal debt ($12.9 mil) and agency bonds ($9.9 mil). Municipal debt instruments are bonds
issued by States, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects. Agency
bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank or Fannie Mae
and typically have call dates at specific intervals where they can be called prior to their maturity
date. Three of the agency bonds were called during the quarter and one municipal debt security
reached maturity. Five new municipal debt securities and one agency bond were purchased.
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2015)
Staff plans to begin working with PFM Asset Management LLC in early 2016 to help manage
the portfolio and advise in shorter term investment opportunities for the cash currently in the
money market funds.
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at December 31, 2015:
NEXT STEPS: None at this time.
9/30/15 12/31/15
<1 Year 60% 57%
1-2 Years 10% 11%
2-3 Years 12% 9%
3-4 Years 4% 9%
>4 Years 14% 14%
9/30/15 12/31/15
Money Markets $29,379,392 $34,369,208
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $6,646,346 $6,635,820
Municipal Debt $6,900,048 $12,908,876
Agency Bonds $11,880,294 $9,842,201
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
December 31, 2015
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
12/31/2015
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.09%3,049,972 3,049,972 2,745
4M Fund Money Market 0.03%4,961,044 4,961,044 1,488
4M Fund Money Market (Bonds Only)0.03%471,112 471,112 141
Northeast Bank Money Market 0.40%5,033,465 5,033,465 20,134
UBS CD - Barclays Bank DE 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60% 240,000 240,029 3,840
UBS CD - Medallion Bank UT 58403BM52 05/09/2016 0.50% 240,000 240,034 1,200
UBS CD - Discover Bank DE 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75% 240,000 241,714 4,200
UBS CD - GE Cap Retail Bank UT 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75% 240,000 242,028 4,200
UBS Muni Debt - N. Orange Cty CA 661334DR0 08/01/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 999,370 10,110
UBS CD - Sallie Mae Bnk UT 79545OPE9 08/29/2017 1.70% 240,000 242,038 4,080
UBS CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00% 240,000 241,850 2,400
UBS CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00% 240,000 241,291 2,400
UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25% 200,000 200,250 2,500
UBS CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10% 240,000 240,007 2,640
UBS CD - Ally Bank UT 02006LNL3 02/05/2018 1.25% 240,000 238,582 3,000
UBS CD - Third Fed S&L Assn OH 88413QAT5 02/22/2018 1.35% 240,000 238,956 3,240
UBS FHLB 313381JW6 06/27/2018 0.92% 1,000,000 1,108,076 9,200
UBS Muni Debt - NYC Trans Fin Auth 64971QH55 11/01/2018 1.33% 1,000,000 988,490 13,280
UBS FHLMC 3134G8CS6 12/28/2018 1.89% 1,000,000 998,270 18,870
UBS Muni Debt - Williamston Mich Sch 970294CN2 05/01/2019 1.37% 2,000,000 2,026,980 27,360
UBS CD - Cit Bank UT 17284CH49 06/04/2019 1.90% 240,000 239,782 4,560
UBS CD - Amer Exp F UT 02587CAC4 07/10/2019 1.95% 240,000 239,458 4,680
UBS CD - Capital One Bank 14042E4S6 07/15/2019 1.95% 240,000 238,531 4,680
UBS Muni Debt - New York City 64971WUX6 08/01/2019 1.29% 2,000,000 1,987,100 25,780
UBS CD - First Bk Highland IL 3191408W2 08/13/2019 2.00% 240,000 239,239 4,800
UBS CD - Webster Bk NA CT 94768NJX3 08/20/2019 1.90% 240,000 239,158 4,560
UBS CD - Bk Hapoalim BM NY Step 06251AD31 08/22/2019 2.10% 240,000 239,338 5,040
UBS CD - Capital One Bank 140420PS3 10/08/2019 2.10% 240,000 239,645 5,040
UBS CD - State Bk India IL 856283XJ0 10/15/2019 2.10% 240,000 239,678 5,040
UBS CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38148JHB0 01/14/2020 2.20% 240,000 239,928 5,280
UBS Muni Debt - Industry Calif Pub 45656TAT5 01/01/2020 2.23% 1,000,000 1,023,030 22,300
UBS CD - Amer Express UT 02587DXE3 01/30/2020 1.95% 240,000 237,713 4,680
UBS CD - Camden Nat'l Bank ME 133033DR8 02/26/2020 1.80% 240,000 238,181 4,320
UBS FHLB Bond Step Up 3130A3ZC1 02/26/2020 2.16% 755,000 755,785 16,331
UBS CD - Private Bank & Tr IL 74267GVA2 02/27/2020 1.75% 240,000 238,649 4,200
UBS CD - JP Morgan Chase OH Step 48125T2N4 03/04/2020 2.22% 240,000 239,359 5,321
UBS FHLB Bond Step Up 3130A4GQ9 03/18/2020 2.12% 1,000,000 1,000,920 21,150
UBS CD - HSBC Bank DE Step Rate 40434ASZ3 03/30/2020 2.22% 240,000 238,073 5,330
UBS FHLMC Step 3134G6TD5 04/29/2020 2.09% 1,000,000 988,140 20,880
UBS FHLB 3130A58J7 05/28/2020 2.02% 1,000,000 1,001,050 20,200
