HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/03/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 28, 2016
(Councilmembers Mavity & Hallfin Out)
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 4, 11, & 18, 2016
2. 6:35 p.m. 2016 Market Value Overview
3. 7:20 p.m. Body Worn Cameras for Police Officers
4. 8:05 p.m. Connect the Park! CIP Update
5. 8:50 p.m. Debrief on Boards and Commissions Annual Meeting
9:20 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. February 2016 Monthly Financial Report
7. Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) – Administrative Items
8. Zero Waste Packaging Update
9. Health in the Park Update
10. Update on MoneyGram’s Minnesota Investment Fund Award from DEED
11. Proposed Cooperative Agreement with MCWD and Park Nicollet
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 4, April 11 and April 18, 2016
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
Special Study Sessions on April 4 and April 18, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session
(Written Reports only) on April 11, 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
Special Study Sessions on April 4 and April 18, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session
(Written Reports only) on April 11, 2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – April 4, April 11 & April 18, 2016
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 4, April 11 and April 18, 2016
APRIL 4, 2016
6:30 p.m. – Special Study Session
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Update on Bass Lake Preserve Project – Engineering and Operations & Recreation (50
minutes)
Engineering has been working on the feasibility and project scope for the Bass Lake Preserve
Project. This item will provide the Council with our consultant and staff recommendations
for this project.
APRIL 11, 2016
6:30 p.m. – St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization
6:40 p.m. – Boards & Commissions Interviews
Study Session -- Written Reports Only
1. Central Park West Redevelopment Contract Update
2. City Hall Art Display
3. SWLRT Update
APRIL18, 2016
6:30 p.m. – Special Study Session
Tentative Discussion Item
1. Partners in Energy Climate Action Plan (Energy Work Group of the E & S Commission) –
Administrative Services (50 minutes)
The Environment & Sustainability Commission’s Energy Work Group has been working on
a long term project with Xcel Energy, called Partners in Energy. This project is a multi-
stakeholder initiative to produce an Energy Plan that will include climate action planning,
with various representation from the St. Louis Park community, including youth.
Participating youth presented to Council on March 21 (as part of the Partners in Energy
project) a climate score card with the city’s grade and a petition asking for the city to support
net zero human emissions by 2040. This is one of the primary goals being set forth by the
larger Partners in Energy project. Discussion will include the iMatter efforts and how they
will align with Partners in Energy larger efforts.
Immediatley following City Council Meeting – Special Study Session Continued
Tentative Discussion Item
2. Excelsior & Monterey (Bridgewater) – Community Development (45 minutes)
Dominium Development and Bridgewater Bank propose redeveloping the northeast corner of
Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. The preliminary plans depict a six-story building
with 168 residential units, 17,000 sf of ground floor commercial space, and structured
parking. The current development applications include easement vacations, preliminary plat
with variances and preliminary planned unit development (which would rezone the property
and create a zoning district specific to this development site). Planning Commission recently
held a public hearing and recommended approval of the application (3-2 vote).
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Market Value Overview
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed. This summary report and discussion are
provided for informational purposes to assist the Council in preparing for the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization process that begins in April.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The assessed market valuation and classification for each property determines their
individual tax capacity and thus the overall tax capacity of the community. In addition to fiscal
budgeting and property tax implications, the composition of value and trending are important for
Council to understand as they focus on overall governance of the community.
Discussion will focus on the 2016 assessment by using map overviews of recent market activity
for the dominant property types (single-family homes, condos/townhomes, commercial, industrial
and apartments). This review is being made to give the Council additional information on how
the community’s real estate is reacting to the significant evolution of the housing stock, market
demand trends for commercial space, thoughts on the current market cycle and the foundation to
look forward.
The appeal process will also be reviewed briefly in the discussion. The Department of Revenue
has directed changes to the adjustment of sales (time) as well as procedures for the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization.
The St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes its organizational meeting
on Monday April 11, 2016 at 6:30 pm with the follow-up meeting scheduled for April 25.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Information in this report is a summary of the 2016 Valuation (payable 2017
tax period).
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and timeline for the entire property tax system,
including the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows:
1. All real property is valued at market value annually and classified according to usage. In
addition, there are a multitude of sub-classifications which are administratively updated. The
owners are notified, generally in March, with multiple options for discussion and appeal.
2. State law defines how the value and class rate are translated into tax capacity and refined via
subsidies, exclusions and credits (i.e., homestead, veteran exclusion, et al, etc.).
3. Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction are set annually. Funding sources include the property tax
levy, voter approved market value referendums, bonding, special assessments,
programs/grants and other sources such as user fees from a variety of operational sources.
4. The total property tax levy is divided by the total capacity of each jurisdiction (city, county,
school district and others) to determine the total levy extension multiplier. The multiplier is
applied to each individual property to calculate property taxes. It is essential to understand
that the property tax “rate” is only a math equation as used in the Minnesota system.
The Assessing function deals with the first step above as staff renders an opinion of market value
and classification annually for 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park as of January 2 each year. The
assessment must comply with standards established by the Minnesota Department of Revenue,
Minnesota statutes and with review/approval by the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as the usual selling price at the place
where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being the price
which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by the assessor that
the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction. The price obtained at a
forced sale shall not be considered.
Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this
requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in
determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The following table presents a summary
example of the two dominant property types and their associated class rates:
Base Homestead Non-Homestead e.g. Tax Capacity at Taxable Values
Property Type Value Base Over-Base Base Over-Base 250,000 500,000 1,000,000
Comm & Industrial 150,000 N/A N/A 1.50% 2.00% 4,250 9,250 19,250
Residential 500,000 1.00% 1.25% 1.00% 1.25% 2,500 5,000 11,250
As can be seen above, the class system greatly favors residential properties in how the assessed
market value is translated into initial tax capacity which is used in the tax calculation process. This
difference widens further as commercial properties are subject to additional state based levies
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
while residential properties are reduced by subsidy factors such as the homestead value exclusion
(formerly known as the homestead credit). Voter approved referenda, on the other hand, are
market value based so all properties are taxed equally on each dollar of property value.
The Assessment Process
The purpose of the assessment process is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of
market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the properties
being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic market forces at work,
the individual property location, use and physical characteristics play a significant role in the
valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of every property in the city
including its size, location, physical characteristics and condition. As there are 17,000+ taxable
parcels in the city, it is virtually impossible to have complete knowledge of each property, which
may or may not sell in a given year.
The Minnesota property tax system therefore requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of
inspection is on a five year rotating schedule (known as the quintile) which may be altered due to
physical change of the property due to new construction, renovations, additions and damage. The
goal of the periodic and interim inspection process is to assess the characteristics and
corresponding market value of each property as closely as possible versus the property’s
competitive position.
It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of Minnesota
is based on mass appraisal. The valuations are modeled by the use of a computer assisted mass
appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for each property are
maintained in a large data base which calculates the individual valuations based upon the location,
style and physical characteristics for each property. Annual adjustments are made to the data tables
to mirror market performance using the competitive properties that have sold during the
comparison time period.
In all cases, the sales information is closely scrutinized and qualified. Evidence suggesting
anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, etc.) results
in the sales information being excluded from study. This is important as the market information
constitutes the measurable database for the statistical comparisons necessary to make the property
assessment.
Having the local assessment system operate effectively also requires as much information about
the local real estate market as possible. Minnesota requires almost all sales to be recorded in an
electronic Certificate of Real Estate Value (e-CRV) data system. The initial sale information is
frequently augmented with more detail from a variety of professional data services and staff may
follow-up with re-inspections in the case where the sale price indicates that we may have imperfect
information.
The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks,
mortgage companies and others. For example, the mass appraisal system for residential properties
involves the comparison of thousands of properties with the fact-based market transactions from
the same or closely competitive neighborhoods, and market sales of the same quality and type of
property throughout the city. In the appeal process, the assessing staff looks to both the mass
valuation models and an individual appraisal analysis for further review.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
The Appeal Process
We receive inquiries and questions about market value, the assessment process and how the
property tax system operates throughout the year. An open dialogue between staff and the property
owner is a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. We recognize that some properties receive
statistic-based adjustments to market value and owners may have differing degrees of knowledge
and perspective on both their own real estate and market performance. Three important points are
stressed in the informal and formal appeal processes:
By statute, the assessing staff utilizes the traditional market in setting valuations. We do
not disregard the impact of the distressed sub-market or value-in-use transactions, but we
do emphasis the use of open market and arm’s length sales. This is not only by legal
precedent but also good appraisal methodology. All assessed market values are set on a
similar competitive basis which allows for a better understanding of the nuances of (often)
highly localized sub-markets.
The mass assessment is time adjusted. When reviewing appeals, we apply similar time
trends to the comparable sales when re-appraising individual properties.
Appeals on the basis of comparative assessment can be problematic. While a valid
rationale from the owner perspective, the neighbor’s assessment is (also) an opinion.
Transactions are the facts which define the market. Assessment equity is measured with
distinct performance metrics as published by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The
post assessment “report cards” are relied upon by the Tax Court.
Questions are common during informal appeals. The assessing staff will check the last date of
interior inspection as condition can evolve over time. Inspections are often requested to re-verify
property attributes and public record sales information is often discussed. A very large majority
of property owner concerns can be resolved through this informal review. Assessing staff will
review and adjust the assessed market value as warranted prior to the Boards during the informal
review process. If needed, the next step is the appeal process.
Formal appeal steps are summarized as:
1. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization: The St. Louis Park Board is set to have its
organizational meeting on April 11, 2016. The owner is the appellant and is notified of the
Board process including the need to present information to the Board. The assessing staff
serves as the respondent and prepares a report of sales and related market information to be
presented at the re-convene meeting. The Board hears the respective points and makes the
determination on value and/or classification.
2. County Board of Appeal and Equalization: To be eligible, the owner must first appeal at the
Local Board. An application to appeal at the Hennepin County Board is required by May 18
and this Board convenes in June. The process is similar as the owner makes their case and
county staff serves as the respondent and the Board makes the determination.
3. Tax Court: Property owners may appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court. Petitions
regarding the 2016 Assessment may be filed until April 30, 2017. This method of appeal is
more formal and often takes a lengthy period of time to resolve. This avenue of appeals
typically is much larger than the preceding methods in the number of cases, their complexity
and the valuations/classifications in dispute. The average volume of appeals resolved at this
level has been $755 million annually over the past eight years.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
Big Picture of the Residential Market – Realtor Perspective
Before discussion of the 2016 assessment, we want to provide a big picture overview from the
perspective of Realtors. The broad spectrum of residential real estate peaked in 2006-2007 and
bottomed out around 2011. The market has fully returned in the 2015 timeframe although stability
varies to a degree. The following chart is an aggregate of single-family homes, condos and
townhomes from 2009 through 2015. This provides a comparative reference for St. Louis Park
and our immediate neighbors through the roller coaster ride of recent history.