UBS CD - World's Foremost 9159919E5 08/06/2020 2.30% 200,000 198,500 4,600
UBS CD - Comenity Cap Bk UT 20033AND4 10/13/2020 2.00% 245,000 243,812 4,900
UBS Muni Debt - Connecticut St 20772JKN1 10/15/2020 1.75% 1,000,000 994,480 17,520
UBS Muni Debt - Sacramento CA 786060BB8 12/01/2020 2.37% 1,000,000 1,018,340 23,720
UBS Money Market - 2014 Bonds 0.16% 4,673,202 4,673,202 7,477
UBS Money Market 0.16% 16,180,413 16,180,413 25,889
42,139,466
Sterne, Agee Muni Deb - Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,000 275,220 6,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAS4 02/01/2016 0.85% 1,050,000 1,051,281 8,925
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAT2 02/01/2017 1.15% 1,000,000 1,005,660 11,500
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HJS0 04/01/2017 1.20% 500,000 530,505 6,000
2,862,666
Wells Fargo CD - GE Capital UT 36160XC62 01/06/2016 1.70% 240,000 240,000 4,080
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - Fond Du Lac WI Schl 344496JQ8 04/01/2017 1.05% 1,000,000 1,008,420 10,500
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0NH2 08/23/2017 0.95% 1,000,000 993,610 9,500
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G04A6 11/21/2017 1.00% 1,000,000 1,000,750 10,000
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0TM5 01/30/2018 1.02% 1,000,000 1,000,350 10,200
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G1AZ2 01/30/2018 1.00% 1,000,000 995,250 10,000
5,238,380
GRAND TOTAL 63,756,105 502,611
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 0.79%
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2015) Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 25, 2016
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: SWLRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. The purpose of this report is to
provide information on the SWLRT Joint Development project being pursued at the Beltline LRT
Station and provide miscellaneous updates.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY:
Joint Development at Beltline Station
Staff has been working with the Southwest Project Office (SPO) on pursuing a Joint Development
project at the Beltline LRT Station. This program would allow the opportunity to have transit-
oriented development at the park & ride site by building a parking ramp on a site that would
otherwise be a surface parking lot. The Metropolitan Council would purchase the property and a
developer would be selected to build a development on the site by leasing the property on a long
term basis. Through this program, the developer would have the advantage of a more ready-to-
develop site with lower initial costs than typically found.
A new concept plan depicting a possible development scenario is attached. This concept will be
included in a submittal to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) this month, and will also be
included in a request for development proposals later this year.
To facilitate the Joint Development, the city applied for and received a Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality (CMAQ) grant to help build a parking lot on this site. The grant will need to be modified
to accommodate the change in scope for the park and ride facility. This is likely to occur in the
February – April timeframe.
Miscellaneous Updates
Please see attached updates on the Executive Change Control Board meeting of 1-15-16; project
schedule changes; station naming; current work items; and Joint Development background.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Joint Development program has a
complex financial arrangement with the FTA paying ½ of the development costs and the city being
responsible for ½. The City’s contribution would be in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(CMAQ) grant funds and Tax Increment Financing (TIF). An exact city financial contribution
would be determined when a development plan and agreement is structured with a developer.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
SWLRT Joint Development Site Concept
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: SWLRT Update
DISCUSSION
Miscellaneous Updates
Executive Change Control Board (ECCB)
The ECCB is made up of representatives of the Metropolitan Council Hennepin County Regional
Rail Authority (HCRRA) and the Counties Transit Improvement Board (Hennepin, Ramsey,
Anoka, Washington and Dakota Counties). City, Hennepin County and MnDOT representatives
are on the group as non-voting members. Council Member Mavity is St. Louis Park’s member.