Historic Median Sale Price – Aggregate of Single-Family Homes, Condos and Townhomes
% Change % Change
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 14-to-'15 11-to-'15
St. Louis Park 212,500 212,000 185,000 198,450 218,900 230,000 239,000 3.9% 29.2%
Edina 323,950 339,900 339,000 344,000 350,000 380,000 396,000 4.2% 16.8%
Golden Valley 220,000 241,450 199,450 218,500 246,000 247,500 264,900 7.0% 32.8%
Hopkins 160,000 140,000 125,000 159,950 180,500 182,000 214,250 17.7% 71.4%
Minnetonka 245,000 265,000 232,500 255,000 279,000 270,000 300,000 11.1% 29.0%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
In contemplating the figures above, all five communities were within the upper 20% of the metro
at large for overall value retention from 2007 through 2013. In viewing the table above, it is
extremely important to understand there are significant differences between single-family homes,
condos and townhomes over the timeframe and frequently from year-to-year. Also important to
note is the data above reflects raw sale prices for all MLS based transactions including the
traditional market and the distressed market.
Further reference on the past year performance is provided by figures for MLS based sale count,
market composition, cumulative days on market and percent of list price received:
Annual 2015 Market Performance – Aggregate of Single-Family Homes, Condos and Townhomes
Percent Percent Percent Percent of
New Condo & Distressed Days on List Price
# Sales Construction Twnhm Sub-Market Market Received
St. Louis Park 960 2.1% 24.6% 6.4% 65 96.8%
Edina 1,004 6.5% 33.6% 3.5% 94 94.9%
Golden Valley 417 1.2% 18.7% 8.2% 82 95.4%
Hopkins 234 0.9% 38.0% 14.1% 69 95.7%
Minnetonka 887 2.6% 29.9% 5.7% 86 95.2%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
To conclude the big picture overview, the majority of the ownership based residential real estate
in the city of St. Louis Park has, or is in the later stages of, returning to a state of normalized market
conditions. Days on market and list ratios are tightening which is typically associated with a
healthy and advancing market. The only major sectors which remain up in the air are the low end
residential stock and a few condo complexes have improved performance but not fully stabilized.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2016 Assessment Roll
The Notice of Valuation and Classification commence mailing in March of each year. Each notice
reflects the property value and classification for a two year period with the format as required by
the MN Department of Revenue. As of January 2, 2016, the total valuation of the city stands at
$6.316 billion. Further understanding of the value composition and year-over-year trending is
explored in the following chart.
Assessed Market Value Change for Dominant Sectors (Comparison of 2016 Assessment Versus 2015)
Single-Family Residential + 4.4% Static Basis versus + 5.3% with Improvements
Condominium + 8.2% Static Basis versus +10.6% with Improvements
Townhomes + 6.7% Static Basis -same- + 6.7% with Improvements
Apartments +12.0% Static Basis versus +17.8% with Improvements
Commercial-Industrial + 6.7% Static Basis versus + 9.6% with Improvements
St. Louis Park Total + 6.0% Static Basis versus + 8.1% with Improvements
Value change on a static basis reflects an apple-to-apple comparison of market driven change.
While the static comparison is interesting and inherently the primary focus in applying the mass
appraisal methodology, the value change including improvements is much more accurate in terms
of understanding the economic activity for the community. The total change also reflects the
related tax capacity shift about to occur for the tax period payable 2017.
Each of the above categories will be explained at further length in the following report sections.
We begin our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into the three dominant
categories: low density (single-family homes); mid-to-high density ownership based (condos and
townhomes) and apartment units.
Housing Unit Composition – St. Louis Park for the 2016 Assessment
11,606
8,848
3,525
432 114
Single-Family
Apartments
Condo & Townhome
Duplex
Cooperatives
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
Single Family Homes: Just under one-half of the total housing units are single family homes.
Setting the assessment included the traditional sales review, on-market listings at multiple points
throughout the year, accessing MLS listings as well as statistics for the traditional and distressed
markets, quintile inspections (approximately 20% of the stock is reviewed each year) and new
construction and renovation permit reviews.
St. Louis Park is broken down into 35 distinct neighborhoods which are configured to local history
rather than cohesive competitive influences. Of the 32 neighborhoods with single-family
properties, all are increasing in valuations for the 2016 assessment. The neighborhood adjustments
ranged from 0.7% to 8.8% with the majority of neighborhoods between +3.0% to +6.0%. While
these are overall trends, it is very important to understand that individual valuation changes are
outside of these ranges. Within each neighborhood, the valuations are mixed as the market
continues to stabilize for 2016. We also track the year-over-year change on a rolling five-year
period along with the annual sales studies and feel confident that the 2016 assessment of single-
family properties is of the best quality we can derive by mass modeling.
As has become routine, much of our attention has been on reviewing the price brackets
(stratifications). Our single-family stock is normally a bell curve style of pricing with heavy
emphasis currently moving into the $200,000 to $350,000 range. When combining reduced
discounts on foreclosures, a lower number of distressed properties being absorbed and the mixed
competitive reaction on the traditional market, there is an indisputably wider degree of variation
in the stratifications over the past year. This is relatively healthy in an advancing market.
Condominiums: There are 47 distinct condominium complexes in the community with the addition
of Calhoun Hill last year and Wooddale Flats this year (note: Late CIC filing on both complexes
by the respective developers are an example of the market as well). The complexes are a decidedly
diverse stock in terms of structural vintage, design format (apartment conversions, row-house, lo-
rise, hi-rise and most everything in between).
As noted in prior years, condos and townhomes tend to be considerably more volatile in valuations.
This is generally due to three major factors: condos tend to have an in-complex sub-market which
simply does not apply to single-family homes; foreclosure absorptions are much more likely to
overwhelm the traditional market and did so in several complexes from 2011 to 2013 (which are
now bouncing back with very rapid sale price increases); and finally, we have seen more
complexes move from owner occupancy to predominantly investor/rental which tend to have lower
valuations as the purchase decision is initially driven by investment cash flow which, currently,
has begun to rapidly advance as well.
The local market exhibits a very wide pricing structure which historically ranged from
$70,000/unit to over $500,000/unit. For 2013, the lower price bracket extended down to just below
$40,000 per unit. The valuation adjustment for all complexes was -7.5% for the 2013 assessment,
+7.8% for the 2014 assessment, +8.5% for the 2015 assessment and +8.2% for the 2016
assessment. When looking at all of our condominium complexes, six complexes were adjusted
downward for equalization reasons while all others ranged from flat to major valuation increases.
Eight complexes were adjusted by more than +10.0% for 2016 with the largest complex based
valuation increase at +20.7%. Most of the larger value increases occurred in the lower price
brackets.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
Townhomes: There are 19 distinct townhome complexes in the community. About one-half of
them are relatively small with less than 20 units in the complex. The other half are predominantly
in the 20-70 unit count bracket with two larger complexes. The bulk of this product type reached
a valuation low point around 2013 and has been advancing since then. The three largest complexes
lead the statistics as they comprise over 50% of the total value. Lohman Amhurst complex began
stabilizing for the 2013 assessment and is moving confidently forward at +7.1%, +10.4% and
stabilizing at +5.9% over the last three assessment periods. Victoria Ponds is the next largest
complex with the last two assessments at +10.1% and stabilizing at 3.5%. The townhome element
of Greensboro dropped very hard for the 2012 and 2013 assessments and is moving upward in
2014, 2015 and now 2016 (the five assessments were -24.8%, -19.3%, +12.9%, +26.8% and
+12.1% to bring the townhome component of the complex almost fully back from the tumultuous
market).
In general, the market forces at play in this property type are similar to that of the condos with
several mitigating factors. They include a higher average unit value which seems to be more
economically durable. It is also our perception that the physical designs tend to be less problematic
with few exceptions, while the rate of distressed transactions and on-market listings have tended
to be less dramatic.
Apartments: This sector has become quite complicated which is illustrated by the market driven
adjustments. The 2012 assessment was up +4.9% which included very little new construction
value due to project timing. The 2013 valuation increase was at +8.2% for the market based
adjustment and +13.9% including new construction, with few of the newer complexes at full
valuation. The 2014 market based adjustment was +8.2% and +20.2% with new construction as
multiple complexes reached value maturity.
For the 2015 assessment, the market based adjustment was +12.1%. This is notable as the metro
area set a new record in total transaction volume and the market advance clearly extended to all
sub-sectors. This includes new construction with the total value increase of 13.3%.
The 2016 assessment comes in at +12.0% for the market driven increase and +17.8% including
new construction with multiple new projects in stages of partial completion. While the
continuation of these projects will logically drive this sector’s total valuation forward for another
year or two, the metro market is becoming very complex.
The Class A and B markets (newer, multi-story buildings with high level amenity packages) are
clearly in high demand from the perspective of the investment community which is normally
locally based with recent transition to multiple out-of-state investment grade buyers.
The sale of Excelsior & Grand at $97.5 million in March 2016 comprises 338 units and 64,129
square feet of commercial space. This Class A sale has set the high water mark for the metro
area as we begin what is likely to be another record or near record year.
Avana on Seven, a Class B complex, sold December 2015 for $27.6 million and has 167 units.
The sale was part of national portfolio common in the institutional mindset.
Louisiana Oaks, next door, sold in April 2015 for $39.1 million. This 200 unit complex is also
a Class B property.
Meanwhile, the C market (commonly less than 3 stories, built circa 1960-1975) comprises about
one-half of the total apartment unit count in St. Louis Park and an overwhelming percentage of the
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
total apartment properties. Thus, the sales in this market niche dominate the assessment ratios
which in turn determine the adjustments moving forward. These complexes were essentially stable
for the 2014 assessment. There were a large number of class C sales throughout Hennepin County
during 2014, which clearly indicated that this sub-sector had begun to rapidly advance in value
although with a major word of caution. While it is true that the transactions are clearly at elevated
values, the dominant buyer perception is to complete nominal value add improvements (counter-
tops, fridge, stove, laminate flooring) to get some rental increase while also accepting lower yields
in their purchase decision (i.e., the capitalization rate). This performance metric is decidedly
different than the A and B stock where the lower yield expectations are in conjunction with
significant rental increase assumptions. For the C stock, rental increases have been seen but
nowhere near the trending for the newer stock. As such we have adjusted the C stock values to
mirror the market movements but we caution that we do not foresee this trend to be long term
sustainable and likely to be closely related to interest rates.
St. Louis Park is one of very few cities in the metro which can demonstrate that our apartments
are equitably assessed. While this performance metric is favorable for the past few years, each
assessment is a new measurement and complying with mandated time adjustments has become
quite problematic. While the 2015 assessment ratios were exemplary, the time adjustments
required for the 2016 assessment leads to valuations being very tight to the market at a time that
is starting to become late in the economic cycle.
Commercial and Industrial: These properties have been relatively stable over the past four years
in terms of value growth albeit with their own interesting performance issues. It is important to
realize that these properties comprise about 5% of our total parcel count while accounting for
22.2% of the total value and 35.8% of the total tax capacity of the community.
For the 2014 assessment review, we noted two dominant issues in setting the assessment. First,
the 2013 assessment ratio performance was near perfect at 99.0% with more qualified sale
transactions versus many preceding years. Second, the sale verification and equalization of this
sector is much more closely scrutinized across city/county boundaries as these properties tend to
compete on a much larger geographic scale.
For the 2015 assessment, the going in ratio from 2014 was again dialed in at 96.0% although the
number of sales was down slightly. This assessment performance, while very good, also means
that true market movements are already closely mirrored which in turn means that there is minimal
room in which to move statistically.
For 2016, a very active sales market throughout 2015 was again tight in terms of the ratio
performance with 97.7% for commercial, 91.5% for industrial and a combined ratio of 95.9%. The
bulk of adjustments in sector was driven by rapid escalation in distinct geographic areas.
Larger Scale Transactions
The Shops of Knollwood sold for $106.7 million in January 2015. Parcels included were our other
Cub grocery store, the vacated TCF bank parcel, Burger King, Spire Credit Union and the primary
mall parcel. The mall itself was in the process of being repositioned from an enclosed mall with
large unusable areas and in-line retail to a true mid-box style of in-line retail. This transformation
has been very well received by potential tenants and the shopping customers.
News coverage in both local mass media outlets and especially in real estate trade publications has
touted the vibe at the West End locale. This geographic area has become a hot bed for major
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
transactions which clearly exhibit the Highway 100 and I-394 corridors are major premium
locations.
The Shops of West End sold for $117.1 million in December 2014. Properties included in the sale
were the Cub grocery store, the Icon movie theater, the at-grade retail/restaurant/service space and
the 2nd story office. This sale was not surprising given the successful draw that the businesses in
the area have enjoyed.
The Parkdales, seven parcels of record comprising mostly of tired Class C office buildings, sold
March 2015 for $40 million. These properties were coming out of lender receivership and carried
a high vacancy rate. Notable in this sale is that the owner subsequently purchased the adjacent
land areas for future office development as Central Park West.
The 5353 Wayzata building, a Class B office building, sold June 2015 for $14.6 million.
Two additional class B office buildings, Park Place East and Park Place West, sold in December
2015 in two transactions totaling $61 million.
The Doubletree hotel complex sold for $37.1 million (which includes extensive personal property,
flag rights and business value) in October 2015.
The following charts provide additional overview for the 2016 assessment.
The first page reflects the single-family neighborhoods over the past five year quintile cycle
and with the current median assessed market value.
The second page provides a complex breakdown of the condos and townhomes by unit count
and median market value (the five year history is multiple pages and not included with this
report; can be provided to Council upon request).
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 11
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
St. Louis Park -- Single Family Residential Properties
Historical Changes of the Assessed Market Values (Quintile Cycle)
Parcel 2016
# Neighborhood Reference 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Counts Median
City-Wide Basis > > > -4.3% -2.3% 4.8% 4.0% 4.4% 11,539 240,100
Quintile Counts 2,902 1,350 2,550 2,278 2,458
1 Shelard Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
2 Kilmer 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.8 0.8 243 202,900
3 Crestview -1.8 -4.1 2.2 9.4 4.3 68 354,600
4 Westwood Hills -5.6 -3.7 1.5 4.9 5.6 292 391,000
5 Cedar Manor -8.3 1.2 2.2 2.9 6.5 573 229,800
6 Northside (x) Willow Park -8.9 -6.6 8.9 3.0 5.3 302 234,650
7 Pennsylvania Park -4.5 -4.9 4.5 8.6 2.2 303 224,600
8 Eliot -2.9 -6.5 8.3 0.0 5.6 506 211,100
9 Blackstone -1.8 -5.9 2.0 1.9 6.8 95 181,900
10 Cedarhurst -1.8 -4.6 6.0 2.1 4.1 48 209,000
11 Eliot View -6.9 -5.8 1.0 9.6 6.0 165 211,700
12 Cobblecrest -4.9 -5.7 11.3 6.2 5.6 382 268,200
13 Minnehaha -3.7 -5.3 10.6 0.6 8.8 128 349,300
14 Amhurst N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
15 Aquila -12.6 4.8 4.5 6.3 6.7 505 198,100
16 Oak Hill -13.6 -0.3 5.2 8.4 4.5 636 205,600
17 Texa Tonka -10.2 -0.2 8.1 8.7 2.9 384 203,100
18 Bronx Park -4.2 -6.5 8.4 7.7 4.0 992 226,300
19 Lenox -5.2 -4.1 7.9 2.0 5.0 831 220,100
20 Sorenson 0.2 -4.1 9.6 0.0 6.4 450 234,250
21 Birchwood -3.9 -1.4 0.4 4.6 4.5 629 237,000
22 Lake Forest -4.6 -0.6 3.6 4.7 3.6 196 579,150
23 Fern Hill -3.2 -1.7 2.4 3.1 3.2 957 369,100
24 Triangle 0.0 -0.7 3.6 0.0 0.7 103 212,800
25 Wolfe Park -3.2 -1.8 5.4 6.7 5.0 18 240,000
26 Minikada Oaks -4.5 -0.4 6.9 8.7 0.9 76 342,100
27 Minikada Vista 0.0 0.1 1.9 2.7 2.9 798 386,100
28 Browndale 0.0 1.6 5.0 2.9 3.7 548 357,800
29 Brookside -4.4 2.8 3.3 0.0 6.7 328 236,900
30 Brooklawns -2.8 1.8 0.9 0.0 5.0 148 242,900
31 Elmwood -2.5 -6.2 3.6 6.0 6.4 268 262,900
32 Meadowbrook N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
33 South Oak Hill -6.8 -5.3 10.2 2.5 4.9 290 209,150
34 Westdale -3.0 -1.9 0.4 10.2 1.3 106 223,050
35 Creekside 0.0 -8.6 9.7 3.6 7.6 170 292,450
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Title: 2016 Market Value Overview
City of St. Louis Park -- Assess 2016 (Pay 2017)
Dist Condominium # Median Dist Townhomes # Median
Code Complex Name Units
Mkt
Value Code Complex Name Units Mkt Value
AC Aquila Commons Coop 106 185,300 BG Brunswick Gables 7 207,900
MO Monterey Coop 8 83,050 DB Dan-Bar 4 179,800
BR Bridgewalk 92 89,800 EW Excelsior Way 38 111,100
BK Brookside Lofts 41 230,200 GR2 Greensboro 96 147,700
CA Calhoun Hill 7 308,600 HE Hampshire Estates 8 139,100
CT Cedar Trails 280 102,900 HH Hampshire House 13 143,700
CS Cedar Trails South (TH) 32 152,550 LL Lamplighter Park 5 343,900
CW Cedar Trails West (TH) 48 169,450 LA Lohman's Amhurst 276 161,900
CH Coach Homes 128 110,300 ME Medley Row 22 258,100
EV Elmwood Village 77 282,200 MP Monterey Park 18 335,400
EL Excelsior Lofts 86 238,100 PC Princeton Ct 14 408,400
55+ 55+ Sr Condos 60 183,300 QC Quentin Ct 10 405,200
FH Fern Hill 30 175,850 SH Shamrock 16 139,000
TG Grand Northwest 96 390,150 SK Skyehill 31 243,200
GW Grand Way 124 309,600 SW Sungate West 48 154,100
GR Greensboro 164 64,800 VP Victoria Ponds 72 354,000
HV Harmony Vista 74 180,100 WT Westwood Twnhmes 38 189,000
IB Inglewood Boutique 6 287,200 ZA Zarthan Apt 18 171,700
LN Lynn Ave Condos 12 168,200 ZP Zarthan Park 16 175,600
LY Lynnwood Condos 11 152,100
MC Monterey Place 30 221,650
MW Monterey West 7 240,400
MR Murphy Ridge 4 146,900 Outlined complexes have active Housing Improvement
NP Natchez Place 26 148,800 Associations (HIA's); balance information may be
OX Oxford Gardens 12 87,400 obtained by calling 952-924-2696. The general info
P0 Parkside U.L. (460) 24 265,300 number for special assessments and delinquent
P2 Parkside U.L. (462) 22 262,100 utilities is 952-924-2111 (Utility Billing/Finance).
P4 Parkside U.L. (464) 22 240,200
PW Pointe West 86 268,800
PP Pondview Park 30 101,100
S1 Sungate I 20 96,900
S2 Sungate II 26 125,700
S3 Sungate III 14 167,600
SR Sunset Ridge 240 94,200
TF Twin Fountains 88 89,200
VL Village Lofts 60 178,100
WM Westmarke 64 175,350 St. Louis Park Universe Units Mkt Value
WE Westmoreland 72 73,100
WO West Oaks 75 195,200 Condominium Median 2016 2,830 126,600
WV Westwood Villa 66 72,400 Condominium Average 2016 2,830 164,613
WL Wolfe Lake 131 104,100
WF Wooddale Flats 34 650,150 Townhome Median 2016 750 165,200
WY Wynmoor 56 81,600 Townhome Average 2016 750 194,304
33 3300 On The Park 128 135,800
35 35th St Condos 11 112,800 Source: St. Louis Park Assessing Office
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Body Worn Cameras for Police Officers
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires to discuss with the Council its findings regarding
the use of body work cameras for police officers. Staff requests feedback on the information in
this report and any further action the Council wishes be taken.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: There are a number of policy issues involved in the consideration
of body camera deployment. This staff report identifies these issues to the greatest extent possible.
SUMMARY: On 2/17/15, the City Council asked the police department to explore the acquisition
and use of body worn cameras for police officers and the operational and policy issues associated
with the permanent deployment of cameras in the department. This report summarizes those
findings.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Discussed in report.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Kirk DiLorenzo, Deputy Chief and Clint Pires, CIO
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Body Worn Cameras for Police Officers
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: On 2/17/15, after an initial study session report and discussion, the St Louis
Park Police Department was tasked with exploring issues in the acquisition and use of body worn
cameras for officers. The report from the study session on 2/17/15, can be found at:
http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/agenda/15_02_17cm.pdf
The primary use of the cameras is an additional tool to collect evidence for officers during their
course of duty. There are additional benefits that have been derived by agencies who have deployed
body cameras. Those benefits are an apparent reduction in complaints involving officer
misconduct, and the sense of greater transparency in communities that have trust issues with their
police departments.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The Police Executive Research Forum, (PERF) and the U.S.
Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office co-authored a report
that was used to assist in framing the St Louis Park Police Department body camera evaluation
process.
The PERF report highlights a number of issues that should be taken into consideration when
implementing a body worn camera program. Here are the main considerations from that report.
Privacy considerations- When implementing body-worn cameras, law enforcement agencies
must balance these privacy considerations with the need for transparency of police operations,
accurate documentation of events, and evidence collection. This means making careful
decisions about when officers will be required to activate cameras, how long recorded data
should be retained, who has access to the footage, who owns the recorded data, and how to
handle internal and external requests for disclosure.