The ECCB’s mandate for SWLRT is to:
Approve change orders, project requirements, contracts and contract cost increases >
$250,000
Approve scope deferrals and LRCIs > $75,000
Review at regular intervals all change orders < $250,000
On January 15, 2016 the ECCB met and took actions to:
Confirm the future transfer of land from Hennepin County to Metropolitan Council
Approve SWLRT Scope additions of :
o Blake Station trail underpass
o Louisiana Station pedestrian underpass
o Wooddale Station trail underpass
o Beltline trail bridge
Schedule Revisions
In the past week the following schedule changes were shared by the SPO:
Approval to Enter Engineering - September 2016 (previously July 2016)
Full Funding Grant Agreement - Mid 2017 (previously Dec 2016)
Station names
The issue of establishing station names came up last week at the Technical Project Advisory
Committee (TPAC) meeting. Some of the station names being used are the same for stations on
the Blue Line (Penn, Van White). The question for SLP is whether to keep the names: Louisiana,
Wooddale and Beltline or to add the “Avenue” or “Boulevard” to the station name. The Corridor
Management Committee (CMC) is being asked to make a recommendation at the Feb. 3rd meeting.
Currently the proposed names for the SLP stations are Beltline, Wooddale and Louisiana without
the additional “Avenue” or “Boulevard” attached.
Next SWLRT Steps:
City staff is currently working on several fronts, including determining if there are additional
enhancements in the station areas that the city could pursue in terms of landscaping, bike parking,
fencing, etc.; reviewing 90% complete engineering plans - to be distributed end of January;
reviewing details related to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail for fencing, lighting, and maintenance
with Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District.
The Station Design Committee for SLP is expected to convene in February to devise station
graphic themes and colors for station architecture. Members of the Community Advisory
Committee and Business Advisory Committee will be contacted to provide input as well. This
work is expected to be completed in March.
JANUARY 19, 2016 PERFORMANCE
DRIVEN DESIGN.
BELTLINE STATION CONCEPT
N
Total Project Boundary:
Total Area: 286,987 Sq. Ft. (6.59 Acres)
Existing Bank Property Boundary:
Total Area: 66,693 Sq. Ft. (1.53 Acres)
“EDA Site” Property Boundary:
Total Area: 123,193 Sq. Ft. (2.83 Acres)
Existing R.O.W.
1” = 100’-0”
SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
EXISTING BANK PROPERTY CONCEPT FIGURES:
ST. LOUIS PARK EDA PROPERTY CONCEPT FIGURES:
PROGRAM TYPE CALCULATIONS
OFFICE SPACE LEVEL 1: 20,000 SF
LEVEL 2: 20,000 SF
LEVEL 3: 20,000 SF
LEVEL 4: 20,000 SF
TOTAL: 80,000 SF
PARKING
REQUIREMENTS:
268 PARK & RIDE
280 OFFICE USE
(at 3.5 spaces/1000 sf)
548 TOTAL
LEVEL 1: 128 SPACES
LEVEL 2: 128 SPACES
LEVEL 3: 142 SPACES
LEVEL 4: 142 SPACES
STREET: 8 SPACES
TOTAL: 548 SPACES
PROGRAM TYPE CALCULATIONS
RESIDENTIAL UNITS STRUCTURE 1 (101,150 SF):
97 UNITS
STRUCTURE 2 (90,585 SF):
86 UNITS
TOTAL: 183 UNITS
FIRST FLOOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE 1: 8,150 SF
TOTAL: 8,150 SF
PARKING
REQUIREMENTS:
183 RESIDENTIAL
(at 1 space/dwelling)
33 COMMERCIAL
(at 1 space/250 sf gfa)
216 TOTAL
STRUCTURE 1: 128 SPACES
STRUCTURE 2: 126 SPACES
STREET: 27 SPACES
TOTAL: 281 SPACES
(65 REMAINING SPACES FOR
ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL PARKING
AND GUEST PARKING)
0 50 100
EXISTING CONDITIONS
6-LEVEL MIXED USE
BUILDING (STRUCTURE 1):
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
GREEN ROOF AS
RESIDENT AMENITY SPACE
66' INTERNAL ROAD
R.O.W.
GREEN ROOF AS
RESIDENT AMENITY SPACE
SWLRT BELTLINE STATION
PEDESTRIAN FLY-OVER
BRIDGE
EXISTING R.O.W.