Determining when to record- The issue with perhaps the greatest privacy implications is
deciding which types of encounters and activities officers should record. Should officers be
required to record every interaction with a member of the public? Or are there some situations
in which recording should be discretionary or prohibited?
Data storage, retention, and disclosure- Security, reliability, cost, and technical capacity were
the primary factors cited for choosing a particular method for storing video files from body-
worn cameras. All agencies surveyed stored body-worn camera video on an in-house server
(managed internally) or an online cloud database (managed by a third-party vendor)
Impact on community relationships- Building positive relationships with the community is a
critical aspect of policing, and these relationships can exist only if police have earned the trust
of the people they serve. Police rely on these community partnerships to help them address
crime and disorder issues. In the report, a number of agencies expressed concern that excessive
recording with body-worn cameras may damage the relationships officers have developed with
the community and hinder the openness of their community policing interactions.
Addressing officer concerns- For a body-worn camera program to be effective, it needs the
support not only of the community but also of the frontline officers who will be wearing the
cameras. Securing this support can help ensure the legitimacy of a camera program and make
its implementation more successful. Agency leaders should engage in ongoing communication
with officers about the program’s goals, the benefits and challenges of using cameras, and the
agency’s expectations of the officers.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Body Worn Cameras for Police Officers
Managing expectations- People often expect that officers using body-worn cameras will record
video of everything that happens while they are on duty. But most police departments do not
require officers to record every encounter. Many agencies have policies against recording when
it is unsafe or impossible, and some agencies give officers discretion to deactivate their
cameras in certain sensitive situations, such as during interviews with victims or witnesses.
Camera malfunctions may also occur.
Financial considerations- While body-worn cameras can provide many potential benefits to
law enforcement agencies, they come at a considerable financial cost. In addition to the initial
purchasing cost, agencies must devote funding and staffing resources toward storing recorded
data, managing videos, disclosing copies of videos to the public, providing training to officers,
and administering the program.
The PERF report recommendations provide guidance that is grounded in current research and in
the lessons learned from police agencies that have adopted body-worn cameras. However, because
the technology is so new, a large body of research does not yet exist regarding the effects body-
worn cameras have on policing. Additional research and field experience are needed before the
full impact of body-worn cameras can be understood, and PERF’s recommendations may evolve
as further evidence is gathered.
The full report is available at:
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Technology/implementing%2
0a%20body-worn%20camera%20program.pdf
St. Louis Park police and IT staff also viewed an excellent webinar that was sponsored by the
League of Minnesota Cities that details the benefits, concerns, and questions encountered when
developing policy and deploying body cameras in Minnesota. Some of the information is
redundant to the PERF report, however the application of current Minnesota Data Privacy laws is
presented. The webinar is available at: http://www.lmc.org/page/1/BodyCameras-materials.jsp
Field Test - During the summer of 2015, The St Louis Park Police Department evaluated two
brands and types of body worn camera systems for a thirty-day period. This report will provide an
overview of the evaluation, the potential budgetary and policy implications, as well as usability
input provided by officers who volunteered to test the cameras during their patrol shifts. A
temporary departmental policy governing body camera use and video storage was created and
implemented for the test period.
Two camera system vendors were chosen based on their market share of existing installations in
law enforcement and military agencies. There are currently dozens of camera system manufactures
in the marketplace to choose from. The ongoing concern is that the majority of those manufactures
will not survive the crowded marketplace. If the purchased brand does not survive the market
shakeout, the system will most likely need be scrapped and the investment made into the equipment
and infrastructure will be lost. This situation occurred a few years ago when the State provided
police agency grants to purchase in-car video systems. A number of agencies purchased from
companies that went bankrupt or left the market.
There are three major components to each camera system. The first is the camera worn by the
officer. The second is the video interface where all the video is uploaded, stored, and maintained.
The third is the indexing and redaction interface that allows for searching, editing and, redacting
for public dissemination requests, or for investigative and prosecution needs.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Body Worn Cameras for Police Officers
Cameras - Both vendors provided chest worn cameras for evaluation. One vendor also provided a
remote camera tethered to a battery unit so that the camera could be mounted on eyewear or
baseball cap. All of the officers preferred the chest mounted camera over the remote camera.
Officer preference between the two chest mounted cameras was based on the activation switch.
One camera had a recessed button that turned the camera on and off. The other camera had a lens
cover that slid up and down. Officers preferred the switch over the slide.
If a decision were made to deploy body cameras, the St Louis Park Police department would issue
them as a piece of personal equipment such as radios and cellular phones. An individual camera
would be assigned to each officer and sergeant. This would require a minimum purchase of fifty
one cameras.
Video upload interface - Officers preferred the vendor interface that appeared visually less
complex. They liked the simple clean interface that required minimal information to be entered in
for the video to be uploaded. The other vendor interface was more complex, but allowed additional
data parameters to be entered so the videos could be searched for in a number of different ways.
Both vendors also provide a custom software package that interfaces into the existing records
management system that reduces the amount of manual entry required by officers when uploading
a video into a case file. Officers using the cameras noted that video classifying and uploading took
approximately one hour of time in their shift. It is anticipated that the hour can be reduced if a
permanent system is implemented and officers are using network connections to the vendor’s
storage location, and some automated features would be implemented.
Both vendors provide “turn-key” solutions that include the cameras and secure cloud-based
storage, and that integrates a sophisticated interface which allows searching, editing, and redaction.
Both vendors also have a solution that allow an agency to use local storage. With the local storage
option however, one vendor only provides a rudimentary video management software, and any
editing and redaction software must be purchased separately. The other vendor provides a one seat
license for its cloud based redaction tool. The local option, if chosen from either vendor would
require a significant investment in additional network storage and staff maintenance. Finally, the
tool set for managing the videos is much richer using the cloud-based solution.
Based on deployment feedback across the country, a general guideline indicates that an officer will
record approximately two hours of video per shift. St. Louis Park staffs fifteen officers per day.
That means 30 hours X 365 days or approximately 10,950 hours per year of video collected.
To further explain the storage required, it takes approximately one gigabyte of storage per hour of
video, or 10,950 or 11 terabytes (rounded) every year. The estimated data storage amounts relate
to patrol operations only. It does not include storage requirements if cameras are deployed to the
investigative, school liaison, community outreach, or drug task force officers.
Additionally, it does not take into account any adjustments occurring based on data retention laws,
or departmental policies.
Quotes from both vendors were received. The quotes included cameras, equipment maintenance,
cloud storage, and redaction, editing, and indexing software. Both vendors have multi-year
contracts that are similar in nature to cellular phone plans. When the plan expires, it must be
renewed to receive new replacement equipment and access to the cloud-based video. Both vendors
will allow the video to be downloaded to a local server if the customer chooses not to renew a
contract. The amount of required storage at this point is an educated guess. The amount of video
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Body Worn Cameras for Police Officers
collected will be determined by future decisions governed by department policy, any future state
laws mandating when and what is recorded, as well as state data retention rules.
A cost estimate for the equipment, storage, and software services averages out to between $52,000
and $63,500 per year depending upon the vendor and options. It is important to be aware that there
will be additional costs associated with any body camera system. The largest potential cost will be
in staff time and resources required to respond to camera data requests. Under current state law,
all video is considered public unless there is something specifically defined by law as private. For
each video request, staff must review the video in real time to determine if any segments are private
and if so redact them. The redacted video must then be copied to a portable media format for
release. Under current state law, only the cost for preparing the media can be charged to the
requestor. If an individual requests to view forty hours of video, that video must be previewed and
redacted by staff. If the requestor chooses not to request a copy of anything, there is no charge. A
typical FTE cost for an additional employee for redaction and editing tasks would be
approximately $60,000 annually. At this time it is unknown if, or how many additional employees
would be required for redaction and editing. That number would be determined by the level of data
requests of the video collected. Additionally, some requests would require consultation from the
city attorney which would result in additional consultation fees.
There will also be some one-time costs associated with implementing a body worn camera system.
Additional network connections that will allow multiple cameras to simultaneously upload to the
cloud storage will be required, as well as some integration into the existing records managemen t
system that will automate video classification and case number assignments. Like the additional
FTE mentioned above, these additional costs apply whether a cloud-based or local storage solution
is chosen.
If the local storage solution is chosen, the associated storage cost will also be significant. Typically,
the storage requirement needs to be double the amount of storage needed for video because of the
need for redundant data backup.
The City’s Information Resources Department (IT) indicated that assuming a 5-year contract, the
local storage solution would need to accommodate a total of approximately 120 terabytes, using
the annual video storage estimates provided above by Police. That would essentially equate to
video server equipment with that storage capacity to be installed at the secure Police Department
facility and the Municipal Service Center secure backup site. The estimated cost for purchase,
installation, vendor maintenance, and replacement for this equipment configuration only is
$150,000 over the 5-year period. In addition, because this storage configuration is local, it would
also consume additional St. Louis Park human, facility, energy, and network resources. Costs of
any necessary technical (e.g., vendor-provided / related software) upgrades during the 5-year
period are unknown and also in addition to the $150,000 estimate. In the alternative cloud-based
solution, all of these are costs borne by the vendor, and the reason why the charges to police
departments using cloud-based solutions are typically different from the identifiable costs from
the vendor of a local storage solution. That said, based on information received thus far, the video
management and redaction tools provided by vendors for local storage solutions are apparently
less featured. So, staff time could be higher to perform what could be accomplished more
efficiently with the rich tool set provided with the cloud-based solution.
In addition, each vendor would charge an amount for cameras and use of its less featured software
tools, which would include all elements except the local storage.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Body Worn Cameras for Police Officers
From an IT perspective, it is recommended that Council first make its policy decision on whether
or not to move forward with body cameras, for the Council’s collective reasons. System choices,
effectiveness, and costs matter only if Council believes use of body cameras is good policy. If
Council does decide to move forward, IT would recommend that the Police Department acquire
the body camera system that would allow the most professional and defensible work to be done
with the system, and not the cheapest of expensive systems. At this time, given the alternatives
presented by vendors, it is the Chief Information Officer’s recommendation that the cloud-based
solution proposed by both leading vendors, while not perfect, is the most fully featured,
professional, and defensible solution. It also allows Police to work directly with the vendor on
using and troubleshooting the system without reliance on third parties that support the local storage
option. This recommendation is also supported by the CIO’s discussions with his colleagues who
have real-world experience with body camera systems.
Policy - As referred to earlier in this report, a temporary policy was created for use during the
camera evaluation period. An updated policy will need to be created if body cameras are to become
a required piece of equipment. There are a number of questions and considerations that must be
addressed in a future policy. At this time, some answers to potential questions are unknown. The
Minnesota legislature has discussed issues surrounding body camera use, but no laws or data
privacy rulings have been passed or changed. At a minimum, the following points need to be
covered in a policy:
When is the camera turned on and off? Routine contact or enforcement?
Does a subject’s privacy outweigh evidence collection? (i.e. domestic violence interview, in a
residence, etc.)
Are they deployed in our schools with our liaison officers? Deployment of body cameras on
school liaison officers has been receiving mixed reviews where they have been deployed. This
possibility has not yet been discussed with the St Louis Park school district or our private
school partners.
Are they deployed in our plain clothes investigation division and SWAT unit?
Can an officer view the video before completing a report?
In a major incident, whose policy governs the use or access of the video? (i.e. Sheriff Dept.,
BCA, County Attorney’s Office)
If an individual wants to speak anonymously or as an informant?
Should new generation in-car cameras be installed in conjunction with body camera
deployment? What budget impacts would this installation and deployment generate?
NEXT STEPS:
Follow-up on direction provided by the Council.
Review body camera legislation, if any, adopted during current legislative session.
Continue to review body camera implementation policies and procedures utilized by agencies
locally and nationally and continue to evaluate any direction or clarification provided by the
courts.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Connect the Park! CIP Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the proposed 2017-2022 Connect the Park! Capital
Improvement Plan segment amendments and provide direction to staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish staff to continue to pursue the
installation of the sidewalk, trail, and bikeway segments identified in this report?
SUMMARY: Connect the Park! is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to add
additional sidewalks, trails, and bikeways throughout the community as part of creating a larger,
cohesive system. This initiative proposes to build 10 miles of sidewalk, 3 miles of trail, 3 bridges,
and 32 miles of bikeways. As part of Vision St. Louis Park in 2007, the city worked with
community members to create an Active Living Sidewalks and Trails plan. The Connect the Park!
initiative will work toward implementing many of the elements of the plan between now and 2022.
The primary goal of Connect the Park! is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide network of
sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and
accessibility, and enhances overall community livability. This is achieved by creating a system
plan that provides sidewalks approximately every ¼-mile and bikeways every ½-mile in order to
improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the community.
To ensure the City is being responsive to the momentum caused by this initiative and keeping the
plan updated in light of community feedback, staff brings proposed amendments to the plan to the
City Council on an annual basis. The following report will provide updates to the sidewalk, trail
and bikeway components of the Connect the Park! CIP.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The original estimated cost for implementing
the entire 10 year plan was $17- 24 million dollars. The additional segments outlined in this report
are approximately $2,200,000 and would be included in the original project estimate range. These
improvements are expected to be funded using General Obligation bonds.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Connect the Park! CIP – Sidewalks Map
Connect the Park! CIP- Trails Map
Connect the Park! CIP- Bikeways Map
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the conclusion of an extensive public process, the Connect the Park! Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) was approved by Council in June of 2013. In 2014, the CIP was modified
in order to take advantage of some of the other projects already identified in the City’s CIP and
minimize construction scheduling impacts from other transportation projects proposed by
Hennepin County, MnDOT and SWLRT. The proposed segments and associated build year for
this plan can be found in the attached graphics.
To ensure the City is being responsive to the momentum caused by this initiative and keeping the
plan updated in light of community feedback, the City Council developed a process to amend the
Connect the Park! CIP at the September 22, 2014 Study Session. The Connect the Park! CIP is
now updated annually, usually within the first quarter of the year.
Update on Pending Connect the Park! Sidewalk Segment
A neighborhood meeting was held in summer of 2015 to discuss the potential construction of
sidewalk along Parkwoods Road, Cedarwood Road and Forest Road between the east TH100
frontage road and France Avenue in the Lake Forest Neighborhood.
Staff has evaluated this proposal in significant detail and does not recommend the construction of
a sidewalk along this segment of roadways due to the substantial amount of impacts to trees,
retaining walls and private property. In addition to evaluating sidewalk staff analyzed a concept
of boardwalks that could be installed on the lake side of the roadway. Due to the signification tree
removal at the lake edge and the inability to clear snow in the winter months the boardwalk concept
is not recommended.
It would be most feasible to consider the installation of a sidewalk along with a more robust street
reconstruction project that evaluated all aspects of the right of way. Due to the high quality of the
pavement condition, reconstruction of these roads are not within our current eight year capital
improvement program. Therefore staff is recommending not to move forward with a sidewalk
project at this time.
Proposed Amendments to the Connect The Park! CIP
Staff has identified the following proposed amendments to the plan. These amendments are
recommended to ensure that we are being responsive to the momentum created by this initiative
and to keep the plan updated in light of community feedback and additional study.
The amendments are categorized in the following four evaluation types:
1. Leveraging planned construction activities:
Staff continues to look at the city’s overall CIP to find ways to pair Connect the Park! segments
with other projects initiated by the City. There is sidewalk proposed to be constructed in
conjunction with the following project next year.
2017 Pavement Management Project (Area 4)
This project is included in our 2017 CIP. In addition to the segments already included in the
CTP! CIP, there are a number of gap segments in this neighborhood that staff is recommending
be discussed as part of the public process. The proposed sidewalk segments are described in
more detail in the following sections of this report.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
2. Add Segments to the 10- year CIP:
Staff has received requests from property owners to add the following segments of sidewalk
to the CIP:
Xenwood Avenue (between 27th Street and 29th Street)
Wooddale Avenue – 4200 Block
The proposed sidewalk segments are described in more detail in the following sections of this
report.
3. Construct in-fill segments (gaps)
As a part of the annual Connect the Park! CIP, staff works to identify gap segments. Gaps have
been identified in the vicinity of the sidewalk segments proposed to be constructed in
conjunction with the following projects next year.
2017 Pavement Management Project (Area 4)
2017 Street Reconstruction – Utica Ave (between 26th Street and Minnetonka Blvd)
For purposes of discussion, a “gap” is considered a section of sidewalk that is missing on a
continuous street block directly adjacent to the proposed Connect the Park! sidewalk segment
or as part of the yearly pavement management project.
The gap segments would be constructed at no cost to the property owners and the City would
be responsible for future repairs to defective sidewalk panels. However, these sidewalk
segments would follow the appropriate sidewalk designation Neighborhood or Community.
Neighborhood sidewalks are the property owner’s responsibility for snow removal; community
sidewalks are the City’s responsibility.
Staff will be recommending the construction of these gap segments as part of that more detailed
public process for that project.
4. Change the planned year for a segment
Staff has programmed the segments of Sidewalk, Trail and bikeways out through 2022.
Whenever possible, these segments were grouped with pavement management projects in
order to manage city cost and minimize inconvenience for property owners. Major
construction projects such as Trunk Highway 100 reconstruction and Southwest LRT were
also taken into consideration to try to keep parallel road networks open to traffic. It also breaks
the program down into manageable contracts for staff workload.
There are no planned year revisions to the CIP at this time.
NEXT STEPS: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, the segments of sidewalk described on
the following pages will be brought to the community for design review and input. Staff typically
begins a public process approximately 9 to 12 months prior to proposed construction.
The recommended segment is not approved until it is brought to the City Council for approval as
part of a Public Hearing process.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Each sidewalk and trail segment is unique
and requires its own set of design solutions to minimize and mitigate impacts in the right- of- way.
Often this requires more expensive solutions then is typically considered for standard sidewalk or
trail construction. The increase in costs to construct these segments was acknowledged in the
original estimates during the Connect the Park! planning. Staff is confident that the estimates
shown above are within the budget approved by Council in June 2013.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
PROPOSED SIDEWALK SEGMENTS
2017 Pavement Management (Area 4)
Project Overview: This 8300 feet of sidewalk is proposed for construction in conjunction
with the 2017 Pavement Management Project.
The original Connect the Park! plan only recommended the installation of 1400 feet of
sidewalk on a segment of the 3100 block of Zarthan Avenue, the 3300 and 3400 block of
Zarthan Avenue and Hamilton Street between Alabama Avenue and Zarthan Avenue.
Upon additional analysis of the neighborhood there is a number of blocks that have gaps
in the sidewalk that staff believes should be evaluated and discussed as part of the public
process. Staff is recommending adding the 6900 feet of sidewalk in the segments shown
in the yellow dashed lines on the graphic below.
Community Significance: This area of town is currently underserved by pedestrian
facilities. The installation of sidewalk on these streets will help to connect residents to
parks, the community center, and local schools.
Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss these
sidewalk segments as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2016 for the
construction project in 2017.
Design: At this time a design for the width of the sidewalk and boulevard has not been
determined. This will be part of the public process discussion.
Walk Type: At this time no determination has been made related to the snow removal
responsibility of these segments. This will be part of the public process discussion.
Cost: A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $1,500,000
Construction Schedule: These sidewalk segments are proposed to be built in conjunction
with the Pavement Management Project scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2017.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
2017 Street Reconstruction – Utica Avenue
Project Overview: The 2000 feet of sidewalk on Utica Avenue from 26th Street to
Minnetonka Boulevard is proposed to be part of the street reconstruction project in 2017.
Community Significance: This sidewalk would complete a gap segment within the
neighborhood.
Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this
sidewalk segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2016 for the street
reconstruction project in 2017.
Design: At this time a design for the width of the sidewalk and boulevard has not been
determined. This will be part of the public process discussion.
Walk Type: At this time no determination has been made related to the snow removal
responsibility of this segment. This will be part of the public process discussion.
Cost: A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $200,000.
Construction Schedule: This sidewalk segment is proposed to be built in conjunction with
the Utica Avenue reconstruction project in summer of 2017.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
Xenwood Avenue (between 27th Street and 29th Street)
Project Overview: The 1200 feet of sidewalk on Xenwood Avenue from 27th to 29th Street
was requested by property owners to complete a gap that exists along the west side of
Xenwood Avenue.
Community Significance: This sidewalk would complete a gap segment within the
neighborhood.
Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this
sidewalk segment as part of the public process that will begin in summer 2016 for the
construction project in 2017.
Design: At this time a design for the width of the sidewalk and boulevard has not been
determined. This will be part of the public process discussion.
Walk Type: At this time no determination has been made related to the snow removal
responsibility of this segment. This will be part of the public process discussion.
Cost: A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $180,000.
Construction Schedule: This sidewalk segment is proposed to be built in conjunction with
the Utica Avenue street reconstruction project scheduled to be completed in the summer of
2017.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
Wooddale Avenue – 4200 Block
Project Overview: This 850 feet of sidewalk is proposed to be constructed in conjunction
with the 2022 sidewalk CIP for this neighborhood.
Community Significance: This sidewalk would complete a gap segment within the
neighborhood.
Public Process: Staff plans to discuss this sidewalk segment as part of the public process
that will begin in summer 2021 for the construction project in 2022.
Design: At this time a design for the width of the sidewalk and boulevard has not been
determined. This will be part of the public process discussion.
Walk Type: At this time no determination has been made related to the snow removal
responsibility of this segment. This will be part of the public process discussion.
Cost: A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $130,000.
Construction Schedule: This sidewalk segment is proposed to be completed in the summer
of 2022.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
TRAIL SEGMENTS
Minnehaha Creek Trail Corridor – Meadowbrook Road to Southwest Light Rail
Project Overview: This 1000 feet of trail is in the early stages of planning and design as a
partnership with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. It is anticipated planned to be
constructed in conjunction with Southwest Light Rail project.