PROPERTY LINE
NORTH CEDAR LAKE
REGIONAL TRAIL
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL/
COMMERCIAL CORNER
WITH OUTDOOR AMENITY
SPACE
RIGHT-IN ONLY ACCESS
FROM EASTBOUND CSAH
25
RIGHT-IN ONLY ACCESS
FROM NORTHBOUND
BELTLINE BLVD
5-LEVEL BUILDING
(STRUCTURE 2):
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
FIRST-LEVEL PARKING
ACCESS
SECOND-LEVEL PARKING
ACCESS
4-LEVEL OFFICE BUILDING
OUTDOOR AMENITY SPACE
FOR OFFICE BUILDING
USERS
SKYWAY CONNECTION
FROM PARKING RAMP TO
OFFICE BUILDING
4-LEVEL PARKING RAMP
WITH TWO-LEVEL ARCADE
ALONG BELTLINE BLVD
FACADE; ONE LEVEL OF
RAMP PARTIALLY BELOW
GRADE
COMMUTER PLAZA WITH
A VARIETY OF AMENITIES,
INCLUDING FLEXIBLE
SEATING, COFFEE KIOSK,
ENHANCED PLANTINGS,
AND A STORMWATER
FEATURE
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
FROM FLY-OVER BRIDGE
TO PARKING RAMP
STORMWATER TREATMENT
AND GARDEN SPACE
ENHANCED CORNER WITH
LANDSCAPING AND WATER
FEATURE
SIDEWALK WITH
LANDSCAPED BOULEVARD
BUFFER
CSAH 2
5
ENTIRE SITE:
286,987 SF (6.59 ACRES)
EXISTING BANK PROPERTY:
66,693 SF (1.53 ACRES)
EXISTING ST. LOUIS PARK EDA PROPERTY:
123,193 SF (2.83 ACRES)
EXISTING ROAD R.O.W.:
97,101 SF (2.23 ACRES)
*a transit credit of
15% reduction from
code requirements can
be applied to certain
parking requirements
on siteBELTLINE BLVDStudy Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Update Page 3
JANUARY 19, 2016 PERFORMANCE
DRIVEN DESIGN.
BELTLINE STATION CONCEPT
CSAH 25PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM FLY-OVER
BRIDGE TO PARKING RAMP
4-LEVEL OFFICE BUILDING SKYWAY CONNECTION FROM PARKING
RAMP TO OFFICE BUILDING
4-LEVEL PARKING RAMP WITH TWO-LEVEL ARCADE ALONG BELTLINE
BLVD FACADE; ONE LEVEL OF RAMP PARTIALLY BELOW GRADE
6-LEVEL MIXED USE BUILDING (STRUCTURE 1):
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INTEGRATED PARKING
VIEW FROM PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER CSAH 25
MASSING MODEL FROM SOUTHWEST MASSING MODEL FROM NORTHEAST
6-LEVEL MIXED USE BUILDING (STRUCTURE 1):
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
6-LEVEL MIXED USE BUILDING (STRUCTURE 1):
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
SWLRT BELTLINE STATION
SWLRT BELTLINE STATION
NORTH CEDAR LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL
NORTH CEDAR LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL
5-LEVEL BUILDING (STRUCTURE 2):
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
5-LEVEL BUILDING (STRUCTURE 2):
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
4-LEVEL OFFICE BUILDING
4-LEVEL OFFICE BUILDING
4-LEVEL PARKING RAMP WITH TWO-LEVEL
ARCADE ALONG BELTLINE BLVD FACADE; ONE
LEVEL OF RAMP PARTIALLY BELOW GRADE
4-LEVEL PARKING RAMP WITH TWO-LEVEL
ARCADE ALONG BELTLINE BLVD FACADE; ONE
LEVEL OF RAMP PARTIALLY BELOW GRADE
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM FLY-OVER
BRIDGE TO PARKING RAMP
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM FLY-OVER
BRIDGE TO PARKING RAMP
GREEN ROOFS AS RESIDENT AMENITY SPACE
GREEN ROOFS AS RESIDENT AMENITY SPACE
RETAIL/COMMERCIAL CORNER WITH OUTDOOR
AMENITY SPACECSAH 25BEL
T
L
I
N
E
B
L
V
D
BELTL
I
N
E
B
L
V
D
Study Session Meeting of January 25, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: SWLRT Update Page 4