Community Significance: In 2014 and 2015 the City partnered with the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed to complete a segment of trail and boardwalk between Meadowbrook Road and
Louisiana Avenue to the south of the Municipal Service Center. This trail segment would
be an extension of this system and allow direct access to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail.
Public Process: Public process for this segment of trail would be held the preceding fall of
proposed construction.
Design: The construction of an 8 or 10 foot wide asphalt trail. The trail is proposed along
the south/west side of Minnehaha Creek.
Trail Type: This is proposed to be a community trail and would be maintained by the City
for snow removal.
Cost: A planning level cost estimate for these segments is approximately $200,000.
Construction Schedule: This trail segment is planned to be built in conjunction with the
Southwest Light Rail construction. At this time construction is estimated to occur
sometime between 2017 to 2019.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
BIKEWAY SEGMENTS
Bikeway Segments approved in late 2015 – Northwest and Northeast St. Louis Park
Project Overview: The following bikeways were approved by the City Council in late 2015
and are expected to be installed in early summer. There is a combination of bike lanes and
share the road facilities on the roadways near Shelard Parkway, Westwood Hills Nature
Center, Texas Avenue and France Avenue.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 10
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
2016 Bikeway Segments – Minnetonka and Texas Avenue to Highway 100 along 28th Street
Project Overview: This bikeway is in the early stages of planning and design.
Community Significance: This bike facility is a main east/ west connection through St.
Louis Park.
Public Process: Unless directed otherwise by the Council, staff plans to discuss this
bikeway segment as part of the public process that will begin in the summer of 2016 for
installation in early 2017.
Design: At this time a design of the bike facility has not be evaluated. The design and
possible parking restrictions will be part of the public process.
Cost: A cost estimate for this project has not been completed at this time.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Page 11
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update
Page 12
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Connect the Park! CIP Update Page 13
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Debrief on Boards and Commissions Annual Meeting
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. Council asked for an opportunity to discuss
the annual meeting with boards and commissions that was held on February 22, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have any additional feedback or
suggestions related to the annual meeting for boards and commissions? Does the City Council
wish to have a follow-up meeting with any of the boards and commissions?
SUMMARY: In 2015 the City Council directed staff to develop a process whereby eight (8) of
the City’s boards and commissions would meet collectively to present their annual reports to the
Council. On November 16, 2015 the City Council formally approved the details of the program
by incorporating the policy into the Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions. The
intent is to hold the meeting annually at the second study session in February.
The first annual meeting was held on February 22, 2016 in the Rec Center Banquet Room.
Overall, staff received very positive feedback on the program and the overall consensus from
board/commission members, staff liaisons, and Council was to continue the program in the
future.
The following items were noted as areas for improvement:
- Ask all boards and commissions to use the same template for their presentations to
streamline the process and eliminate the need for those presenting to make their own
technical arrangements.
- Reinforce the fact that all board and commission members are invited and encourage all
to attend.
- Provide additional audio equipment, including microphones for Council, presenters, and
other audience members.
- Consider different venue to reduce distractions and improve acoustics.
- Consider televising or recording the event for posting on the City’s website.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None.
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: February 2016 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: Actual expenditures should generally run at
about 17% of the annual budget in February. General Fund expenditures are at approximately
15.5% of the adopted budget at the end of February. Revenues are harder to measure in this
same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes
and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway User Tax, PERA Aid, etc.).
A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below.
Revenues:
License and permit revenues are at 32.8% of budget due to the fact that the majority of the 2016
business and liquor license payments have already been collected, which is consistent with
previous years. Permit revenue is at just under 15% through February. Intergovernmental
revenue is at 23.6% because the first payment of DOT/Highway User Tax totaling just over
$330,000 was received in February.
Expenditures:
The only expenditure variance is Organized Recreation at 25.7%. This is a temporary variance
because the full 2016 Community Education contribution of $187,400 was paid to the school
district in January.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Steven Heintz, Interim Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of February 29, 201620162016201420142015201520162016 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited Budget Unaudited Budget Feb YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ 22,639,134$ 23,597,282$ -$ 23,597,282$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,691,518 3,413,682 3,248,158 4,330,788 3,496,177 1,145,409 2,350,768 32.76% Fines & Forfeits320,150 369,545 320,200 265,301 341,200 31,842 309,358 9.33% Intergovernmental1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 1,464,258 1,419,017 335,424 1,083,593 23.64% Charges for Services1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 2,118,399 1,956,593 84,382 1,872,211 4.31% Miscellaneous Revenue1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 1,356,400 977,546 180,696 796,850 18.48% Transfers In1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 1,836,759 1,872,581 310,430 1,562,151 16.58% Investment Earnings150,000 119,831 140,000 - 140,000 - 140,000 0.00% Other Income17,950 13,306 17,900 19,589 27,450 787 26,663 2.87% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 254,891 - 254,891 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues30,427,622$ 31,498,546$ 32,624,438$ 34,030,628$ 34,082,737$ 2,088,968$ 31,993,769$ 6.13%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 1,010,876$ 1,037,235$ 139,517$ 897,718$ 13.45% Accounting876,216 873,987 912,685 903,047 933,624 145,272 788,352 15.56% Assessing559,749 560,979 602,299 601,995 641,038 101,756 539,282 15.87% Human Resources693,598 788,823 805,929 856,117 748,718 118,036 630,682 15.77% Community Development1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 1,253,687 1,385,036 214,291 1,170,745 15.47% Facilities Maintenance1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 1,072,745 1,115,877 169,693 946,184 15.21% Information Resources1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 1,380,649 1,564,128 232,624 1,331,504 14.87% Communications & Marketing566,801 562,063 635,150 572,065 608,228 78,247 529,981 12.86% Community Outreach8,185 6,680 24,677 22,380 25,587 3,150 22,437 12.31% Engineering506,996 223,491 492,838 379,237 549,251 47,100 502,151 8.58%Total General Government7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 8,052,798$ 8,608,722$ 1,249,687$ 7,359,035$ 14.52% Public Safety: Police7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 8,229,942$ 8,698,661$ 1,448,824$ 7,249,837$ 16.66% Fire Protection3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 3,757,538 4,030,153 621,428 3,408,725 15.42% Inspectional Services2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 1,999,275 2,216,075 365,127 1,850,948 16.48%Total Public Safety13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 13,986,756$ 14,944,889$ 2,435,379$ 12,509,510$ 16.30% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 213,383$ 241,304$ 37,384$ 203,920$ 15.49% Public Works Operations2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 2,344,284 2,907,781 459,622 2,448,159 15.81% Organized Recreation1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 1,358,711 1,431,260 367,199 1,064,061 25.66% Recreation Center1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 1,574,445 1,602,935 180,442 1,422,493 11.26% Park Maintenance1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 1,503,700 1,634,249 223,012 1,411,237 13.65% Westwood531,853 508,576 564,055 560,633 576,173 88,102 488,071 15.29% Natural Resources433,750 379,193 472,049 377,617 479,408 37,982 441,426 7.92% Vehicle Maintenance1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 1,167,188 1,358,946 191,874 1,167,072 14.12%Total Operations & Recreation9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 9,099,961$ 10,232,056$ 1,585,616$ 8,646,440$ 15.50% Non-Departmental: General 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 118,570$ 30,351$ 5,058$ 25,293$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 1,050,000 - 2,000,000 - - 0.00% Contingency/Tax Court Petitions195,860 13,834 177,984 14,438 266,719 266,719 0.00%Total Non-Departmental199,860$ 1,071,396$ 177,984$ 2,133,009$ 297,070$ 5,058$ 292,012$ 1.70%Total General Fund Expenditures30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 33,272,524$ 34,082,737$ 5,275,739$ 28,806,998$ 15.48%Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: February 2016 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) – Administrative Items
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. This report is a continuation of a several
month long process the Council has been going thru to update the City’s assessment policies. Once
all areas have been reviewed by Council, staff will bring back an overall Assessment Policy for
City Council approval.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to change how we fund certain
improvement projects? Please inform staff of any question or concerns you might have regarding
this report.
SUMMARY: The City’s assessment policy was last updated in 2000; prior to that the policy was
updated more frequently. The following improvement areas are ones that have historically been
assessed in the City of St. Louis Park:
1. Paving, Curb and Gutter- Discussed on 11/9/15
2. Alley Paving- Discussed on 11/23/15
3. Sidewalks- Discussed on 1/19/16
4. Street lighting- Discussed on 1/19/16
5. Unimproved Street Maintenance- Discussed on 1/19/16
6. Administrative items: Discussed in this report
Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Mains and Services
Watermain and Services
Fire Sprinkler Systems
Delinquent Charges (nuisances, tree removal, weed removal, curb / gutter repair and
responding to fire alarms)
7. Municipal Parking Lots- Scheduled for 4/25/16
Since the last update in 2000, Council direction, improvement costs and infrastructure needs have
changed in a number of the areas covered by this policy. Staff from Assessing, Finance, Fire,
Inspections, Operations, and Engineering have been reviewing this policy and updating it so that
it is current and consistent with legal guidance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The recommended assessment policy for the
various improvements will have funding implications. Information regarding financial impacts
will be discussed at the May 23 Study Session.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director; Mark Hanson, Public
Works Superintendent; Jeff Stevens, Operations Manager; Phillip Elkin, Sr.
Engineering Project Manager; Cory Bultema, City Assessor; Steve Heintz,
Finance Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) – Administrative Items
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In the Assessment Policy, there are areas that are administrative in nature.
Many of these areas are initiated through a petition from the property owner to assist with financing
of a private improvement or the extension of a public utility line to serve a new development.
Others are set up in our ordinances as ways to recoup costs for unpaid bills or nuisance abatement.
What follows is a brief summary of these items.
Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Mains and Services
New construction
The extension or upsizing of existing storm and sanitary sewer main is sometimes
needed to adequately serve new developments. The developer may petition the City to
install these new lines, or chose to install them using their own contractor. The cost to
construct these is solely the developer’s responsibility.
Repair/ replacement of existing utility services
For storm and sanitary sewer, all property owners are responsible for the service from
the building/ property to the main. Our current assessment policy provides an
opportunity for property owners to finance the cost to repair/ replace their service
through the City. This opportunity is available to all land uses. This process is initiated
by the property owner through a petition.
Maintenance of private storm water facilities
Developments are required to install stormwater management facilities and associated
private pipes. It is the private property owner’s responsibility to ensure that these
facilities are maintained in proper working condition. If it is determined that the
responsible party fails or refuses to maintain their facilities, the City may, after property
notice, complete the work and assess the cost and any penalties to the property owner.
Staff believes that the current policies and approach used above is working well and has
no recommended changes.
1. Watermain and Services
New construction
The extension or upsizing of existing watermain is sometimes needed to adequately
serve new developments. The developer may petition the City to install these new lines,
or chose to install them using their own contractor. The cost to construct these is solely
the developer’s responsibility.
Repair/ replacement of existing services
For watermain services, single family residential property owners are responsible for
the service line from the water shut off to the house, all other property owners are
responsible for the service from the building to the main. Our assessment policy
provides an opportunity for property owners to finance the cost to repair/ replace the
portion of their service that is their responsibility. The process is initiated by the
property owner through a petition.
Staff believes that the current policy and approach used above is working well and has no
recommended changes
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) – Administrative Items
2. Fire Sprinkler Systems
Our current assessment policy provides an opportunity for property owners to finance the
cost to install a fire sprinkler system in their building. The Fire Dept strongly supports this
program. This opportunity is available to all land uses. This process is initiated by the
property owner through a petition, and the conditions of the reimbursement are laid out in
a contract that is approved by City Council. All the costs incurred by the City are
reimbursed by the petitioner.
The Fire Department believes that the current policy and process is working well and has
no recommended changes
3. Delinquent Charges
Cities may, through an ordinance, require that property owners perform certain functions -
- or the ordinance can allow the city to perform the function and send a bill to property
owner for the work. If the property owner fails to pay, the city may assess for all or any
part of the unpaid charges as a special assessment against the property benefitted.
The special benefit test does not apply to unpaid special charges collected in the form of
special assessments when defraying the cost of enforcing city code requirements or
collecting unpaid utility bills.
The following areas are covered by this section of the policy and have corresponding
ordinances that provide the City special assessment authority:
Nuisance abatement
Tree removal,
Weed removal,
Curb/ gutter repair
Responding to false alarms
Unpaid utility bills
Repair of leaking private utilities
The ability to assess for delinquent charges is not taken lightly. City staff works diligently
with property owners to try to achieve voluntary compliance, so that these charges do not
need to be specially assessed. However, at times it is necessary to use special assessments
to recoup the costs incurred by the City.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Zero Waste Packaging Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update
on the Zero Waste Packaging ordinance implementation and present the proposed lists of
acceptable packaging and exempt packaging materials for its review. To allow continued outreach
and education of impacted businesses on a timely basis, the Council will be asked to approve these
lists on April 4.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the proposed recommendations in this report in keeping with
the Council’s expectations? Please inform staff of any questions you might have
SUMMARY: As required by the Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance 2485-15, staff has developed
proposed lists of acceptable recyclable packaging and compostable packaging, as well as a list of
temporarily acceptable packaging materials (exempt) for Council’s review and approval. The
process for creating these lists included consulting area material recovery facilities, commercial
composting facilities, and stakeholders in the foodservice and solid waste industries. The
discussion section of this report provides the suggested acceptable packaging and exempt
packaging as well as a timeline to allow for adequate education prior to implementation on January
1, 2017.
NEXT STEPS:
1. Council Meeting Approval of material and exemption lists April 4, 2016
2. Stakeholder Meeting Presentation of material and exemption lists Mid-April 2016
3. Education/Outreach Informational meetings, site visits, promotion May-December 2016
4. Packaging Fair Informational event for effected businesses May 17, 2016
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
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
Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Mark Hanson, Operations Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Council adopted the Zero Waste Packaging ordinance on December 21, 2015
after a yearlong discussion with businesses, residents and experts in the packaging, restaurant, and
solid waste industries. The ordinance will go into effect on January 1, 2017.
The ordinance will increase traditional recycling and organics recycling by requiring licensed food
establishments to use zero waste packaging materials that are either reusable, returnable,
recyclable, or compostable when food is prepared on-site for immediate or take home
consumption. It will also require food establishments to provide recycling and organics recycling
receptacles for food & beverage packaging discarded by customers dining on-site.
Prior to the ordinance going into effect, staff must create specific lists of acceptable and exempt
packaging material to be used for educating businesses on the requirements of the ordinance. The
ordinance requires the following lists to be approved by Council:
Acceptable Recyclable Packaging Materials
Acceptable Compostable Packaging Materials
Temporarily Acceptable Packaging Materials (Exemptions)
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Staff developed lists of acceptable and exempt packaging
with input from stakeholders in the local restaurant and business trade associations, commercial
composting facilities, material recovery facilities, and certifiers of compostable products.
The input provided by these stakeholders was valuable in creating the lists below to ensure that
food and beverages prepared on-site for immediate or take-home consumption, would be served
in packages that can be recycled or composted through local recycling and composting facilities.
Acceptable Recyclable Packaging Materials
The following materials meet the definition for “Recyclable Packaging” in subsection 12.202(f)(2)
of the ordinance.
1. Plastic packaging:
a. Polyethylene Terephthalate (#1 PET or PETE)
i. A type of plastic used in clear or colored beverage bottles & food jars
b. High Density Polyethylene (#2 HDPE)
i. A type of plastic used in milk bottles/jugs
c. Polypropylene (#5 PP)
i. A type of plastic used in take-out food containers and beverage cups
2. Metal packaging:
a. Aluminum foil
Typical recyclable packages like glass bottles/jars, aluminum/steel cans, paper milk/juice cartons
are not listed because these packaging materials are used for food and beverages that are prepared
off-site by manufacturers/distributors.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Update
Acceptable Compostable Packaging Materials
The following materials meet the definition for “Compostable Packaging” in subsection
12.202(f)(3) of the ordinance.
1. Paper Packaging:
a. Unlined/uncoated paper products
b. Unlined/uncoated butcher paper
c. Unlined/uncoated parchment paper
d. Wax paper
2. Certified Compostable Packaging (must be BPI or Cedar Grove certified compostable):
a. Paper
b. Plastic
c. Bagasse
d. Bamboo
Temporarily Acceptable Packaging Materials (Exempt)
The following materials do not meet the definitions for “Zero Waste Packaging” in subsection
12.202(f). However, staff recommends temporarily approving an exempt status.
1. Paper food wraps/fast food wrappers until January 1, 2018
Fast food wrappers used by national chains use chemical or plastic lining to stop grease from
penetrating the wrapper and therefore are not accepted by local commercial composters. Due to
the lack of sufficient alternative products, the exemption status is proposed to allow more time for
development of certified compostable alternatives which perform the same function as the current
wrappers in use. Staff will revisit this on an annual basis to see if there are other alternatives
available. As mentioned above, this is the only 1 year exemption staff is recommending.
NEXT STEPS: Once approved, the lists will be shared with Zero Waste Packaging stakeholders
group and used to develop education and outreach materials. These materials will be used in a
variety of ways, including: on the city’s website, e-newsletters, print and media publications,
presentations and site visits, and at the May 17 packaging fair being held at Beth El Synagogue.
The current timeline should allow national chains time to work out branding details using the
required packaging options and allow businesses to use up current stock of non-compliant
packaging materials over the next eight months.
1. Council Meeting Approval of material and exemption lists April 4, 2016
2. Stakeholder Meeting Presentation of material and exemption lists Mid-April 2016
3. Education/Outreach Informational meetings, site visits, promotion May-December 2016
4. Packaging Fair Informational event for effected businesses May 17, 2016
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Health in the Park Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide the
City Council with an update on Health in the Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Health in the Park initiative funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield is slated to be
completed at the end of June 2016. The city recognizes the great work and efforts that volunteers
have done as part of this initiative. In order to build on this great work and continue the momentum
towards a healthier community, city staff will be using a consultant to assist with developing
recommendations on how best to move forward with supporting components of the initiative either
through the city or external partners. The consultant, called Zan Associates’, will help answer the
following questions:
What are the future roles for Health in the Park volunteers?
What are the appropriate roles of neighborhood organizations going forward?
What are the appropriate roles of city committees and commissions going forward?
How do Health in the Park initiatives link with city department initiatives, projects and
budgets?
How can the stakeholders and activities best be coordinated for the most efficient use of time
and budgets?
As part of Zan Associates’ work scope, work sessions will be held with city staff from different
departments to get a better understanding of where there is overlap or opportunities for ongoing
work similar to the Health in the Park initiative. They will also be hosting work sessions with
citizen led action teams, commissions and committees, where appropriate. A final action plan and
recommendation will be presented to the city upon completion of this project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Center for Prevention at Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Minnesota has approved $45,000 to fund the scope of this work.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Laura Smith, Wellness and Volunteer Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on MoneyGram’s Minnesota Investment Fund Award from DEED
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None – please inform staff of any questions you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. The information below is consistent with past
action taken by the City Council/EDA.
SUMMARY: During 2015, staff coordinated with MoneyGram on its Minnesota Investment Fund
(MIF) application to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) to
partially finance the expansion of MoneyGram’s offices at 1550 Utica. On December 21, 2015,
the EDA held a public hearing and adopted a resolution supporting the submission of a Minnesota
Investment Fund (MIF) application to the DEED on behalf of MoneyGram. On February 17th,
DEED formally notified the City that MoneyGram had been awarded $302,325 in Minnesota
Investment Funds which will be structured as a forgivable loan.
In preparing the necessary MIF loan documents, DEED has requested that the City Council adopt
a resolution ratifying the EDA as the applicant on behalf of MoneyGram and administrator of the
loan. On April 4, 2016, the City Council will be asked to formally approve the attached resolution
which will be listed on the Consent Calendar.
The action has been reviewed by the EDA’s legal counsel who supports adoption of the proposed
resolution.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None, the EDA will serve as the financial
conduit through which DEED’s MIF loan funds will pass through to MoneyGram. Upon
verification of MoneyGram’s machinery and equipment purchases required under the MIF
program, DEED will disburse MIF loan funds to the EDA which, in turn, will forward them to
MoneyGram.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Title: Update on MoneyGram’s Minnesota Investment Fund Award from DEED
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
RESOLUTION RATIFYING A MINNESOTA INVESTMENT FUND APPLICATION BY
THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN CONNECTION WITH MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), desires to assist
MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. (“MoneyGram”), which is proposing the expansion of its
business, including the creation of at least 52 new jobs and the retention of 408 jobs, in the City;
and,
WHEREAS, the City understands that MoneyGram, through and with the support of the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”), wishes to apply or has applied to
the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development’s Minnesota Investment
Fund Program for project financing; and,
WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the City held a City Council meeting to consider this
matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, after due consideration, the Mayor and
City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby express their approval of the
Minnesota Investment Fund application or award from the Authority to assist with this project,
and ratify the Authority’s actions in applying for such assistance.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2016
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
__________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Written Report: 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed Cooperative Agreement with MCWD and Park Nicollet
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. City Staff recommends participating in a
cooperative agreement with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Park Nicollet to identify
floodplain mitigation projects near the Methodist Hospital Campus.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City’s participation in this agreement and study process
acceptable to the City Council?
SUMMARY: Park Nicollet is in the planning stages of building a flood wall at Methodist Hospital
to prevent the need for sandbags during high water events along the Minnehaha Creek. As part of
this process, hospital staff has been meeting with engineering and planning staff from the City of
St. Louis Park as well as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). In reviewing the
plans for this project, the MCWD has proposed a partnership between the City of St. Louis Park,
Park Nicollet and the watershed district to engage in a master planning process to explore
opportunities in managing improvements of natural areas that will serve both public and private
purposes.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At this time, the cost of the study proposed
by the MCWD agreement would be covered by the Watershed District and Park Nicollet.
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
Draft Terms Sheet/Outline
Concept Plans for Flood Wall and Compensating Storage
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Title: Proposed Cooperative Agreement with MCWD and Park Nicollet
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: On September 29th, 2015, City Staff met with representatives of the Park
Nicollet Health Services to discuss a new floodwall project. This floodwall would be designed to
alleviate the need to construct temporary sandbags in the event of flooding events similar to which
occurred in 2014. In addition to the City the meeting included representatives from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR), Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and
Barr Engineering, the engineer of the proposed project.
In years of high water on the Minnehaha Creek, the hospital has seen parking and loading areas
flood and needed to build a temporary sandbag barrier to keep water out of occupied spaces and
areas critical to operations of the Hospital. Following the record water levels of 2014, in which the
flood came within a foot of needing to evacuate patients, the Hospital Board approved funding to
create a floodwall which would permanently replace the need for temporary sandbagging.
In building this floodwall however, the hospital will also need to replace areas removed from
flooding with replacement flood storage areas of the same volume. Under the current City rules
for compensatory storage, the storage must occur in upland areas that currently are not prone to
flooding.
The Hospital attempted to find areas within the watershed outside the floodplain. The combination
of limited available area and the strict requirements of the City’s compensatory storage rule, led
the Hospital to identify areas on the fringes of the property adjacent wetlands previously improved
by the Hospital and MCWD.
In reviewing the plan, the MCWD felt that the locations would diminish the investment of the
existing wetland areas and boardwalk which had previously been established in a joint project.
After unsuccessfully identifying a replacement site, the MCWD proposed a plan to provide
compensatory storage within the wetland adjacent to the boardwalk on the west side of the hospital
property and incorporate a landscape plan to improve plant diversity and site aesthetics. While this
proposal will require a variance to the City’s compensatory storage rule, the result would be a more
diverse wetland ecosystem and preferable to the alternative. It would also be consistent with goals
identified by the City in its Louisiana LRT Station Area Planning.
In addition to partnering with the Hospital on the flood wall project, the MCWD has proposed a
second cooperative agreement between the watershed, the hospital and the City to do an area-wide
study to locate additional flood storage opportunities to accommodate future development. This
includes municipal projects such as the bridge replacement on Louisiana Avenue, LRT stations
and trail connections to the station.
The cooperative agreement proposed has two prongs:
1. Regulatory coordination of floodwall project permits
2. Master Planning
St. Louis Park’s obligations are:
1. St. Louis Park will collaborate with MCWD, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the MN
Department of Natural Resources, and Park Nicollet and its consultant team to facilitate
the permitting process and regulatory approvals for the Park Nicollet North Site project.
2. Participate as a partner in Master Planning
A draft of the term sheet/ outline of a cooperative agreement is attached for your information.
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 11) Page 3
Title: Proposed Cooperative Agreement with MCWD and Park Nicollet
DRAFT
Term Sheet / Outline
Cooperative Agreement – Floodplain Mitigation Planning
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, City of St. Louis Park, and Park Nicollet – Methodist Hospital
March 14, 2016
1. Parties:
a. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
b. Park Nicollet – Methodist Hospital
c. City of St. Louis Park
2. Recitals:
a. Park Nicollet has flooding concerns at Methodist Hospital campus and is proposing to
construct a flood wall in June 2016;
b. MCWD and City regulations require compensatory flood storage for any fill/impact in
100 year floodplain; currently estimated to be approximately 1200 cubic yards of
compensatory storage;
c. Park Nicollet has identified potential site for this compensatory storage in the
southwest quadrant of hospital campus, at northeast quadrant of Louisiana and
Excelsior (“Southwest Site”); parties recognize that this site is problematic because it
removes trees that screen natural areas of Minnehaha Creek; may not be most cost‐
effective option; and involves potential impacts and access issues with adjacent
parcel(s) of real estate;
d. MCWD and Park Nicollet agreed to conduct a preliminary investigation into the
feasibility of achieving compensatory flood storage through wetland enhancement on
alternative site, on the hospital campus and north of the flood wall project (“North
Site”);
e. MCWD concluded through this preliminary investigation that wetland restoration on
the alternative North Site (see attached Figure 3) is technically feasible and appears to
meet regulatory requirements; this restoration project would occupy approximately
3.4 acres and is estimated to be of equal or lesser cost than the Southwest Site option;
f. Parties wish to cooperate in order to complete the design, permitting, and preparation
of construction documents for the North Site, while also cooperating to explore long
term master planning of flood storage and other water resource and natural resource
management or enhancement opportunities at Park Nicollet – Methodist Hospital
campus;
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 11) Page 4
Title: Proposed Cooperative Agreement with MCWD and Park Nicollet
g. Park Nicollet recognizes that it is responsible for compliance with MCWD regulatory
requirements, and for costs of same; also recognizes that it may, subject to cost
reimbursement provisions, elect at any time to cease cooperative approach and pursue
its own approach to meet regulatory requirements (standard permit process);
h. MCWD acknowledges broader public purpose for watershed planning of area,
integrated with land use, natural resource and recreational planning goals it shares
with City and others;
i. Parties wish to enter into this agreement to coordinate roles and responsibilities.
3. Floodplain Mitigation Project
a. MCWD agrees to make its consultants Wenck and Hart Howerton available for Park
Nicollet to hire for purposes of completing design, permit application, and construction
documents for floodplain mitigation project; [explain reasons];
b. MCWD will retain independent role (and use third party engineer as necessary) to
review and confirm compliance with permit requirements;
c. MCWD agrees to provide regulatory compliance review through an iterative process
with several milestones (for example, describe by % design completion); Park Nicollet is
to determine whether to proceed to next design milestone, and is free to revert to
original Southwest Site option at any time;
d. Park Nicollet will bear costs of this design and of the construction of the project,
provided that if MCWD identifies project enhancements that serve watershed public
purposes above the regulatory baseline requirements, MCWD will bear those design
and construction costs;
e. [Describe deadlines for milestones in order to meet construction deadline of Summer
2016];
f. Acknowledge concurrence issue of flood wall construction (summer) and
compensatory storage/wetland restoration (winter); manage through modeling to
show minimal flood risk (“No‐rise certification”);
4. Master Planning
a. MCWD, City and Park Nicollet commit to a master planning process to explore
opportunities to coordinate management and enhancements of the natural areas on
the Park Nicollet – Methodist Hospital campus that will serve both public and private
purposes, including:
i. Create additional Flood Storage;
ii. Manage Regional Stormwater;
iii. Improve vegetative diversity and habitat;
iv. Evaluate opportunity to connect Methodist Boardwalk to upstream trail systems
west of Louisiana as part of Louisiana Bridge reconstruction;
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 11) Page 5
Title: Proposed Cooperative Agreement with MCWD and Park Nicollet
v. Evaluate opportunity for trail on south bank of Minnehaha Creek from Excelsior
(north‐west) towards Louisiana;
vi. Improve aesthetics and increase shade on pedestrian boardwalk through
vegetation improvements;
vii. Identify plans to maintain targeted viewsheds from the Boardwalk through
vegetation management;
viii. Develop a long term sustainable site management plan for natural areas;
b. First phase of this Master Planning process will be a feasibility study; to be completed
on a concurrent timeline with Floodplain Mitigation Project design;
c. MCWD will retain and supervise consultants (also Wenck and Hart Howerton); parties
agree to share costs of feasibility study, based on a determination of reasonable
allocation of public and private benefits, as follows: MCWD 50%; Park Nicollet 50%;
d. [Describe deliverables of feasibility study, e.g. key elements and cost estimates];
e. Parties envision a subsequent agreement on funding and implementation
responsibilities for implementation of Master Plan
5. Other Miscellaneous Provisions [liability issues; hold harmless, etc.]
")
DRAFT Flood Barrier Alignment
With Seepage Control
Top of Barrier = 892.1
(1' Above Building Floor 891.1)
Approximate Height
of Wall 2.5'
Approximate Height
of Wall 4.5'Potential Pump Station
And Gate Control Structure
Tie Into Existing
Building Corner 8909009108908908908 90
890
900
89
0
890890
890890
8908908908
9
0
890890890890900!;NBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-09-28 10:46 File: I:\Projects\23\27\1380\Maps\Reports\Work_Order_4\Figure 1 - Baseline Options A - 20150928.mxd User: jrv150 0 150
Feet Figure 1
BASELINE OPTION A
Revised For Work Order #4
Flood Risk Management System
Park Nicollet Health Services
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
")Pump Station/
Gate Control Structure
Approximate Flood Barrier
Flood Wall Alignment
Sandbag Barrier
2 Foot Contours (MN DNR; 2011)
10-Foot Contour
2-Foot Contour
LOMR 07-05-4704
Floodway
MN DNR Flood Zone Update
Parcel Boundaries
Note:
1. Assume Preliminary FEMA 100 Year/
10 Day Base Flood Elevation = 890.1
2. First Floor Elevation of Facility = 891.1
Vertical Datum - NGVD29
Updated 9/28/2015
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 11)
Title: Proposed Cooperative Agreement with MCWD and Park Nicollet Page 6
Compensatory Storage
Mitigation Total 1.2 Acre Feet 894886888896892886886886
896894892890888890892894888!;NBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.2, 2014-11-07 10:31 File: I:\Projects\23\27\1380\Maps\Reports\Feasibility_Analysis\Figure 3 - Compensatory Storage Mitigation - Alternative 1.mxd User: jrv50050
Feet
Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
Parcel Boundaries
Proposed Sidewalk
Potential Compensatory Storage
Mitigation Contours
Existing Contours
Figure 3
COMPENSATORY STORAGE
MITIGATION - ALTERNATIVE 1
Flood Risk Management System
Park Nicollet Health Services
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Figure 2
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 11)
Title: Proposed Cooperative Agreement with MCWD and Park Nicollet Page 7
Proposed CompensatoryStorage AreaVolume: 1200 CY (approximate)896884
890
900
90
2 888908
894 886892898898892886
890886
88
8
8
8
8
8908
9
0 890886892888
8
8
6
8
9
0
888888 886886
886890886
8
8
8890886
8
8
8894 88
6890
88
6
892MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICTConceptual Compensatory Storage/Enhancement Figure 3
100 0 10050
Feet ±Path: L:\0185\5091\Methodist Hospital Floodplain Investigation\MXD\Presentation\Conceptual Storage_Enhancement.mxdDate: 2/29/2016 Time: 7:47:28 AM User: BolWD0186
FEB 2016
2012 Aerial Photograph (Source: MN GEO)
Legend
Existing Contours
Compensatory Storage Area (998 CY)
Potential Wetland Enhancement (3.4 acres)
Establish Native Woody Cover/Manage Wetland Vegetation
Manage Vegetation (Emergent Wetland)
Open Water Area (Excavate below NWL)
Study Session Meeting of March 28, 2016 (Item No. 11)
Title: Proposed Cooperative Agreement with MCWD and Park Nicollet Page 8